Decisions

Matter for Decision

Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council have developed proposals to work together with the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) to deliver a new community centre, library and pre-school facility in the context of a regeneration scheme across three sites owned by the two Councils.

 

Decision of Executive Councillors

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing:

i.               Noted the completion of the work on the Framework for Change document and the officer’s report.

ii.             Granted delegated authority to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to enter into development/relevant agreements and finalise and approve terms with Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) and Cambridgeshire County Council, to deliver the proposed scheme. 

The purpose of the Development Agreements will be:

iii.            To enable land owned by Cambridge City Council HRA (as shown in Appendix 2) to be transferred to CIP via a long lease for the purposes of development as set out in section 6 of the report and subject to independent valuation.

iv.           To note that upon completion of the development CIP lease would collapse (except where new houses are sold freehold) with interests to be transferred to the County Council in relation to facilities for which they will maintain overall responsibility.  

v.             That the development be brought forward by CIP to include:

a.    A new Community Centre

b.    A new library

c.    A new pre-school facility

d.    New commercial premises

e.    New publicly accessible open space

f.     New high quality sustainable housing including affordable housing

vi.           That the agreement will provide for:

a.    A programme

b.    Phasing of development

c.    Financial contributions by the parties

d.    Other matters as required to give effect to the agreement

vii.          Granted delegated authority to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Property Services and Head of Legal Services, acting on behalf of the Council as the landowner to finalise and approve the terms of any disposal, leases, easements, agreements and contracts that may be required to deliver the scheme.  This may include any planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which is required by the Council in its capacity as the local planning authority pursuant to the planning application or applications for the development of the sites, S278 highway agreements and other similar agreements required to be entered into.

viii.        Noted that consultations are in progress to clarify community needs which can be met within the facilities to be provided on the land jointly owned by the two Councils and to identify needs which cannot be met on these sites.

 

Following the meeting the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation watched the recording of the meeting as they were not able to be present in person and made the following decisions:  

i.               Agreed to enable land owned by Cambridge City Council General Fund (as shown in Appendix 2 of the officer’s report) to be transferred to CIP via a long lease for the purposes of development as set out in section 6 of the officer’s report and subject to independent valuation, and specifically:

ii.             Approved the use of the Bowls Club site (See plan at Appendix 2 of the officer’s report) to provide a mixed-use development including but not limited to the community centre, the library and the pre-school facility.

iii.            Approved the redevelopment of the overflow car park at the Abbey Leisure Centre (ref Appendix 4 of the officer’s report) to re-provide the Bowls Green (ref Appendix 4 of the officer’s report) and the grant a new lease to the bowls club on terms to be agreed to enable the vacation of the existing bowls club.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Senior Housing Development Manager.

 

The Senior Housing Development Manager and the Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               The report only contained decisions regarding the East Barnwell site on Newmarket Road. An update on Ekin Road had been included in the report for information only as part of a wider update.

ii.             Confirmed there was a requirement to re-provide open space as part of the East Barnwell redeveloped and this included: a sports club, a bowls facility, a tennis court and a multi-use games area and grassed area.  Consideration was being given to where these facilities could be re-provided. Initial conversations had taken place about the Bowls Club being located with the Abbey Leisure Centre.

iii.            Wanted to create a framework for discussions between the City Council and the County Council to take place.

iv.           Was considering what energy standards could be achieved for the proposed housing and this would be reported back in a future report. Would be working towards BREAAM excellent for the community facility.

v.             Work on the East Barnwell redevelopment had been going on for 15 years.  Residents of Abbey ward had wanted the redevelopment of the site for a long period of time. There was no plan to remove the community centre, it was just going to be re-positioned. Acknowledged that there was still work to be undertaken.  Noted a similar report was being taken by the County Council to their relevant Committee on 30 September 2022.

 

Diane Best, Leaseholder Representative encouraged Ekin Road residents to contact the Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives to discuss their concerns.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed and Councillor Lee seconded a request to defer the decisions contained in the Officer’s report pending more information being provided about accessible open space. The proposal was lost by 2 votes in favour to 6 against with one abstention.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

This report provides an update on the housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the approved housing programme.

ii.             Noted the further review of budget and housing mix required to be undertaken at St Thomas Road, with a further update to be brought to the Committee as design work progresses.

iii.            Approved changes to the Budgets for St Thomas Road as outlined in part 6.6 of the officer ‘s report with the revised budgets to be incorporated as part of the HRA MTFS in September 2022 for the delivery of 4 net new homes.

iv.           Noted the revised housing delivery and amended rental regime at Paget Street, revised to the development of 4x 3-bedroom homes within the approved budget.

v.             Approved changes to the Budgets for Fanshawe Road as outlined in part 6.7 of the officer’s report with the revised budgets to be incorporated as part of the HRA MTFS in September 2022 for the delivery of 4 net homes.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Development Agency.

 

The Head of Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               Confirmed that it had been hoped that external grant funding through the European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) programme could have been used to top up the funding for the Paget Road development to build the development to a net zero standard however the funding was not available. An estimate of the cost to build to net zero standard had been built into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

 

The Executive Councillor proposed that recommendation 2.6 on page 201 of the agenda be deferred. They requested a meeting with officers to discuss the matter of publishing information on the city council website rather than in committee reports.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report sets out the proposed policy for how the Council will carry out its statutory responsibilities for ensuring minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector including enforcement of the regulations and fee setting in relation to financial penalties.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the adoption of the proposed Cambridge City Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards Enforcement & Fee Policy as attached in Appendix B of the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Team Manager (Residential).

 

The Team Manager (Residential) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               The Council was carrying out a proactive communication approach with landlords when they elected to receive communication from the Council. If the Policy was adopted, then the council would investigate who the ‘responsible person’ was for the management of a property and pursue enforcement action against them if necessary.

ii.             Noted that a Landlords Forum was taking place the following week which would look at housing health, the cost-of-living crisis, the rules contained in the new Policy and how landlords could support their tenants.

iii.            Confirmed that when Officers had been making proactive contact with landlords, they had been stressing the need to strive to meet energy efficiency standard ‘C’ for their properties which the minimum energy standard rating may be increased to in future by the Government in respect of private rented sector housing. 

iv.           There was an enforcement process set out in the Policy which officers would follow. If a landlord failed to ensure that their property met energy efficiency standards, they could be issued with a financial penalty. If a landlord still failed to bring their property up to standard, then officers could consider other powers to require improvements / stop them renting out properties. These powers were contained within the Housing Act 2004. 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Approval of latest financial assumptions for the HRA financial forecasts, of any in year budgetary changes for the HRA and of the approach to setting the budget for 2023/24.

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) provides an opportunity to review the assumptions incorporated as part of the longer-term financial planning process, recommending any changes in response to new legislative requirements, variations in external national and local economic factors and amendments to service delivery methods, allowing incorporation into budgets and financial forecasts at the earliest opportunity.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Strategy attached to the officer’s report, and included all proposals for changes in:

a.    Financial assumptions as detailed in Appendix B of the document.

b.    2022/23 and future year revenue budgets, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of changes in these and the need to respond to unavoidable pressures and meet new service demands, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix D and summarised in Appendices G (1) and G (2) of the document.

ii.             Approved that delegated authority be given to the Strategic Director to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner status with Homes England.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing recommends to Council to:

iii.            Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in the officer’s report at sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 20 October 2022.

iv.           Approve proposals for new housing capital budgets, as introduced in the officer’s report at sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 20 October 2022.

v.             Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance and HRA borrowing.

 

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager.

 

The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager and the Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               With reference to Section 6 of the MTFS, it was noted that the contract for external planned works to housing stock was with Fosters Property Maintenance and the Council was looking to extend this contract. The outcome of the recent procurement regarding the internal planned investment works would be announced soon. It was also noted that the companies currently running both contracts did sub-contract some of the works.

ii.             Noted the challenge regarding financing the retrofit of existing council housing stock. Looked to Government funding to bring forward more opportunity for retrofit financing.

iii.            Noted comments on section 8 of the MTFS which referred to how amendments to the budget would be member led rather than officer led going forward.

iv.           There was a risk that interest rates could increase further, the MTFS assumed an interest rate of just under 3.5%. If the interest rate increased, then there could be an impact on the new build housing programme and the council would need to consider what type of housing it could deliver. Noted that a lot of the services provided by the Housing Department are in response to statutory responsibilities.

v.             The Council had considered whether it could deliver its own cheaper electricity however it was noted that other Local Authorities which had explored this option had not been successful. This issue would require significant investment and consideration would need to be given as to why other Local Authorities had failed.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations i and ii.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations iii to v.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

In response to the war in Ukraine the Government launched its Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme in March 2022. UK households were invited to host Ukranian refugees for a minimum six-month period or preferably longer. As at 1 September there were 383 guests spread across 203 households in Cambridge City.

 

These arrangements were not permanent and Ukranian households had initially been offered 3-year visas. The Council is devising a homelessness prevention plan and the potential allocation of a small number of properties formed part of this plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the allocation of up to 20 Council properties to Ukrainian refugees to support the Council’s homelessness prevention plans and avert the need for temporary accommodation.

ii.             Allowed these allocations to be made outside of the Council’s Lettings Policy.

iii.            Delegated authority to the Head of Housing, in consultation with the Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokespersons, to extend this scheme beyond 20 units, in the event that there is excessive pressure on temporary accommodation.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing.

 

The Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               If the decision was approved at Committee, then further discussions would take place between the Council and Housing Associations.

ii.             The City Council had Ukrainian speakers within the workforce and external translators were also used to assist Ukrainian refugees.  Officers also hoped to introduce English language support for Ukrainian refugees in the future.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the background to the Tenancy Audit Visits pilot, which commenced in April 2022, and sought approval to permanently adopt this function within City Homes.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Noted the report and the findings of the Tenancy Audit visits pilot to date.

ii.             Approved the adoption of a permanent tenancy audit function by City Homes.

iii.            Agreed to incorporate a budget bid into the 2023/24 HRA budget process for the addition of a permanent, full time equivalent, housing officer to support this work, considered alongside other spending priorities.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Housing Services Manager (City Homes).

 

The Housing Services Manager (City Homes) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               Confirmed that if the additional resource detailed in recommendation iii was not agreed then the tenancy audit work could not continue.

ii.             Noted that Housing Officers had worked closely with other council departments as part of the Tenancy Audit and that issues that were identified as part of the tenancy audit could also impact resources in other council departments.

iii.            Would provide additional information outside of the meeting detailing:

a.    if any language support had been given,

b.    what the living conditions were of those tenants audited,

c.    the status of repair work identified as part of the tenancy audit.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the compliance related activities delivered within the Estates and Facilities Team, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing and fire safety work.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.       Noted the report

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Property Compliance and Risk Manager.

 

The Property Compliance and Risk Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               Confirmed that officers would be in touch with Leaseholders about the Fire Safety Risk Assessment Programme and officers would work with residents if they had a non-compliant fire door.

ii.             Officers were looking at properties which had had adaptions done and had been adding personal risk assessments. 

 

The Executive Councillor proposed that the recommendation in the report be amended to simply note the report. They requested a meeting with officers to discuss the matter of publishing data on the City Council website rather than in committee reports. This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

This report reviewed the future provision of the weekly paid, ‘with rent’ Tenants Contents Insurance Scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved that the Council ceased to directly offer Tenants Contents Insurance with immediate effect and terminates the existing contract on 31st March 2023, notifying all existing customers of this in the intervening period.

ii.             Approved a delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokespersons, to determine whether an ‘arm’s length’ scheme could be offered to council tenants as an alternative, implementing this if due diligence confirmed it was viable.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager.

 

The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               Noted that some tenants would need extra support if this service was no longer provided by the City Council however Officer’s also needed to be careful not to give any advice to ensure that they did not fall foul of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulations. 

ii.             Noted Member’s concerns about residents potentially being digitally excluded.

iii.            Officers would communicate with the Vice-Chair and Spokespersons as part of the proposed delegated investigation process into whether the Council could recommend certain insurers on an arm’s length basis, to tenants who currently had contents insurance through the council. 

iv.           Confirmed that if it was deemed viable to proceed with the ‘arm’s length’ process referred to in recommendation ii, then a procurement process would need to be undertaken.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Record of Officer Delegated Decision

Consideration of an Arms length Tenants Contents Insurance Scheme

 

Decision taken: That an arm’s length Tenants Contents Insurance scheme should not be offered.

 

Decision of: Jane Wilson, Strategic Director

 

Minute Reference: 22/40/HSC.

 

Date of decision: 7/10/2022

 

Matter for Decision: A report recommending the cessation of the provision of Tenants Contents Insurance Scheme was approved at Housing Scrutiny Committee in September 2022.

 

The Executive Councillor delegated a decision to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokespersons of Housing Scrutiny Committee and the Opposition Spokespersons.

 

The Decision was to determine whether an ‘arm’s length’ Tenants Contents Insurance scheme could be offered to council tenants as an alternative, implementing this if due diligence confirmed it was viable.

Jane Wilson, Strategic Director made a delegated decision in October 2022, following consideration of report by the Assistant Head of finance and Business Manager.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: None

 

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: It is recommended that the authority did not further explore an arm’s length contents insurance offering, but instead provide the required support to resident’s for the following reasons:

·      The service is discretionary and not our core business

·      There will still be a cost burden to the HRA in procuring an arm’s length offering

·      There is limited interest in the current product and numbers continue to decline. This will only be exacerbated when prices rise significantly

·      A pool of three suppliers did not provide sufficient choice to demonstrate value for money. In the wider insurance marketplace, tenants can opt for an infinite number of insurance options, cover levels, excess levels and specific inclusions and exclusions.

·      Staff would still effectively be ‘recommending’ an insurance product without the appropriate training.

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: None.

 

Comments: Chair, Vice Chair, Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokespersons consulted before decision was taken.

Opposition Spokes advised that they supported the decision provided that the tenants who no longer accessed the Council’s scheme were supported (in a technical sense) when needing to search online for alternative products.

 

Contact for further information: Julia Hovells, Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager

 

Matter for Decision: To approve the allocation of Minor Highways Improvement budget to the 2022/ 23 programme of Local Highways Improvements (LHIs) prioritised by Cambridgeshire County Council.

Why the Decision had to be made (and any alternative options): In previous years City Councillor representatives have participated in the assessment and prioritisation of the County Council’s LHI scheme programme.  However, this did not take place this year with the Council consequently having no oversight of the programme prioritised and for which its funding contributions are sought.  The County’s prioritised list, including the City Council contributions needed, are identified in the spreadsheet shown at the link below.

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplayClassic.aspx?NAME=SD1627&ID=1627&RPID=77239467&sch=doc&cat=13458&path=13020%2c13021%2c13458%2c13458

This item is to ensure appropriate scrutiny by this Council.  The County Council are progressing the scheme programme they prioritised earlier this year and require an urgent decision in order to deliver during 2022/ 23.

The Executive Councillor’s decision: Approved the allocation of Minor Highways Improvement budget to the 2022/ 23 programme of Local Highways Improvements (LHIs) prioritised by Cambridgeshire County Council.

Reason for the decision: As above.

Scrutiny Consideration: The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report: The attached County Council spreadsheet (LHI Panel Scores 2022-23) identifies the prioritised programme of schemes to be developed subject to budget availability, the outcome of local consultation, and processes and approvals needed.

Conflict of interest: [None].

Comments: The City Council had again this year approved a budget of up to £30,000 towards the County Council’s LHI scheme programme.  There are additional re-phased funds from previous years, subject to the final costs of schemes still being delivered.  Capital budgets are currently under review as part of the Council’s Mid Term Financial Strategy (Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee - October 2022).  Subject to approval, funding contributions will be made to individual schemes as prioritised, developed and implemented in accordance with budget availability.

The Green and Independent Opposition Spokes Councillor queried Councillor involvement in the Minor Highways Improvement Programme. The Executive Councillor confirmed that there was a cross boundary Cambridge City Joint Area Committee (CJAC) that had powers to decide on Local Highways Initiatives, and other issues.  The County Council disbanded this Committee about three years ago.  The City Council were working with the County Council to involve City Councillors in this process going forward.

The Chair of the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee stated that he thought the panel had scored the submitted LHI applications against four criteria. Thirteen schemes, (shown above the feint dotted line on the spread sheet) were to be developed and approved (subject to funding) as these schemes received the highest scores and require, on a cumulative basis, the County Council's budget allocation of £150k.It would be helpful to make clear whether the City Council's £30k contribution is required in part or in full and how it will be allocated. 

The Public Realm Engineering & Project Delivery Team Leader advised that the City Council contribute up to £30k/ annum to Cambridgeshire County Council’s managed programme in order for the top prioritised schemes to proceed.  In previous years there had been member involvement in this prioritisation, but that had not occurred this year regrettably.  Further, County had not required the City Council’s full contribution since their funding cut-line has been reached before the City Council, who had been able to roll the balance forward through annual capital re-phasing.  This year, and primarily due to one high value scheme requiring a large contribution, the City Council’s annual funding ceiling would likely be reached before County’

The Public Realm Engineering & Project Delivery Team Leader confirmed they were awaiting the outcome of the current capital finance review and MTFS decision in October to understand quite where the City Council’s ceiling may come this year.  One caveat that the County were keen to safeguard is that the schemes were not necessarily delivered in the strict order of priority, instead they commenced with development of all schemes above the cut line each year, with some being inevitably more straightforward and quicker to implement than others.

No comments were received from the Liberal Democratic Opposition Spokes on this matter.

 

Matter for Decision:   Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	Response to the Anglian Water Draft Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan     Anglian Water (AW) are carrying out consultation on their draft Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) between 30 June and 16 September 2022.  The DWMP is a 25 year strategic plan covering the period 2025 to 2050, that sets out how wastewater systems, and the drainage networks that impact them, are to be maintained, extended and improved to make sure they’re robust and resilient to future pressures. The plan covers the whole eastern part of England, which is the area covered by AW.   Following consultation, the final DWMP will be published in spring 2023, and will inform AW’s long term delivery strategy in 2024. This is the first DWMP, and it will become a statutory document under the Environment Act. The plan captures a process of optioneering, identifying risks and problems (such as climate change), to identify a range of solutions based around different catchments. The plan has also been subject to an environment assessment. It sets out that options were considered against a range of criteria, including optimisation and best value planning, and captures the benefits of the choices available. The plan also forecasts growth, to assist planning to meet the needs of future customers. Whilst it focuses on committed growth it also acknowledges that planning for other development is taking place, and, ‘While many of these schemes are at an early stage and, therefore, not included in adopted Local Plans, it’s important to consider their impact on the long-term strategy, should they come forward’ (Section 8.1). The plan then shows for the targeted catchments what measures are proposed in the medium and long term to respond to current issues or anticipated growth. This includes plans at Over (the Uttons Drove site) to deliver a range of solutions to accommodate growth and to address concerns of stakeholders regarding flooding. It also reflects their plans for a new treatment works at Cambridge
Response to the consultation	Anglian Water are seeking responses to twelve consultation questions. It is proposed that the response is joint with South Cambridgeshire District Council, which will separately be considering the response. A draft response to the questions can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. The proposed consultation response highlights: ·      The importance of investment in drainage infrastructure to address water quality issues, given the poor quality of many of the area’s water bodies. ·      Taking a robust approach to climate change so that risks are properly mitigated. ·      The need for ongoing engagement with the Councils to ensure planned and future developments are served by effective infrastructure. ·      Support for the use of green solutions such as SuDS and wetlands, and the separation of surface water from the sewerage system, but also for seeking opportunities to recycle water to help address water supply issues. ·      In relation to proposed solution such as at Uttons Drove, effective engagement is needed with local communities and stakeholders. Alternative options The options available to members are: ·      Agree to submit the response in Appendix 1, with possible minor amendments ·      Agree an alternative response.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	To confirm that the consultation response set out in Appendix 1 of this decision should be made to the Anglian Water draft DWMP consultation.
Reasons for the decision:	The proposed response addresses issues of importance to the Council in terms of effective and timely delivery of infrastructure and protection of the environment.
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokespersons of the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted on this matter.
Report:	Appendix 1 – Draft Response to the Anglian Water Draft DWMP Consultation 2022 can be viewed at the link below: Document Meeting 04.10.22 - ROD: Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) - Cambridge Council
Conflicts of interest:	None known.
Comments:	No adverse Comments were made.