Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
The Executive Member for Planning Policy & Open Spaces is asked to consider the main issues raised in consultation, agree responses to the representations received and any consequential amendments to the SPD, and to approve adoption of the SPD as amended.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 06/04/2020
Effective from: 14/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report provided responses to the
representations received along with recommendations for amendments to the Supplementary
Planning Document ahead of adoption with several consequential proposed changes.
Decision of Executive Councilor for Planning
Policy and Open Spaces and the Executive Councilor for Transport and Community
Safety
i.
Considered the main issues raised in the public
consultation; agree responses to the representations received and agreed
consequential proposed changes to the SPD as set out in the Consultation
Statement and tracked changed version of the SPD for adoption (See Appendices A
and B of the Officer’s report);
ii.
Subject to i), agreed to adopt the Greater
Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD; and
iii.
Approved the Joint Director of Planning and
Economic Development is granted delegated authority, in liaison with the
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces, and the Chair and
Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any
editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.
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 Principal Sustainability Consultant which referred to the Greater
Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD having been developed with
input from officers from across both Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council.
The document provides technical
guidance for developers on the information that needs to be submitted with planning
applications to demonstrate compliance with adopted planning policies related
to climate change and sustainable design and construction.
In response to Members’ questions
and comments the Principal Sustainability Consultant said the following:
i.
Did consider moving the reference to gas
combined heat and power; but where it had been referenced it had been correctly
specified (as stated in paragraph 3.2.2.9 & 3.2.3.2). If used in the right
sort of development this was considered a good low carbon option.
ii.
Gas combined heat and power could enable the
delivery of community scale energy schemes; was cost effective and low risk
compared to a bio-mass fuel system. Therefore, considered a useful system as
the technology could be changed in the future when more zero carbon options
available
iii.
Project work was being undertaken to explore
injecting hydrogen into the gas grid to reduce carbon admissions. This could
also be a future option for consideration.
iv.
The guidance in the document made it clear that
where the technology was being proposed, it was being proposed in the right
situation and following industry code of practice.
v.
Have asked developers to think about what they could
implement now which would benefit residents’ long term; such topics were
heating which could operate at lower temperatures.
vi.
From the 2025 no gas boilers would be permitted
in new residential developments and would have to look at alternatives such as
electric heating; by installing a system which could operate at a lower
temperature this would allow residents to change their boiler at a future date
without installing a new heating system.
vii.
Reference to the installation of the correct
pipework to rainwater harvesting tanks had been made so residents would not
have to pull up the floors and new pipework in the future.
viii.
New building regulations would be issued later
in the year so there would be an opportunity to add technical notes to the
document when those changes to the regulations were published.
ix.
Section 4 of the document referenced food
growing and aimed to encourage developers to go further than the current
policy; encouraging integrating food growing into developments in a less formal
way.
x.
Had aimed to make the document as simple as
possible, however a certain level of detail was necessary based on the current
Local Plan; some of the topics in the SPD were complex, particularly the
environmental health issues which had been streamed lined as much as possible.
xi.
Many consultants were aware of the detail that
the City Council had referenced in the document as they had been working with
Officers since the current Local Plan had been adopted.
xii.
Noted the Committee’s frustration of wanting to
achieve net zero carbon.
xiii.
Procurement had begun on the evidence base for
net zero carbon in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan; already seven
consultancies had expressed an interest since Friday 10 January.
xiv.
Had seen developers start to respond to net zero
carbon in the absence of policy.
xv.
The sustainability checklists had been developed
to provide a simple process for developers to give to applicants at
pre-application stage. Different checklists had been produced for the City
Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council as their policies were
different. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan would look to bring the polices
together for both authorities.
The Executive Councillor for
Planning Policy and Open Spaces thanked the Principal Sustainability Consultant
and the planning team for their work on such a comprehensive document. Taking
the Council forward from the adopted Local Plan to the next Local Plan while
thinking of the environmental and climate predicament.
The Committee unanimously
endorsed the Officer recommendations.
The Executive Councillor for
Planning Policy and Open Spaces 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.
Lead officer: Emma Davies
Approval to award a contract to carry out structural repairs and associated works to Council-owned flats.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
I.
The Council owned a number
of blocks of flats built in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of these flats had
structural concrete elements. Estates and Facilities had been identifying and
surveying blocks that had three stories or more and we had identified an
initial list of properties where structural repair works were required as a
priority. Detailed designs had been carried out and the work now needed to be
tendered in order to award a contract to a building contractor.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved
the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorise the
Strategic Director (following consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair,
Vice Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award a contract to a contractor to carry out structural
repairs and associated repair works to Council housing flats.
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 Asset Manager.
In response to the report Leaseholder Representative, Diane Best
suggested that the Tenant Representative / Vice Chair, Diana Minns be added to
the consultees. The Committee agreed the recommendation was amended as follows
(additional working in bold).
Approve the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of
tenders, authorise the Strategic Director (following consultation with
Executive Councillor, Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award
a contract to a contractor to carry out structural repairs and associated
repair works to Council housing flats.
The Asset Manager stated the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
It was expected that the work would begin in the
summer months. This would be dependent on successful completion of the tender
process
ii.
Confirmed that preventative programmes of work were
in place and it was anticipated that this would be a rolling programme due to
the aging stock profile.
iii.
Balcony repairs had been identified as a health and
safety matter and repair work had begun over five years ago.
iv.
A five-year rolling stock survey would dictate the
future programme of cyclical repairs.
v.
Drainage repairs works were also planned
for the future.
vi.
Agreed with the Tenant Representative’s suggestion
that tenants needed to be reminded to inform their household insurer of any
works involving scaffoldings.
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.
Lead officer: Will Barfield
Decision required to update policy in relation to Housing First and Local Lettings policies.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
The Local
Lettings Policy sets out Cambridge City Council’s (CCC) position on the
management of its own social housing stock through the use of
Local Letting Plans. A Local Lettings
Plan is a set of guidelines or criteria governing which households can be allocated
accommodation in a specific designated area. Local Lettings Plans are used to
help create balance and cohesion where either a specific set of circumstances
need to be addressed or where there are wider strategic objectives, such as
helping to support the local economy.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved the Policy included in Appendix A of
the Officers 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 Head of Housing.
In response to Members’ questions, the Head of Housing confirmed that
the report would return to this committee should there be any proposals to
significantly change the policy.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the 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
i.
The Council
had been working with the County Council to develop a Housing First programme
for Cambridge City.
ii.
There
were plans to develop and test various Housing First models over the coming
years so that the Council can evaluate the efficacy of these different
approaches, but also because the needs of customers who sleep rough or who are
at risk of rough sleeping cannot be met with a one-size-fits-all option and
local consultation suggests they are in favour of a range of options.
iii.
One of
the models being developed involved a ‘caretaker’ living adjacent to customers
in designated Housing First flats.
iv.
The
caretaker would be employed by the Council and consideration needed to be given
to how to recruit the best person for the role and the process for allocating
the accommodation.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Delegated authority to the Head of Housing to
allocate accommodation to Housing First caretakers outside of the Council’s
Lettings Policy.
ii.
An update report to be brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee
when the initial project had been running for 6 months.
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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Welcomed the idea but suggested that the pay band
might be rather low for what could be a very demanding role.
ii.
Questioned the level of support that would be
provided to the Caretakers.
iii.
Suggested that there was a lot to be learnt from
the first incumbents of the roles and asked if they could be invited to meet
members of this committee.
The Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Caretakers were not intended to be support
workers.
ii.
The recruitment process would be rigorous.
iii.
Confirmed that, in terms of Housing First
programmes more generally, extensive research into what had been successful in
other areas had been carried out but that the Council had not discovered many
examples of this caretaker-type arrangement. However, the Head of Housing had
seen a similar model in action in London.
iv.
This was a pilot project and would be reviewed.
v.
Caretakers would be line managed by the Supported
Housing Service.
The Committee suggested that the
recommendations should be amended to reflect their desire for feedback from the
initial project.
The following additional recommendation was
agreed:
An update report to be brought to Housing
Scrutiny Committee when the initial project had been running for 6 months.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended
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.
Lead officer: Sally Norman
· Agreement to use Council land for this programme.
· Support provision within the City.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
The report provided details of POD homes for single
homeless people to be gifted from Hill Partnership. This project is proposed to be delivered as
part of a wider compliment of Housing First provision.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Delegate authority to the Strategic Director in
consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve use of
Council land as sites for PODs on an individual basis based on the criteria set
out in this report.
ii.
Approved
the Budget of £140,000 to aid the delivery of PODs programme.
iii.
Delegate authority to the Strategic Director in
consultation with the Executive Councillor to agree the final approach in which
the PODS are let, owned and managed, which is expected to be through a third party charitable organisation.
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.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Welcomed the scheme but questioned the size of the
units that did not meet space standards.
ii.
Asked if an approach could be made to the provider
of the PODs for larger internal space standards.
iii.
Expressed concerns regarding integration with
existing communities and community safety.
iv.
Suggested that those offered POD type accommodation
might feel they are receiving an inferior option to other housing applicants.
v.
Questioned why the sites proposed for the initial
units were all in the North of the City.
vi.
Raised concerns
regarding on going support and progression option to
more settled accommodation.
The Head of the Housing Development Agency said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The units were of a standard size and were being
offered to a range of providers. They were factory built and needed to be
easily transportable on a lorry.
Requesting bespoke options was unlikely to be successful.
ii.
Proposed sites would be determined by availability.
iii.
To date there was no feedback on the progress of a
similar scheme managed and delivered by Allia.
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.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
a) Approve the proposed
charges for HRA housing rents and service charges.
b) Consider the revenue budget proposals.
c) Consider the capital budget proposals.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
As part of the 2020/21 budget process,
the range of assumptions upon which the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business
Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy were based, had been reviewed in light
of the latest information available, culminating in the preparation of the HRA
Budget Setting Report.
ii.
The HRA Budget-Setting Report provided
an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It sets out the key
parameters for the detailed recommendations and final budget proposals,
and was the basis for the finalisation of the 2020/21 budgets.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
Under Part 1 of the
agenda, the Executive Councillor resolved to:
Review of Rents and Charges
a) Approve
that council dwellings rents for all social rented properties be increased by inflation of 1.7%, measured by the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) at September 2019, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of 2.7%, with
effect from 6 April 2020. This equates to an average rent increase at the time
of writing this report of £2.65 per week on a 52 week
basis.
b) Approve
that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) are reviewed in line with
rent legislation, to ensure that the rents charged are no more than 80% of
market rent, with current rent levels increased by no more than by inflation of
1.7%, measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2019, plus 1%,
resulting in rent increases of up to 2.7%.
Local policy is to cap affordable rents (inclusive of all service
charges) at the Local Housing Allowance level, which will result in rent
variations in line with any changes notified to the authority in this level if
these result in a lower than 2.7% increase.
c) Approve
that rents for shared ownership are reviewed and amended from April 2020, in
line with the specific requirements within the lease for each property.
d) Approve
that garage and parking space charges for 2020/21, are increased in line with inflation
at 1.8%, with resulting charges as summarised in Section 3 of the HRA Budget
Setting Report
e) Approve
the proposed service charges for Housing Revenue Account services and
facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
f) Approve
the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2020/21, as detailed in
Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
g) Approve
that caretaking, building cleaning, estate services, grounds maintenance,
temporary housing premises and utilities, sheltered scheme premises and
utilities, digital television aerial, gas maintenance, door entry systems,
lifts, electrical and mechanical maintenance, flat cleaning, third party
management and catering charges continue to be recovered at full cost, as detailed
in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local
authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI
at September 2019 (1.7%) plus 1%, wherever possible.
Revenue – HRA
Revised Budget
2019/20:
h) Approve
with any amendments, the Revised Budget identified in Section 4 and Appendix D
(1) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, which reflects a net reduction in the use
of HRA reserves for 2019/20 of £146,310.
Budget 2020/21:
i) Approve
with any amendments, any Non-Cash Limit items identified in Section 4 of the
HRA Budget Setting Report or shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting
Report.
j) Approve
with any amendments, any Savings, Increased Income, Unavoidable Revenue Bids,
Reduced Income proposals and Bids, as shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget
Setting Report.
k) Approve
the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised in the
Housing Revenue Account Summary Forecast 2019/20 to 2024/25 shown in Appendix J
of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
Under Part 2 of the
agenda, the Executive Councillor for Housing resolved that recommend to
Council:
Treasury Management
l) Approve
the need to borrow over the 30-year life of the business plan, with the first
instance of this anticipated to be in 2022/23, to sustain the current level of
investment, which includes £10,000,000 per annum for the delivery of new homes.
m) Recognise
that any decision to borrow further will impact the authority’s ability to
set-aside resource to redeem 25% of the value of the housing debt by the point
at which the loan portfolio matures, with the approach to this to be reviewed
before further borrowing commences.
Housing Capital
n) Approval
of capital bids and savings, shown in Appendix D (3) of the HRA Budget Setting
Report, to include funding to begin to improve the energy efficiency of the
existing housing stock.
o) Approval
of the latest Decent Homes Programme, to include an updated recharge of
capitalised officer time and timing of decent homes expenditure for new build
dwellings, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
p) Approval
of the latest budget sums, profiling and associated financing for all new build
schemes, including revised scheme budgets for Akeman Street, Meadows and Buchan
Street and Campkin Road, based upon the latest cost
information from the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) or direct
procurements, as detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K,
of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
q) Approval
of re-phasing of budget for the Estate Improvement Scheme, to also include
reallocation of the resource between capital and revenue based upon the
projects identified to date, as detailed in Appendix E, and summarised in
Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
r) Approval
of the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix K of the
HRA Budget Setting Report.
General
s) Approval
of inclusion of Disabled Facilities Grant expenditure and associated grant
income from 2020/21 onwards, based upon 2019/20 grant levels, with approval of
delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to approve an in
year increase or decrease in the budget for disabled facilities grants, in
direct relation to any increase or decrease in the capital grant funding for
this purpose, as received from the County Council through the Better Care Fund.
t) Approval
of delegation to the Strategic Director to review and amend the level of fees
charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for disabled facilities grants
and repair assistance grants, in line with any decisions made by the Shared
Home Improvement Agency Board.
u)
Approval of delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with
the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down resource from the
ear-marked reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the
purpose of open market land or property acquisition or new build housing
development, should the need arise, in order to meet quarterly deadlines for
the use of retained right to buy receipts or to facilitate future site
redevelopment.
v) Approval
of delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make the
necessary technical amendments to detailed budgets in respect of the outcome of
the review of recharges between the General Fund and the HRA and the outcome of
the review of the pension fund deficit contribution, with any net impact for
the HRA to be incorporated as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in
September 2020.
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 Committee noted that since publication of the report, the authority
had received final confirmation of the pension figures, which were marginally
lower than anticipated. The Assistant Head of Finance
and Business Manager highlighted that a delegation to the Head of Finance had
been included in the HRA BSR Covering Report to allow the required adjustments
to be made once this figure was confirmed, and that this delegation would now
be applied.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Noted the commitment in
the budget to the Housing First Caretaker scheme.
ii.
Welcomed the Housing First Caretaker roles but
suggested that they should be employed on a higher pay grade as the job would
be complex and demanding.
The Assistant Head of
Finance and Business Manager, assisted by other officers (Head of Housing,
Strategic Director, Head of Housing Development and Head of Housing Maintenance
and Assets) stated the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Explained why the figure for disabled adaptations
had been reduced. This was based on previous demand trends which had reduced.
This was in part due to the number of properties within the portfolio that had
already been adapted. Confirmation was given that demand would be reviewed and the budget reconsidered in future years if
demand increased.
ii.
Confirmed that the Energy Officer would initially
look at energy efficiency in the Council’s own housing stock.
iii.
Explained that the Tenancy Auditor was for an
initial pilot period of one year. In the long-term any post may be expected to
be self-financing as it should help identify tenancy fraud, preventative
repairs and tenants in need of additional support services. Extending the
project to include Leasehold properties could be considered later.
iv.
Confirmed that Cambridge had been late in the roll
out programme of Universal Credit and the full impact had not yet been seen.
v.
Confirmed that the net unavoidable revenue pressure
in cyclical maintenance was the net position for the cost centre after
virements between areas of spending. The officer confirmed that under the
Council’s financial standing orders, cost centre managers have
the ability to move funds between expenditure heads within a cost centre
to better deliver services. The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager undertook to circulate
the detailed virements that resulted in the net revenue pressure, after the
meeting, for information.
Councillor
Cantrill introduced the Liberal Democrat Amendment to the 2020/21 Housing
Revenue Budget.
The
Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Suggested that targeting rent reduction to larger
homes would be targeting support to larger families who may not need that
support rather than to those on lower incomes. Stated that this would be
unfair, and that the reduced rental income would in turn reduce the ability to
build more properties.
ii.
Stated that a move to Passive House Building
methods would require an evidenced based analysis of what could be achieved. It
would also significantly increase the spend on new build properties.
iii.
Agreed that further advice on alternatives was
needed before gas boilers were replaced like for like.
The following vote
was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair / Tenant Representative)
The Liberal Democrats Group alternative
budget: 3 votes in favour to 8 against. The amendment was lost.
Resolved (8 votes to 0) to endorse
the original recommendations a to k of the budget proposal.
The following vote was chaired by Councillor
Todd-Jones
Resolved (5 votes to 0) to endorse
the original recommendations l to v of the budget proposal.
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.
Lead officer: Julia Hovells
To update the Council's Tenancy Strategy 2012.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
There
was a statutory requirement for local authorities, in their strategic housing
role, to have a tenancy strategy setting out the issues which Registered
Providers operating in the local area must have regard to when deciding: the
type of tenancies to offer; the circumstances in which they will offer a
tenancy of a particular kind; the length of any fixed term tenancy; and the
circumstances in which they will grant a new tenancy when a fixed term tenancy
comes to an end.
ii.
The
Localism Act also required tenancy strategies to be kept under review.
iii.
Minor
changes were proposed to the requirements laid down in the original strategy
published in 2012, reflecting more recent changes to government policy, more
recent data, and the Greater Cambridge
Housing Strategy 2019-2023.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved the revised Tenancy Strategy attached
at Appendix 1 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 Housing Strategy Manager.
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.
Lead officer: Helen Reed
Note the findings of the LGSCO in respect of this case and the actions taken by the Council in response to these findings.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
The
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has upheld a complaint
relating to a housing allocation to a vulnerable customer who subsequently
became the victim of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring tenant.
ii.
The
report summarised the complaint, acknowledged that there were shortcomings in
relation to working practices and set out the action taken in response.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the findings of the LGSCO in respect of this case and
the actions taken by the Council in response to these findings.
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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Questioned the resource implications of the
increased numbers of vulnerable tenants and how they would be supported.
ii.
Suggested that an annual tenant churn of 500 to 800
would be difficult to manage if significant numbers of those new tenants had
support needs.
The Head of Housing stated that the small internal Tenancy Sustainment
Team offered a bridging service to direct those in need to other support
services.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation.
Lead officer: David Greening
To approve the award of homelessness prevention grants to agencies.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
As part of the 2020/21 budget process,
the range of assumptions upon which the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business
Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy were based, had been reviewed in light
of the latest information available, culminating in the preparation of the HRA
Budget Setting Report.
ii.
The HRA Budget-Setting Report provided
an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It sets out the key
parameters for the detailed recommendations and final budget proposals,
and was the basis for the finalisation of the 2020/21 budgets.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
Under Part 1 of the
agenda, the Executive Councillor resolved to:
Review of Rents and Charges
a) Approve
that council dwellings rents for all social rented properties be increased by inflation of 1.7%, measured by the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) at September 2019, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of 2.7%, with
effect from 6 April 2020. This equates to an average rent increase at the time
of writing this report of £2.65 per week on a 52 week
basis.
b) Approve
that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) are reviewed in line with
rent legislation, to ensure that the rents charged are no more than 80% of
market rent, with current rent levels increased by no more than by inflation of
1.7%, measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2019, plus 1%,
resulting in rent increases of up to 2.7%.
Local policy is to cap affordable rents (inclusive of all service
charges) at the Local Housing Allowance level, which will result in rent
variations in line with any changes notified to the authority in this level if
these result in a lower than 2.7% increase.
c) Approve
that rents for shared ownership are reviewed and amended from April 2020, in
line with the specific requirements within the lease for each property.
d) Approve
that garage and parking space charges for 2020/21, are increased in line with
inflation at 1.8%, with resulting charges as summarised in Section 3 of the HRA
Budget Setting Report
e) Approve
the proposed service charges for Housing Revenue Account services and
facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
f) Approve
the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2020/21, as detailed in
Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
g) Approve
that caretaking, building cleaning, estate services, grounds maintenance,
temporary housing premises and utilities, sheltered scheme premises and
utilities, digital television aerial, gas maintenance, door entry systems,
lifts, electrical and mechanical maintenance, flat cleaning, third party
management and catering charges continue to be recovered at full cost, as
detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local
authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI
at September 2019 (1.7%) plus 1%, wherever possible.
Revenue – HRA
Revised Budget
2019/20:
h) Approve
with any amendments, the Revised Budget identified in Section 4 and Appendix D
(1) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, which reflects a net reduction in the use
of HRA reserves for 2019/20 of £146,310.
Budget 2020/21:
i) Approve
with any amendments, any Non-Cash Limit items identified in Section 4 of the
HRA Budget Setting Report or shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting
Report.
j) Approve
with any amendments, any Savings, Increased Income, Unavoidable Revenue Bids,
Reduced Income proposals and Bids, as shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget
Setting Report.
k) Approve
the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised in the
Housing Revenue Account Summary Forecast 2019/20 to 2024/25 shown in Appendix J
of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
Under Part 2 of the
agenda, the Executive Councillor for Housing resolved that recommend to
Council:
Treasury Management
l) Approve
the need to borrow over the 30-year life of the business plan, with the first instance
of this anticipated to be in 2022/23, to sustain the current level of
investment, which includes £10,000,000 per annum for the delivery of new homes.
m) Recognise
that any decision to borrow further will impact the authority’s ability to
set-aside resource to redeem 25% of the value of the housing debt by the point
at which the loan portfolio matures, with the approach to this to be reviewed
before further borrowing commences.
Housing Capital
n) Approval
of capital bids and savings, shown in Appendix D (3) of the HRA Budget Setting
Report, to include funding to begin to improve the energy efficiency of the
existing housing stock.
o) Approval
of the latest Decent Homes Programme, to include an updated recharge of
capitalised officer time and timing of decent homes expenditure for new build
dwellings, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
p) Approval
of the latest budget sums, profiling and associated financing for all new build
schemes, including revised scheme budgets for Akeman Street, Meadows and Buchan
Street and Campkin Road, based upon the latest cost
information from the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) or direct
procurements, as detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K,
of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
q) Approval
of re-phasing of budget for the Estate Improvement Scheme, to also include
reallocation of the resource between capital and revenue based upon the
projects identified to date, as detailed in Appendix E, and summarised in
Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
r) Approval
of the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix K of the
HRA Budget Setting Report.
General
s) Approval
of inclusion of Disabled Facilities Grant expenditure and associated grant
income from 2020/21 onwards, based upon 2019/20 grant levels, with approval of
delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to approve an in
year increase or decrease in the budget for disabled facilities grants, in
direct relation to any increase or decrease in the capital grant funding for
this purpose, as received from the County Council through the Better Care Fund.
t) Approval
of delegation to the Strategic Director to review and amend the level of fees
charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for disabled facilities grants
and repair assistance grants, in line with any decisions made by the Shared
Home Improvement Agency Board.
u)
Approval of delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with
the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down resource from the
ear-marked reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the
purpose of open market land or property acquisition or new build housing
development, should the need arise, in order to meet quarterly deadlines for
the use of retained right to buy receipts or to facilitate future site
redevelopment.
v) Approval
of delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make the
necessary technical amendments to detailed budgets in respect of the outcome of
the review of recharges between the General Fund and the HRA and the outcome of
the review of the pension fund deficit contribution, with any net impact for
the HRA to be incorporated as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in
September 2020.
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 Committee noted that since publication of the report, the authority
had received final confirmation of the pension figures, which were marginally
lower than anticipated. The Assistant Head of
Finance and Business Manager highlighted that a delegation to the Head of
Finance had been included in the HRA BSR Covering Report to allow the required
adjustments to be made once this figure was confirmed, and that this delegation
would now be applied.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Noted the commitment in
the budget to the Housing First Caretaker scheme.
ii.
Welcomed the Housing First Caretaker roles but
suggested that they should be employed on a higher pay grade as the job would
be complex and demanding.
The Assistant Head of
Finance and Business Manager, assisted by other officers (Head of Housing,
Strategic Director, Head of Housing Development and Head of Housing Maintenance
and Assets) stated the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Explained why the figure for disabled adaptations
had been reduced. This was based on previous demand trends which had reduced.
This was in part due to the number of properties within the portfolio that had
already been adapted. Confirmation was given that demand would be reviewed and the budget reconsidered in future years if
demand increased.
ii.
Confirmed that the Energy Officer would initially
look at energy efficiency in the Council’s own housing stock.
iii.
Explained that the Tenancy Auditor was for an
initial pilot period of one year. In the long-term any post may be expected to
be self-financing as it should help identify tenancy fraud, preventative
repairs and tenants in need of additional support services. Extending the
project to include Leasehold properties could be considered later.
iv.
Confirmed that Cambridge had been late in the roll
out programme of Universal Credit and the full impact had not yet been seen.
v.
Confirmed that the net unavoidable revenue pressure
in cyclical maintenance was the net position for the cost centre after
virements between areas of spending. The officer confirmed that under the
Council’s financial standing orders, cost centre managers have
the ability to move funds between expenditure heads within a cost centre
to better deliver services. The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager undertook to circulate
the detailed virements that resulted in the net revenue pressure, after the
meeting, for information.
Councillor
Cantrill introduced the Liberal Democrat Amendment to the 2020/21 Housing
Revenue Budget.
The
Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Suggested that targeting rent reduction to larger
homes would be targeting support to larger families who may not need that
support rather than to those on lower incomes. Stated that this would be
unfair, and that the reduced rental income would in turn reduce the ability to
build more properties.
ii.
Stated that a move to Passive House Building
methods would require an evidenced based analysis of what could be achieved. It
would also significantly increase the spend on new build properties.
iii.
Agreed that further advice on alternatives was
needed before gas boilers were replaced like for like.
The following vote
was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair / Tenant Representative)
The Liberal Democrats Group alternative
budget: 3 votes in favour to 8 against. The amendment was lost.
Resolved (8 votes to 0) to endorse
the original recommendations a to k of the budget proposal.
The following vote was chaired by Councillor
Todd-Jones
Resolved (5 votes to 0) to endorse
the original recommendations l to v of the budget proposal.
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.
Lead officer: James McWilliams
Regular update on the HDA's progress toward building 500 new Council homes.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 26/02/2020
Effective from: 15/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report provided an update on the programme
to deliver 500 Council homes with funding from the Combined Authority.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the continued
progress on the delivery of the Combined Authority programme.
ii.
Noted the funding
structure for the Combined Authority programme.
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.
The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager confirmed that
to-date no approach had been made to the Secretary of State regarding cross
budget funding arrangements. The current recommendations only relate to housing
development and not to the Community Centre.
The Committee resolved by 5 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.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
To review the Council’s use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommends that Councillors
should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year.
The Leader and Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships and
Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the
17 January 2019.
The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory powers
regulated by RIPA since February 2010.
This report sets out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present
surveillance policy.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
i.
Reviewed the Council’s use of RIPA
set out in paragraph 3.5 of the Officer’s report.
ii.
Noted and endorsed the steps
described in paragraph 3.7 and in Appendix 1 to ensure that surveillance is
only authorised in accordance with RIPA.
iii.
Approved the general surveillance
policy in Appendix 1 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 Head of Legal Practice.
The Head of Legal Practice
said
the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
It was good practice (for transparency reasons) for
a report to come to committee even if RIPA powers were not used.
ii.
There were no cost implications to the City Council
from having RIPA powers. It was something to keep in the locker in case powers
were needed.
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.
Lead officer: Tom Lewis
To approve in principle the proposal to review, extend and vary the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for dog control across the city and authorise officers to carry out consultation as required.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Public Spaces Protection Order (Dog Control) 2017
(“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2020. At any point before expiry
of the Order, the Council can vary or extend it by up to three years if they
consider it is necessary to prevent the original behaviour from occurring or
recurring.
The Officer’s report revisited the terms of the sealed Order
(Appendix A), and asked the Executive Councillor to approve, in principle, the
proposal to extend and vary the Order in respect of dog control (including dog
fouling, dog exclusion, dogs on leads and restriction on number of dogs
requirements) within Cambridge, in the form set out at Appendix B and the
locations set out in Appendix C; and to authorise officers to publicise the
proposed orders and to consult, as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime
and Policing Act 2014 (“The Act”).
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
i.
Approved in principle, the
proposal to extend and vary the Order for dog control within Cambridge in the
form set out at Appendix B [of the Officer’s report] and the locations set out
in Appendix C;
ii.
Authorised officers to publicise the proposed
orders and to carry out consultation as required by the Act.
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 Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager who corrected a
typographical error in paragraph 1.1:
The Public Spaces Protection Order
(Dog Control) 2017 (“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2019 2020.
In response to the report Councillors sought clarification on the
community survey. The Community Engagement
and Enforcement Manager said that the previous consultation survey had been
sent to stakeholders in electronic format (Survey Monkey) and was available in
hard copy format. It was sent to resident groups, charities and voluntary
groups who used or were involved with dogs. The survey was also distributed via
community centres, the City Council website and social media. It was proposed
that this consultation would also do use the same methods.
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.
Lead officer: Wendy Johnston
To consider the recommendations on walking tours in terms of frequency and scale.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Public Question
A member of the public made
the following points:
i. The report showed that the council was listening to
residents’ concerns about walking tours.
ii. Expressed interest
in how the City Council planned to manage the tour coaches, parking locations
and reduce visitor groups to a maximum of 20 people.
iii.
Requested a pilot study at Madingley P&R and
Cambridge North rail station for range of coach-users: language school pupils,
conference groups, tourists, school parties.
iv.
Recommendations to Executive Councillor:
a.
Point 2: Alongside the ongoing monitoring of the situation,
would the council include a pilot study with the County using, eg Madingley
P&R site for coach parking?
b.
Point 4: It seems a little vague and
non-committal to recommend a continued dialogue with the County when this
has already commenced. Will alternative parking locations to Queens Road
as drop-off points be explored?
The Executive Councillor said a pilot study
would be welcome. The County Council were responsible so the City Council would
try to influence them.
The Safer Communities Manager said she had
looked at the issue of walking tours from a community safety point of view.
There was no evidence of safety issues, so this was more of a city centre management
issue than a nuisance enforcement one.
The member of the public
made the following supplementary points
i. Sought a way to limit group numbers to 20,
particularly groups from coach tours.
ii. Facilities in the city centre would not be able to
match those at a P&R site eg a ticket booth and timed visit slots.
iii. The City Council
could work with the County Council, but the City Council should take urgent
action now for reasons of air quality and public safety.
iv. Queried if points
could be reported to the Head of Environmental Services to incorporate into the
Tourism Strategy.
Matter for
Decision
At the Environment and
Communities Scrutiny Committee of 27 June 2019, the Executive Councillor
approved a recommendation to monitor the situation with regards to how walking
tours were sold. Also to monitor the frequency of excessively large tour groups
in the city centre, including on King’s Parade during the summer, by:
i.
Advising coach companies and tour
groups and other organisations hosting large visitor groups that the City
Council supports a maximum of 20 people in any single group, and
ii.
Reviewing the issue of walking
tour groups and reporting to
Committee in January 2020 if the problem of large walking tour groups persists,
including considering the option of consulting on a Public Spaces Protection
Order and other options to set a maximum tour group size if there is assessed
to be a serious problem.
Following the approval of
the recommendation, a Working Group was set up to look at possible solutions to
the issues raised in relation to walking tours.
The Group included representation from the City Council’s Community
Safety Team, Corporate Marketing, Streets and Open Spaces, Property Services,
Legal Practice and (externally) Visit Cambridge and Beyond and Cambridge BID.
The Officer’s report
detailed the actions considered by the Working Group and recommendations for
the future.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
Agreed to:
i.
Officially request Visit Cambridge
and Beyond to include the management of walking tours in the development of
their Destination Management Plan (DMP).
ii.
Approve the continuation of the
monitoring of the sale and size of walking tours during the 2020 season in
order to inform the development of the DMP.
iii.
Continue the dialogue with the
County Council to examine the possibilities of coach permit parking in the city
to include conditions to limit the numbers in any tour group.
iv.
Start a dialogue with the County
Council to consider making park and ride sites more attractive to coach tours
and to include incentives to direct groups from the sites to official walking
tours of limited numbers.
v.
Use the outcomes from the negotiations to inform the
development of the DMP.
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 Safer Communities Manager.
The Safer Communities Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The issue of group size had been reviewed from a
community safety point of view. There was no evidence of anti-social behaviour.
The Working Group discussed the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order
(PSPO) but considered this to be an inappropriate way to manage walking tours
as the issues raised (such as the size and inconvenience caused by the tours)
were unlikely to fit the criteria for the introduction of a PSPO. Also the
Working Group believed it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to
enforce.
ii.
There was disagreement on the effectiveness of
parking permits to control coach parking. The County Council said that permits
were not respected. The Working Group said parking control would be respected.
Officers would follow this up.
iii.
Cambridge Ambassadors were asked to monitor walking
tour group sizes during the tourist season, but this ceased when tourist
numbers dropped out of season. Monitoring could resume in the new tourist
season.
iv.
A limit of 20 people in a group was set in-line
with Blue Badge tour group size guidance.
The Head of Community Services said points from this discussion would be
recorded in the meeting minutes and forwarded to the Head of Environmental
Services (City Council) and Head of Tourism and City Centre Management (Tourist
Information).
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.
Lead officer: Lynda Kilkelly
Approve Community Grants for 2020-21.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Councillor Hadley took part in the debate on this item, but
did not vote due to her declaration of interest.
Matter
for Decision
This is the annual report for the Community
Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It
provides an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Communities
Approved the
Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2020-21, as set
out in Appendix 1 of this report, subject to the budget approval in February
2020 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant
organisations.
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 Community Funding and Development Manager.
The Community
Funding and Development Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
People were supported and guided
through the application process.
ii.
Workshops were held before the current
funding application cycle started. Information and advice was given on funding
available, plus signposts to alternative funding streams if these appeared more
appropriate for applicants.
iii.
Officers continued to offer support to
people after they submitted applications. Officers involved in the process came
from the Communities Team, as well as others, who could provide expert advice
to check if projects were pertinent for funding.
iv.
Officers did not just say “no” to
applications, they tried to ascertain if community funding or another fund was
more appropriate.
v.
Applicants could reapply several times
in the same funding cycle if they were unsuccessful on the first attempt.
vi.
There were several projects to help people
get into volunteering. A fund was available to provide help/training to do
this. Training/supervision of volunteers could be issues that affected
recruitment/retention. The City Council was working with the Council for
Voluntary Services to address this.
vii.
The same application process applied to
new Applicants and those who had previously made applications. New Applicants
were encouraged to liaise with Officers who could then support them through the
application process.
viii.
Different levels of information were
sought from Applicants depending on the level of funding applied for.
ix.
Funding was not allocated to projects
where:
a.
They were not appropriate for the
funding stream.
b.
They were duplicates of an existing
project.
c.
There was insufficient information on
the application form.
The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the
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.
Lead officer: Jackie Hanson
1. Discuss and agree key points to make in response to the
A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Preferred Route consultation.
2. Agree to delegate the wording of the final joint response and any individual
response to the consultation to the Strategy & Economy Manager, in
consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Community Safety.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 16/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The purpose of the report
was to inform Cambridge City Council’s response to the current A428 Black Cat
to Caxton Gibbet Detailed Alignment consultation, by setting out response
points to inform discussion and agreement of key issues to inform a full response
being agreed by the Executive Councillor in an out of
cycle decision in consultation with Chair and Spokes and submitted
ahead of the consultation deadline.
Decision
of Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety.
i.
Noted the key response points to the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet
Preferred Route consultation.
ii.
Agreed the wording of a final joint response and/or any individual response
published through an out of cycle decision, in consultation with Chair and
Spokes.
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 Principal Planning Policy Officer.
The report set out
key response points for discussion, to be refined following the meeting.
Discussion with South Cambridgeshire District Council suggests that there is
potential to include Cambridge’s comments within a joint response, potentially
also with other partners.
In response to Member’s comments and questions the Principal Planning
Policy Officer said the following:
i.
The preferred choice for the Oxford to Cambridge
arc would go either via Cambourne or Bassingbourn entering Cambridge via the
south.
ii.
The draft response would expand on the different
projects undertaken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership schemes and the impact
on the city acknowledged.
Following a general discussion the Committee
noted the critical importance of the A428 being considered as part of a
coherently planned local and regional transport network, that of necessity
should interact and integrate with capacity being provided elsewhere.
The Committee unanimously endorsed
the Officer 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.
To agree a response to the draft Local Transport Plan consultation prepared by the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 19/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The purpose of the report was to inform Cambridge City Council’s
response to the Cambridgeshire Peterborough Combined Authority Draft Local Transport Plan consultation.
Decision
of Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety.
i.
Noted
the initial response to the Local Transport Plan consultation as set out in
appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.
ii.
Agreed
the wording of a final joint response and/or any individual response through an
out of cycle decision, in consultation with Chair and Spokes
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 Principal Planning Policy Officer.
The report referred to
the
Devolution Deal of 2017 which gave the Combined Authority (CPCA) the role of
the Local Transport Authority from Cambridgeshire County Council. One of the
key responsibilities of the Local Transport Authority was the development of a
new Local Transport Plan (LTP), to set out plans and strategies for maintaining
and improving all aspects of the local transport system.
The Principal
Planning Policy Officer said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Noted the comment regarding the need for a mid
or even short term strategy to reduce traffic within
the city and improve transport links which should not be ignored when
considering the long term local transport plan.
ii.
Acknowledged a new dual-carriageway standard
route, from Cambridge to Chatteris, March and Wisbech
would encourage investment in north Cambridgeshire, and share the benefits of
the success of the Greater Cambridge area. However
this was not a priority project but there were plans for the fenland area to
improve rail links, including Wisbech station.
iii.
The issue of maintenance had been picked up in
the plan under policy theme 19.
iv.
Policy theme 18 of the plan proposed to identify
a key local road network, identified parts of the network which should be
prioritised for management and maintenance. This policy would also address
measures to reduce number of vehicles, picking up on issues addressed in other
policy themes.
v.
Reference to social context and issues had been
referenced throughout the document such as affordable travel for all.
vi.
Discussion of the Dutch-type segregated walking
and cycling infrastructure was to give an idea of what could be achieved but
did not mean that this was the preferred choice.
The Committee unanimously
endorsed the Officer 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.
Lead officer: Caroline Hunt
To approve the draft Supplementary Planning Document for public consultation.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 19/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
Decision of Executive
Councilor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces and the Executive Councilor for
Transport and Community Safety
i.
Agreed
the draft Making Space for People: Vision, Principles & Strategies document
(Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for consultation purposes.
ii.
Approved
the draft Baseline Report (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) for consultation
purpose as amended.
iii.
Noted
the consultation period would take place for six weeks between Monday 2
September and Monday 14 October 2019.
iv.
Approved
the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development was granted delegated
authority, in liaison with the Executive Councilor for Planning Policy and Open
Spaces, the Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety and the
Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to
make any editing changes prior to commencement of the consultation period.
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 Principal Urban Designer
referring to the
Making Space for People project which would lead to the production of a
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This would provide planning guidance for
the streets and public spaces that formed the public realm in Central
Cambridge.
The Principal Urban Designer informed the
Committee of an amendment to recommendation 2.1.2 of the Officers report which
would read as follows (additional text underlined).
The draft Baseline Report attached to this
committee report at Appendix 2 for consultation purposes is noted and
published as part of the evidence base for the Making Space for People: Vision,
Principles & Strategies document
The
Committee unanimously agreed the amendment.
The
Chair welcomed the Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre to the meeting who made the following comments
following the Committee discussion:
i.
A
separate review of car parks in the city centre and the Council’s office
strategy were currently being undertaken.
ii.
Did
not believe the Council had ever supported the notion ‘the more tourists the
better’.
iii.
The
Council did not have the power to determine where coaches parked in the city
but had worked with the County Council to create a coach strategy.
iv.
The
coach strategy outlined plans for coaches to park at the Park and Rides sites
(but more coach parking would be required). Spaces at Cambridge Backs would
have to be pre-booked, however did not agree that coach parking along the Backs
was the most suitable.
v.
Visit
Cambridge had been in discussion with other heritage cities regarding the
introduction of a tourist tax. Ultimately this would be down to Central
Government. A tourist tax would be based on overnight stays in the city.
vi.
The
Council and Visit Cambridge had been working hard to reduce the number of day
trippers and encourage overnight stays and would continue to do so.
vii.
Disputed
the claim that the city centre was ‘grubby’.
viii.
A
recent Cambridge Improvement District (BID) survey had approximately 80% of
responses agreeing that the City was clean or very clean.
ix.
Would
enquire with Officers about the possibility of transferring a proportion of
County Council’s food and drink licenses to the City Council concerning those
restaurants in the city offering outside seating.
The Principal Urban Designer said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The impact that an increased bus service in
Emmanuel and Drummer Street would have on the city centre would be further
investigated while working with the Greater Cambridge Partnership and as the
SPD was further developed.
ii.
Was not in the Council’s gift to grant a clean air
policy in the city centre but the consultation document made reference to this
and how it could be achieved, such as electric vehicles, traffic enforcement
and working with outside agencies.
iii.
Further work would be carried out detailing
reliable enforcement mechanisms to underpin motor vehicle access controls.
iv.
The document references that inclusive design will
be paramount to create a City Centre which was accessible, inclusive and safe.
v.
It was imperative to ensure that disabled users
enjoyed the same access to the city centre as all users: the document made
reference to inclusivity for all.
vi.
Recognised there would be a challenge to balance
the allocation of spaces for pedestrians, cyclists and public with transport
links in and around the city.
vii.
Would look at how the dispersal of tourists could
be encouraged around the city centre.
viii.
Traffic audits would investigate the flow of
traffic into the city centre and parking and how to inspire the use of park and
rides services.
ix.
The SPD would pick up the issue of city centre
street furniture, including ideas around management of table and chairs, when
considering the reallocation of space; whilst examining the quality of the
space for the hierarchy of users.
x.
The document looked the rebalancing of streets and
spaces looking at the streets of the city as spaces and not just movement
corridors.
xi.
Would look at the wording of the document to ensure
it was clear that Cambridge was a working city as well as a tourist attraction
and home to local residents living in the centre.
xii.
The document acknowledged the importance of local
businesses in the city centre and the contribution they made to the local
economy; it was imperative the day to day operational needs to support those
businesses were not disrupted.
xiii.
The SPD would explore delivery strategies in the
city such as last mile deliveries and delivery hubs.
xiv.
The document would focus on the vision and
principles while the SPD would concentrate on the more detailed strategies and
how they could materialise.
xv.
Noted the comment regarding overreaching; concepts
were being explored early in the process while the SPD would focus on
strategies that would fit within the context of the Greater Cambridge
Partnership and the work they were undertaking.
xvi.
With reference to the term ‘alternative to car
parking’, this could mean creating cycle to work schemes, promoting public
transport, moving barriers to sustainable movement in the city.
xvii.
Would work on the term ‘demand management’ to how
to achieve a 24% reduction in vehicles in the city referenced in the document.
xviii.
There was a separate project looking at the market
place which the document would make reference to.
The Committee unanimously
endorsed the Officer recommendations with amendments.
The Executive Councillors approved the recommendations as amended.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillors (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillors
Lead officer: Caroline Hunt
To approve the 3C Building Control Business Plan 2019/20.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 19/03/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report sought approval for the Building Control Business Plan and
Greater Cambridge Planning Services Business Plan 2019/20.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport
i. Approved the Business Plans for each of the Shared Services, Building
Control Shared Services Business Plan & Greater Cambridge Planning Service
Business Plan 2019/20.
ii. Authorised the Shared Services Management Board to approve final amendments
to the Business Plans in line with comments received from all partner councils.
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 joint report from the Strategic Director, the
Director of Planning and Economic Development and the Head of Building Control.
In response to the Committee’s comments the Director of Planning and Economic
Development said the following:
i. There had been a total of 27 job vacancies advertised across the
shared services since April last year.
ii. Had recently appointed four planning officers from the process that
was started earlier in the year.
iii. The Shared Planning Services consultation would allow the
organisation to make improvements to the personal development and growth of officers;
this would allow an additional learning opportunity into the planning service.
iv. The consultation would also allow development of the induction
process and ensure that support was available.
v. Important to develop staff to enable them to progress, whether inside
or outside the organisation; in turn they would promote the level of service experienced
to external organisations and members of the public.
vi. Work had taken place on benchmarking and job evaluations; salary levels
were competitive with other local authorities.
vii. There was a recruitment timeline which was being followed, although
there was a slight delay there.
viii. Lessons had been learnt from the first round of the consultation
process as there had been a series of workshops involving staff to discuss
ideas and to put forward suggestions
ix. Could be possible to include the offer of accommodation in the
future as this was an important consideration when looking at job
opportunities.
x. Research had shown that there was a consistent pattern in the number of
planning applications submitted between Cambridgeshire City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council; 42% and 58% which had allowed previous budget
to be based on ratio of work.
xi. As part of the shared services project a memorandum of understanding
has been drafted using planning applications and policy delivery outcomes such
as the joint Local Plan, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan and
Supplementary Planning Documents. Based on this a resources plan had been
designed as it was important to understand the resource allocation for
budgetary purposes.
xii. The budget had been historically based on ratio but in future
officers would have the capacity to account for their time to the relevant
authority with the implementation of a single ICT system.
xiii. The benefit of a shared planning service brought resilience;
officers should be able to cover both authorities if required. Therefore the
way that officers recorded their time was critical.
xiv. Cambridge City Council had limited areas of geography for
development which would have an impact on future income for the Council.
xv. Important to create a new culture under the shared services so that officers
did not see themselves as working for one or the other local authority, there
is the opportunity for flexible working and working at various locations.
xvi. Citizens and businesses required a good, responsive and accessible planning
service, wherever they were located, which is what the shared services would
offer.
xvii. The strategy of the business plan would account for the cost of
officers and allow the recruitment for a range of specialist officers whose services
could be used by outside agencies and charged for their time.
The Committee then received an executive summary on the Business Plan
for 3c’S building control.
In response to Members questions the Head of Shared Service said the following:
i. Post Grenville there was a discussion to be part of a joint
competency agency which would only include Local Authority Building Control.
Certain buildings in scope would only be dealt with by the Local
Authority Building Control Department and not by Approved Inspectors. This model
was currently being tested by Central Government.
ii. Individual local authorities and developers were being encouraged to
take forward their own initiatives.
iii. The Hackett report referred to the introduction of gateways; at
planning stages there would be enforced consultations with the Fire Authority
and Local Authority Building Control. Further discussion on this matter would be
taken forward.
iv. Looking to ensure tighter communication between Building Control and
Planning Services.
The Committee then resolved by 5 votes to 0 to exclude the press and
public during the discussion of Appendix 2 of this item by virtue of paragraph
3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Committee:
The Committee resolved 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
Endorsement and adoption of the Fire Risk Management Strategy for CCC which will cover all council owned buildings (including council housing).
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Fire Risk Management Strategy (FRMS) set
out how Cambridge City Council would implement its Fire Safety Policy. The
strategy aimed to reduce the risks posed by fire through a risk based approach,
supported by fire safety management processes and procedures to reduce the risk
as far as reasonably practicable.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Approved the Fire Risk Management Strategy subject
to the minor amendments tabled at the committee meeting.
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 Maintenance and Assets. A
short list of amendments to the wording within the appendices was tabled which set
out the fire prevention and protection measures to achieve the fire safety aim
of the Fire Risk Management Strategy (additional wording underlined).
As stated in item 1.2 (page 67) 2.2 (Page 70) 3.2.1 (page 72) 3.3.1(page
75) 3.4.1 (page 77) 3.5.1 (page 81)
“……a carbon monoxide alarm where gas installations are present” should
be read as “……a carbon monoxide alarm where open flued gas or solid fuel installations
are present”
As stated in item 1.2 (page 68) “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade
D system in existing houses and an LD2 Grade D system in new houses.” should be
read as: “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing houses and
an LD2 Grade D system in new houses or when materially altered.”
As stated in item 3.2.1 (page 72) “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3
Grade D system in existing flats.” should be read as: “BS 5839:6 2013
recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing flats and an LD2 Grade D when
materially altered.”
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked if the Fire Service had seen the strategy.
ii.
Questioned the compartmentalisation (stay put)
strategy.
iii.
Referred to the Council’s Zero Tolerance Policy on
p73 of the agenda, which dealt with means of escape and asked whether the
Council would impose a blanket ban of items being placed in shared areas which
were means of escape.
iv.
Questioned how tenants could be convinced to follow
a ‘stay put’ policy following the Grenfell tragedy.
v.
Commented that the Zero Tolerance Policy had been
fully debated at Housing Scrutiny Committee and alternative measures could be
put in place for residents. Gave an
example in Arbury where residents used to keep bicycles in shared areas and
extra bike rack provision had been provided so that bicycles did not need to be
stored in shared accessible areas.
The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets and the Corporate Health and
Safety and Emergency Planner and said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Confirmed the Fire Service had been consulted in
developing the strategy.
ii.
The compartmentalisation strategy complied with the
British Standard. There was an assumption that a building complied with the
Fire Strategy unless there was evidence to the contrary.
iii.
Confirmed the Council owned 8 semi-detached
properties which had been converted into flats.
iv.
A zero tolerance report was brought to the Housing
Scrutiny Committee in August, certain concessions had been made but the council
were trying to address safety concerns and means of escape out of buildings.
Understood that personal space was at a premium in a shared building but this
should not be at the expense of the safety to other residents in a shared
building.
v.
Work was being undertaken with the Home Ownership
Team and information was being put in the publication ‘Open Door’ to advise
tenants about the ‘stay put’ policy. Commented that if members had any further
ideas, officers would be happy to explore these.
The Executive Councillor referred to
paragraph 3.8 of the officer’s report and confirmed that all Council buildings
had been checked to ensure that they did not contain materials which were
present in the Grenfell accommodation.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation subject
to the officer’s tabled amendments.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation subject to the officer’s tabled amendments.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Lynn Bradley
Whether to proceed with the establishment of a Joint Shared Services Scrutiny Committee from May 2020
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
It was his view that Scrutiny needed to be
retained at each respective Council; the Councils would continue to work closely
and jointly with each other in relation to shared services.
ii.
There were various sizes of shared services,
there were medium size shared services for example Building Control and Legal
services and then there were larger shared services for example Planning, Waste
and Recycling and ICT and governance should be appropriate to the needs of that
particular service.
iii.
Noted there was a Joint Local Planning Advisory
Group (JLPAG) for the new shared Local Plan with South Cambridgeshire District
Council reflecting that joint arrangements worked well where joint assessment
decisions were needed.
iv. Several
shared services were still evolving, for example there was a large development
workload coming up regarding ICT and Councillor Robertson would be working with
officers and counterparts at the other two Councils regarding the Council’s
priorities for transformation.
v.
Executive Councillors were responsible for
shared services which fell within their portfolio. The Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee and other relevant Scrutiny Committees would continue to be
updated on the progress of shared services and committee members would
scrutinise the shared services through the presentation of the annual business
plans and annual performance reports.
vi. Noted
that there was no longer a plan to share Finance and Housing Management
services at this time.
vii. The
City Council focussed on pre-scrutiny, the other council’s operated different
scrutiny arrangements.
viii. Acknowledged
work was continuing to build the Planning Service as a joint service.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
Update on the proposed scheme and approval of the final legal arrangements.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report set out an update on the Park Street
Car Park Redevelopment Final Scheme.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Approved
Officer’s recommendation
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on
the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of
information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local
Government Act 1972
Following the debate members suggested amendments to the officer
recommendations.
The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the amended
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the amended recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Programme Director – Major Regeneration
To note the Local Government Ombudsman case decision and recommendations and endorse the action taken by officers in response.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The LGO upheld a
complaint relating to the application of the Council’s Moorings Policy.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Noted that LGO had upheld a complaint relating to
an unauthorised mooring;
ii.
Noted that the Head of Legal Services as the
Council’s Monitoring Officer had an obligation to report the findings to the
Council
iii.
Noted that the Committee was satisfied with the
action that had been taken (detailed in section 6 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 Development Manager.
In response to the report Councillors queried what the council had
failed to do.
The Development Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
There were delays in the consideration of this case
due to the complexity of the issues involved. The Local Government Ombudsman
felt the Council did not consider the individual’s circumstances in a timely
way.
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.
Lead officer: Alistair Wilson
Recommend this report to Council, which includes the Council's estimated and Treasury Indicators 2019/20 to 2022/23. Also, to revise any counterparty limits as applicable.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Council had adopted
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of
Practice on Treasury Management (Revised 2017).
The Code required as a
minimum receipt by full Council of an Annual Treasury Management Strategy
Statement which includes the Annual Investment Strategy and Minimum Revenue
Provision Policy for the year ahead, a half-year review report and an Annual
Report (stewardship report) covering activities in the previous year.
The half-year report had been prepared in accordance with CIPFA’s Code
of Practice on Treasury Management and covers the following:-
· The
Council’s capital expenditure (prudential indicators);
· A review of
compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits for 2019/20;
· A review of
the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2019/20;
· A review of
the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy;
· A review of
the Council’s investment portfolio for 2019/20; and;
·
An update on interest rate forecasts
following economic news in the first half of the 2019/20 financial year.
In line with
the Code of Practice, all treasury management reports have been presented to
both Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee and to full Council.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:
i.
Approve the report which
included the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2019/20 to
2022/23.
ii.
Approve an increase in
the Authorised Limit for External Debt from £300m to £400m (paragraph 5.3 of
the officer’s report).
iii.
Note the inclusion of
loans to the Cambridge City Housing Company and Cambridge Investment
Partnership on the Current Counterparty list shown 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 Head of Finance.
The Committee resolved by 3 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.
Lead officer: Steve Bevis
To approve a capital budget
following completion of an OJEU procurement for the appointment of a Lead
Designer and multi-disciplinary team to complete i) A
RIBA Stage 1 design report for the redevelopment of Cambridge Junction to
provide additional venue facilities and work space ii) A RIBA stage 1 site wide
master plan and report which identifies commercial opportunities in addition to
the venue redevelopment.
Cambridge Junction would like to replace Junction 1 (which has lifecycle
issues), and expand the arts and cultural venue with additional event, studio,
work and office spaces with a vertical redevelopment scheme on this site.
Cambridge City Council would like to further explore the potential of the
Cambridge Junction site for additional commercial capital development including
a potential partnership with Cambridge Junction CDC to assist their future
financial sustainability.
The team will be contracted to complete RIBA stage 1 work in order to submit an application for the next Capital funding round to be launched by Arts Council England (ACE) in April 2020. If successful, ACE will then fund RIBA stage 2-5 works.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding Cambridge Junction
Redevelopment RIBA Stage 1 works.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Approved
Officer’s recommendation
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Scrutiny Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to exclude members of the public from
the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be
disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue
of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of
Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
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.
Lead officer: Allison Conder
To recommend Council to resolve to adopt a new or revised Council Tax Reduction Scheme and any changes to Local Council Tax Discounts.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 23/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The
review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme sought to deliver three primary
objectives:
· Move towards a scheme that was more adaptable to Universal Credit
regulations.
· Provide clarity to Universal Credit claimants as to what their
entitlement to Council Tax Reduction would be.
· Mitigate against expected reduction in Government administration grants
for processing Council Tax Reduction claims.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Approved the proposed localised Council Tax
Reduction schemes (as set out in the officers report) subject to the
requirement for the Head of Revenues and Benefits to bring a report back to
Committee if there were any changes to the core schemes in the officers report,
or to the universal credit timeline (2023).
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 Benefits Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Queried the proposal that the Annual Review of the
Council Tax Reduction Scheme should be delegated to the Head of Revenues and
Benefits as commented that he would be keen to see the reports coming back to
the committee.
The Benefits Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Scheme would be uprated in accordance with CPI.
ii.
It was difficult to predict universal credit
migration, the City Council had 900 people on universal credit and South
Cambridgeshire District Council had 500 people on universal credit.
Following concerns raised regarding the delegation of the annual review
of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme to the Head of Revenues and Benefits. The
Executive Councillor suggested the following amendment to the summary of key
recommendations from April 2020 (additional text underlined):
i.
To adopt earnings based banded local Council Tax
Reduction scheme for Universal Credit claimants and to have fixed non-dependant
deductions for these claims.
ii.
To continue with the current Council Tax
Reduction scheme (to include annual uprating) for working age claimants who are
not in receipt of Universal Credit.
iii.
To agree uprating equal to September CPI for
income bands, amounts to pay and non-dependant bands and deductions.
iv.
To approve delegation of the Council Tax
Reduction schemes annual review to the Head of Revenues and Benefits, and
subject to the above recommendations being adopted, that these schemes continue
(subject to uprating) until March 2023. Any changes to the core schemes in
the officer’s report, or to the universal credit timeline 2023 will be brought
back to Committee.
v.
To provide transitional protection for
households transferring to the banded scheme on 1 April 2020.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the amended recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Alison Cole
To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2020/21, the net savings requirements, by year for the next 5 years, and revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
This report presented
and recommended the budget strategy for the 2020/21 budget cycle and specific
implications, as outlined in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) October
2019 document, which was attached and to be agreed.
This report also
recommended the approval of new capital items and funding proposals for the
Council’s Capital Plan, the results of which were shown in the MTFS.
At this stage in the
2020/21 budget process showed the range of assumptions on which the
Budget-Setting Report (BSR) published in February 2019 was based need to be
reviewed, in light of the latest information available, to determine whether
any aspects of the strategy need to be revised. This then provides the basis
for updating budgets for 2020/21 to 2024/25. All references in the
recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to the MTFS Version
3.0.
The recommended budget
strategy was based on the outcome of the review undertaken together with
financial modelling and projections of the Council’s expenditure and resources,
in the light of local policies and priorities, national policy and economic
context. Service managers had identified financial and budget issues and
pressures and this information had been used to inform the MTFS.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:
i.
Agree the budget strategy and timetable as
outlined in Section 1 [pages 5 to 7 refer] of the MTFS document.
ii.
Agree the incorporation of changed
assumptions and indicative net unavoidable budget pressures identified in
Section 4 [pages 20 to 22 refer]. This provides an indication of the net
savings requirement, by year for the next five years, and revised projections
for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Section 5 [page 23 refer]
and reserves [section 7 pages 30 to 33 refer] of the MTFS document.
iii.
Note the changes to the capital plan as set
out in Section 6 [pages 24 to 29 refer] and Appendix A [pages 37 to 41 refer]
of the MTFS document and agree the new proposals.
Ref |
Description/
£’000s |
19/20 |
20/21 |
21/22 |
22/23 |
23/24 |
24/25 |
Total |
SC646 |
Redevelopment
of Cambridge Junction |
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
SC658 |
CCTV
infrastructure – additional cost |
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
SC691 |
HR
and payroll – new system |
20 |
150 |
|
|
|
|
170 |
SC699 |
Corn
Exchange fire doors |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
SC672 |
Mill
Road redevelopment – development loan to CIP |
|
1,142 |
|
|
|
|
1,142 |
SC695 |
Cromwell
Road redevelopment – equity contribution |
|
329 |
333 |
|
|
|
662 |
SC696 |
Cromwell
Road redevelopment loan to CIP |
2,376 |
5,481 |
1,000 |
|
|
|
8,857 |
SC701 |
Dales
Brewery – replacement fire alarm system |
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Total
Proposals |
2,782 |
7,102 |
1,333 |
|
|
|
11,217 |
iv.
Agree changes to General Fund reserve levels,
the prudent minimum balance being set at £5.51m and the target level at £6.61m
as detailed in section 7 [pages 30 to 33 refer] and Appendix B [pages 42 and 43
refer] of the MTFS document.
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 Finance.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Noted an ambitious
capital programme and questioned whether there were adequate staffing levels to
deliver the services.
ii.
Questioned if the
Executive Councillor had a view on the increase in the amount of the Council’s
reserves.
iii.
Referred to p171 of the agenda and noted that this
was the second time that savings from shared services would not be
realised. Asked about the progress of
shared services.
iv.
Referred to savings requirements on p183 of the
agenda and asked if the figures were abstract estimates or based on factors
from the current situation.
v.
Referred to page 177 of the agenda and queried if
the New Homes Bonus was being used to fund officers supporting growth eg: within the Planning Service.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
There had been an increase in reserves through
underspending and growth in the business rates revenue. Reserves were seen as contingency funds. There was a high level of
uncertainty with the local government funding settlement, reserves would
provide some flexibility for funding.
ii.
Referred to comments raised in relating to savings
targets on p183 of the agenda, these were realistic targets of unavoidable
pressures based on an average officers believed to be
realistic.
iii.
Commented that it was likely that the New Homes
Bonus was likely to disappear in the next 4-5 years and funding would be
distributed in another way.
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Referred to p198-201 of
the committee agenda and commented that there were too many specific projects.
He acknowledged there had been some delays finalising some projects. Noted that
there was some s106 funding which needed to be spent otherwise there was a
requirement to return the funding back to developers. Noted there were items
where the council was waiting to obtain funding from external agencies.
Commented that the Council had staff who were capable of
delivering projects but that sometimes there were issues beyond the
Council’s control which prevented projects going ahead.
ii.
Savings had been
achieved for Shared Services through management restructures. Shared Services overheads needed to be looked
at.
The Committee resolved by 3 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.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 23/01/2020
Effective from: 07/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on the activities of the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the 1 July Strategy
and Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships
i. Noted the update provided on issues considered at the
meetings of the Combined Authority held on the 31 July and 25 September 2019.
Following the meeting the
Executive Councillor confirmed the following appointments to the Combined
Authority Committees:
·
Skills Committee – Cllr
Davey, (Cllr Sargeant Substitute)
·
Housing Committee – Cllr
Sargeant (Cllr Davey Substitute)
·
Transport Committee – Cllr
Massey (Cllr Sargeant Substitute)
·
Confirmed a change to the
Labour substitute member for the Overview and Scrutiny committee from Cllr
Davey to Cllr McQueen.
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 Chief Executive.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Questioned how well the constituent Councils in the
Combined Authority worked together.
ii.
The Combined Authority’s economic review referred
to 3 discreet economic sub-regions, which did not coincide with local authority
boundaries. For example the Greater Cambridgeshire
economic review would include areas which fell under East Cambridgeshire
District Council’s local authority area.
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Combined Authority could work better with the
constituent Councils.
ii.
There needed to be greater strategic focus on
the southern part of Cambridgeshire as a defined economic zone, both to
our benefit as a city and to maximise benefits for the wider adjacent
area. Work under the Local Enterprise Partnership didn’t take
Greater Cambridgeshire seriously enough in the past. The Combined Authority
Local Industrial Strategy was a big step forward and looked at planning,
sustainability, jobs, housing etc. East Cambridgeshire District Council had
been originally invited to play a greater part in the Greater Cambridge
Partnership (previously City Deal) but declined to do so at the time.
The Chief Executive commented that the Combined Authority had taken a
pragmatic approach when creating the economic sub-regions.
The Committee unanimously resolved to note the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
noted the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Antoinette Jackson