Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
Housing Investment Programme Proposal.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
Decision published: 17/07/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report detailed an Housing Investment Programme proposal.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
Transformation.
i.
Approved the Officer’s
recommendations.
Reason for the Decision
As
set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative
Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee resolved to exclude members of the public for this item
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.
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
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
Decision published: 17/07/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The
report proposed the redevelopment of Park Street car park to provide a hotel
over a basement car park to provide 225 car parking spaces including cycle
parking and facilities for electric car charging.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
Transformation
i. Noted the further appraisal of options for development and upgrading of
the Park Street car park carried out for the Council by Cambridge Investment
Partnership (CIP).
ii. Approved the principle that Park Street car park should be developed into
an upgraded basement car park with cycle parking facilities and with a hotel
developed above it in line with the proposal in section 2.1 of the report.
iii. Granted an agreement to lease to CIP
and request them to appoint an
appropriate developer to develop firm proposals for the scheme, and to request
CIP to submit the agreed scheme for planning permission
iv.Delegated authority to the Strategic Director, working with the CIP, and
the appointed Developer, to negotiate the final terms of agreement for approval
by the Executive Councillor in line with the following parameters
- The retention of the freehold of the site for the Council
- The provision of a 225 space car park and appropriate facilities, at no
additional cost to the Council, providing electric charging facilities and
cycle spaces, to be owned and managed by the Council. The intention will be for
a flexible design which may allow further changes in future
- An additional capital receipt for
the Council, for reinvestment in further site assembly/council housing
opportunities
- A reduced level of repair and maintenance charges over a short to medium
term period within the next few years
(owing to the new provision car park provision)
- An ongoing income from the car park (it is acknowledged that there will be a
loss of income during the upgrade period which is estimated at 20 months)
v. Confirmed that any capital receipt will be reinvested into HRA or General
Fund for investment in housing.
vi. Committed to report back to the Committee for information on the final
agreement details ahead of works commencing.
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 Strategic Director.
The Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to
the report:
i.
Expressed disappointment regarding the proposal as
had argued for housing development on the site.
ii.
Questioned the parameters that had been considered
as thought the housing development was originally going to fund the development
of the car park.
iii.
Commented that the City Council had committed to
delivering 500 affordable houses and he believed that this site would be an
opportunity to deliver housing on City Council owned land.
iv.
Asked whether the park street redevelopment was
required in order to deliver 500 new council homes.
v.
Asked whether a different receipt had been modelled
to the current proposal.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
A considerable amount of officer time had been put
into developing a proposal to include housing on the site however the cost of
providing affordable housing on the site made any such development unviable.
ii.
The cost of repairs to the car park were increasing
year on year and to completely upgrade the car park would require extra
funding; the delivery of housing was unviable on the site.
iii.
Confirmed that the intention was to explore
different financial options including a longer term return for the proposed
development.
The Executive
Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
The November Strategy and Resources Scrutiny
Committee report wasn’t just about affordable housing delivery, it was about
housing delivery. He asked why the Council should contribute to put housing on
the site when there would be no affordable housing.
ii.
The car park in its current condition was not fit
for purpose for future needs. The current proposal would fund the redevelopment
of a smaller car park and also raise money for the redevelopment of affordable
housing off site in the city.
iii.
To put the decision off for two to three years was
not going to help the council or the Cambridge community.
iv.
He had looked hard at the site and considered
whether it was the right environment for those in housing need to live. It was
felt that this was not an ideal location for affordable housing but the
resources that that could come out of the current development proposal could do
just as much good by funding affordable housing elsewhere in the city.
v.
The 500 homes that the council had committed to
building would be funded by the £70m Government devolution grant, Right to Buy receipts and by using Council resources.
Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Cantrill seconded an amendment to the recommendation, to
delete all after the first bullet point and insert ‘to request officers to
pause any further action in order to review the financial parameters applied to
a housing development, re-evaluating need for car parking and detaching the
funding for a replacement car park from the rest of this scheme.’
On a show of hands the amendment was lost by
3 votes to 2.
The Committee endorsed the recommendations
by 3 votes to 2:
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: Fiona Bryant
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
18/25/SR
Combined Authority update
Matter for
Decision
The report provided
an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined
Authority (CPCA) since the 22 January meeting of the Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
i. Noted the update provided on issues considered at the meetings of the
Combined Authority held on 31 January, 14 February and 28 February 2018.
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 asked the Executive Councillor to provide his comments and
thoughts on:
i.
The portfolio holders at the Combined Authority and
in particular the housing portfolio holder.
ii.
The Transport Assessment Cambridge project.
iii.
Why the Mayor took the Cambridge Metro project away
from the Greater Cambridge Partnership and asked how much the Mayor would
consult with Cambridge residents.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the
following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The Mayor appointed the portfolio holders for the
Combined Authority and had particular interest in community land trusts. The
Mayor was currently the Housing Portfolio Holder for the Combined Authority but
he thought that he may appoint someone else to this role in the future.
ii.
The devolution deal had transferred transport
strategy to the Combined Authority Mayor and this meant that he had a say in
strategic transport decisions. The Mayor recognised that the Great Cambridge
Partnership, the City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council should
have a say in transport decisions involving Cambridge. The Cambridge Metro
project didn’t have a clear enough brief when it was reported to the Combined
Authority but there was a stronger brief for the next stage. He would continue
to seek partnership working in the delivery of this project.
iii.
The Greater Cambridge Partnership would continue
its work and continue looking at routes to the west and south east of
Cambridge. The Mayor was looking to secure private investment for the Cambridge
Metro project.
The Committee noted the update.
The Executive Councillor noted the update.
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
An update and next steps report on Cambridge Northern Fringe East.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
18/24/SR
Cambridge Northern Fringe East
Matter for Decision
The report was intended to
update the Executive Councillor and the Committee on the current status and
proposals for the Cambridge Northern Fringe East site and to recommend next
steps.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
i. To note the
current status, indicative proposals and target timescales for the programme
and the continued engagement with Homes England on progression with the HIF
bid.
ii. Approved the timeline
for the Master Developer tender process and delegate the final approval to the
Strategic Director, in consultation with the Executive Councillor and
Opposition Spokesperson, noting that the decision to run a procurement in order to identify a master developer, was
in consultation with the Leader, recognising that the offer was not certain at
point of tender.
iii. To establish
the terms for an appropriate joint venture vehicle, working with the Strategic
Director, Anglian Water and advisers, subject to HIF bid outcome.
iv. Noted the
proposed timetable for preparing the CNFE Area Action Plan for the proposed
wider boundary area (contained in paragraph 4.2.6 and appendix 2a), which is
programmed to run in tandem with the HIF bid and with the subsequent regulatory process required for
relocation of the Cambridge Water Recycling Centre.
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 Strategic Director.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Questioned whether 7600 homes would be able to be
built and delivered on the site.
ii.
Requested that Opposition Councillors were included
to develop the Area Action Plans.
iii.
Questioned where the water treatment plant would
relocate to if the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bid was successful.
The Strategic Director and the Group Property Director from Anglian Water
said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The HIF bid put forward a proposal of 5000 houses
on the core site which was owned partly by Anglian Water and partly by the City
Council but it was hoped that if the core site got approval that this would be
a catalyst to build further housing.
Anglian Water and the City Council did not own land beyond the core site
and therefore the housing figures above 5000 houses were speculative figures.
ii.
Confirmed that if the HIF bid was successful then
officers planned to do more work and involve Opposition Councillors.
iii.
Confirmed that if the HIF bid was successful
Anglian Water would have to go through a process to look for alternative sites
to relocate to.
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: Fiona Bryant
To confirm the continued involvement of the Council in the partnerships based on an informed view of their added value and achievements.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on
the key external partnerships the Council was involved with as part of a
commitment given in the Council’s “Principles of Partnership Working”.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
i. To continue to work with the Greater
Cambridge Partnership and other growth-related partnerships and to work with
the new model of delivery for the Local Enterprise Partnership under the Combined
Authority, so that together we can address the strategic issues affecting
Cambridge, to the overall benefit of citizens.
ii. To
continue to work within the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership to fulfill
our obligations to help reduce crime and anti-social behaviour in the city.
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 Corporate Strategy.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Referred to p108 of the officer’s report and asked
whether the Housing Development Agency was truly a creature of the Greater
Cambridge Partnership and how the Leader saw this going forward given that the
views of Cambridgeshire County Council and South Cambridgeshire District
Council diverged.
ii.
It was understood that the Housing Development
Agency was intended to be self-financing and questioned whether the City
Council would have to pay in the future for its services.
iii.
Commented that it would be interesting to see how
the Greater Cambridge Partnership would relate to the Combined Authority in
relation to skills.
iv.
Made reference to the digital wayfinding project in
paragraph 5.9 and the City Access package in paragraph 5.12 of the officer’s
report.
v.
Asked whether the Cambridge Community Safety
Partnership was involved in the Police restructure in the City.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Cambridgeshire County Council had taken the
decision to transfer its assets into its own development company but they may
require the expertise of the Housing Development Agency to deal with more
complex issues.
ii.
South Cambridgeshire District Council had taken services
back in house but they may also require the Housing Development Agency’s
expertise on complex sites.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the
following in response to Members’ questions:
i. The Housing Development Agency was created before the devolution
arrangements.
ii. The Combined Authority was a commissioning body so it may be able to
lead on some of the projects.
iii. The City Council wanted to get the best out of the Housing Development
Agency and he believed that it would be self-financing as it could also win
projects from other people in the future.
iv. The fact that the Greater Cambridge Partnership focussed on skills was
important.
v. Confirmed that he had been consulted in advance about the restructure of
the policing in the City and across the force area.
vi. Confirmed that his focus for policing would be to maintain neighbourhood
policing and he would lobby for resources to continue to be focussed in the
city.
The Committee
endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0:
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: Graham Saint
Approval of 2018/19 Greater Cambridge Planning Service
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 13/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
To
consider the 2018/19 Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport
i.
Approved
the 2018/19 Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan
ii.
Delegated
authority to the Shared Service Management Board to agree final amendments to
the Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan in line with comments
received form all partner individual 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 report from the Joint Director of
Planning and Economic Development which referred to the strong working
relationships between the partner organisations with the shared services
increasingly supporting new ways of working, and the potential for greater
efficiencies within the organisations particularly around the use of technology
and modernisation
The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said
the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
There more staff in planning services at South
Cambridgeshire District Council who dealt with a higher volume of planning
applications per year; the types of applications were also different.
ii.
The planning service costs of both the City
Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council shown in the report were made
up of net costs; fees were set by Central Government and a series of charged
services such as pre application advice. There was a difference in charges
between the two authorities and service costs with direct service costs higher
for Cambridge City Council.
iii.
Ways of increasing income were being planned to
reduce the net costs.
iv.
Agreed that it was important that residents and
businesses in the city did not feel that they were subsiding SCDC. This would
be constantly reviewed but initially there would be an agreement of fixed costs
for some services.
v.
The City Council had a programme of conservation
area appraisals and would look to produce a management plan in conjunction with
SCDC.
The Committee (unanimously)
endorsed the recommendations..
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: Stephen Kelly
Approval of Shared Internal Audit Service 2018/19 Business Plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
The 2018/19 shared business
case for Internal Audit Services was presented for endorsement, the principles
of which were approved on the 13 July and 23 January 2017.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i. Approved the business plan at Agenda Item 6c of the
Officer’s report.
ii. Delegated
authority to the Shared Service Management Board to agree final amendments to
the business plan in line with comments received form all three partner
individual 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 report from the Head of the Shared Internal
Audit Service.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked what criteria and objectives were being
applied to assess the business plans.
ii.
Commented that the Internal Audit Service was the
eyes and ears for members to ensure that the council complied with its legal
obligations.
iii.
Asked whether there was sufficient capacity within
the Shared Internal Audit Plan to deal with unforeseen work that arose.
iv.
Asked how internal reviews were carried out for
services that were shared with other councils and where the service was led by
another council.
The Head of the Shared Internal Audit Service said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Resourcing was considered when the Shared Internal
Audit Plan was developed and the resilience of a shared service should provide
assurance.
ii.
He worked closely with his counterpart at
Huntingdonshire District Council, when an issue arose regarding a shared
service they would look to see which council was the host council and they
would take the lead to provide assurance to the council who had requested the
audit review.
The Executive Councillor commented that the
Shared Internal Audit Service was not only the eyes and ears of members but
also for managers to have services reviewed.
The Committee
endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0:
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: Fiona Bryant, Jonathan Tully
Approval of the 3C ICT 2018/19 Business Plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The 2018/19 shared business
case for 3C ICT was presented for endorsement, the principles of which were
approved on the 13th July and 12th October 2015.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i. Approved the business plan at Agenda Item 6b of the
Officer’s report.
ii. Delegated
authority to the Shared Service Management Board to agree final amendments to
the business plan in line with comments received form all three partner
individual 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 report from the Head of Digital and ICT.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked what criteria and objectives were being
applied to assess the business plans.
ii.
Asked if other authorities were following front end
re-engineering.
iii.
Asked whether the ‘Council Anywhere’ platform was
just being rolled out to the City Council or whether the two other councils
within the ICT shared service were also going to get the platform.
iv.
Queried whether the council who went first to
implement new ICT software would be subject to more disruptions to service
whilst troubleshooting issues were being resolved compared to the two other
councils within the shared service.
v.
Queried the server room consolidation project referred
to on p68 of the officer’s report.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
A reasonable level of ICT infrastructure
engineering had been agreed in the budget, business plan and route map. The
route map laid out the plan for timescales.
ii.
Part of the role of the Management Board, which was
made up of Directors from each Council, was to feed back on the performance and
quality of the delivery of the service.
iii.
Commented that ‘Council Anywhere’ was a national
initiative but that the City Council was going to be the first council within
the ICT shared service to receive the platform. The planned roll out of the
platform would be efficient to all three council’s within the shared service so
there shouldn’t be a big burden on the council that had the platform first.
iv.
Confirmed that there would be two server rooms
under the server room consolidation project, one in Shire Hall and one in
Huntingdon.
The ICT Development Manager said the
following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The City Council was going to get the first batch
of new ICT equipment, however in order to make financial savings, the equipment
for all three councils within the shared service was bought in one procurement
exercise.
The Committee endorsed
the recommendations by 4 votes to 0:
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: Fiona Bryant
Approval of 3C Legal 2018/19 Business Plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The 2018/19 shared business case for 3C Legal Services
was presented for endorsement, the principles of which were approved on the 13th
July and 12th October 2015.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i. Approved the business plan attached at Agenda Item 6a to
the Officer’s report.
ii. Delegated
authority to the Shared Service Management Board to agree final amendments to
the business plan in line with comments received form all three partner
individual 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 report from the Head of Legal Practice.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked what criteria and objectives were being
applied to assess the business plans.
ii.
Asked whether the quality of service that had been
provided over the past 12 months had been assessed.
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
In response to the question about criteria and
objectives, he referred to page 39 of the Officer’s report and the key
performance indicators for the service and also page 41 and 43 of the Officer’s
report.
The Head of Legal
Practice commented that the report contained the objectives for the Legal
Practice for the year ahead and the past year.
He would try and capture further information on external spend and refer
this to the quarterly management board meetings.
The Committee
endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0:
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: Fiona Bryant, Tom Lewis
To approve the carry forward to 2018/2019 of the unspent additional contribution.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on the funding
and use of Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) to support those affected by
the Welfare Reforms.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i. Approved the carry forward to the 2018/19 financial year the final unspent
additional DHP contribution (see paragraph 4.7 of the Officer’s report).
ii. Delegated approval for the future carry forward of any
underspent additional DHP contribution, to Head of Revenues and Benefits.
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 Benefit Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Found the reports useful for gathering data on
inequality.
ii.
Commented that the local housing allowance appeared
to have an upward trend.
iii.
Asked with the benefit cap whether more people were
moving onto the scheme.
iv.
Asked for officer’s comments on the Discretionary
Housing Payment.
The Benefit Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Council had a robust triage process and
considered every individual benefit cap referral. Where the Council could
support an individual into work the benefit cap did not apply. When the
individual was not subject to a benefit cap, discretionary housing payment
would not be made.
ii.
The Local Housing Allowance was based on a broad
rental market area.
iii.
Commented on the benefit cap that she had seen a
reduction in caseload and this was not being replaced.
iv.
The carry forward of the
underspend would allow the Council to support the most vulnerable for
the next few years. During which time a review of other grant income to support
Discretionary Housing Payments would be undertaken. Discretionary Housing
Payment support for Local Housing Allowance was generally a temporary support measure, however we are mindful that it is not always
possible to assist people to move, as quite often, individuals in receipt of
Discretionary Housing Payments had local caring responsibilities.
Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor
Bick seconded an amendment to the recommendation to delete paragraph 2.2 of the
recommendation.
On a show of hands the amendment was lost by
4 votes to 2.
The Committee resolved by 4 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: Naomi Armstrong
To approve the proposed Air Quality Action Plan for the Cambridge City Council area to be taken forward to public consultation.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 13/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the actions for improving areas of poor
air quality in the city and maintaining a good overall level of air quality as
outlined in the Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), 2018-2023.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.
i.
Approved the Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan
2018 – 23, as attached in Appendix A 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 Principal
Scientific Officer.
The report highlighted the work of Cambridge City Council;
Public Health England; Greater Cambridge Partnership and Cambridgeshire County
Council which identified a range of actions from the Air Quality Action Plan
(AQAP) and responsibility for ensuring they were progressed.
The identified actions fell in to three main categories;
• Reducing
local traffic emissions as quickly as possible to meet national objectives;
• Maintaining
air pollutant levels below national objectives;
• Improving
public health by reducing population exposure to air pollutants.
The AQAP had been prepared by the Cambridge City Council
Environmental Health team under the direction, support and agreement of the
AQAP Steering Group. The Steering Group would oversee the delivery of the plan
when adopted.
In response to Members’ questions the Principal Scientific
Officer; the Scientific Officer (Environmental Services) and the Executive
Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre said the following:
i.
The report had been compiled in partnership with
Cambridgeshire County Council, Greater Cambridge Partnership and Public Health
England, all of whom had a part to play to improve air quality in the City
ii.
It was not within Cambridge City Council’s gift
to improve public transport as they were not the responsible authority.
iii.
Cambridgeshire County Council and / or the
Greater Cambridge Partnership had the power and duty to assess the state of air
quality then action those proposed measures which included the improvement of
public transport.
iv.
The publication of the AQAP 2008 had led to
substantial investment of public transport in the city. This had been based on
the Euro Emissions Standards for Engines; upgrading buses from Euro 2 standard
to a Euro 4 or 5. Regrettably, there had been a failure in the reduction of
emissions between what had been set out on paper and what had occurred in real
conditions. The upgrade should have led to a 50% reduction of engine emissions
at the tail pipe leading to 25% decrease of nitro dioxide at the side of the
road. However only a maximum of a 10% reduction had occurred.
v.
Measurements of air pollutants were taken on
Chesterton Road and Chesterton High Street on a monthly basis and sent for
analysis. This included various locations in and across the city, such as
Station Road and Addenbrooks.
vi.
Non-traffic sources of air pollutants from
domestic and commercial heating were a minority but a signification
contribution to poor air quality in Cambridge.
vii.
There were issues with the large medical
research facilities being built in Cambridge as the preferred choice was to be
energy independent. These sites were closely monitored with each planning application
and further policies had been added to the AQAP to ensure an improvement in air
quality.
viii.
Public consultation would take place for each
action of the plan; extensive consultation had already taken place with various
representatives from the taxi trade regarding the introduction of electric
taxis. Part of the consultation process also included education and raising
awareness to the public.
ix.
Noted the comments sent in by Councillor
Gillespie regarding electric car clubs which had significant benefits; the City
Council and outside partners needed to encourage individuals to cycle in the
city and ensure that those individuals felt safe when cycling.
x.
Consultants had been appointed to undertake a
study for a ‘clean air zone’ in the city which should be reported back to
Committee in September.
The Committee (unanimously)
endorsed 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: Jo Dicks
Approval of 3C Building Control 2018/19 Business Plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 13/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the 3CBuilding Control 2018/19 Business
Plan.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
i.
Approved the 3C Building Control 2018/19
Business Plan
ii.
Delegated authority to the Shared Service
Management
iii.
Board to agree final amendments to the Building
Control Business Plan in line with comments received from all partner
individual Councils.
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 and the press 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)
endorsed 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: Stephen Kelly
Approval of Shared Waste Service 2018/19 Business Plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 29/06/2018
Effective from: 13/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report detailed the 2018/19 Shared Waste
business plan for approval.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Waste Services and City Centre.
i. Approved the 2018/19 Shared Waste business Plan.
ii. Delegated
authority to the Shared Service Management Board to agree final amendments to
the business plans in line with comments received form all partner individual
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 report from the
Head of Shared Waste Services.
The report highlighted the progress that had
been made over the last year which had established and stabilised operational
structures, controlled costs, and delivered on the objectives of the original
business plans.
In response to Members’ questions the Head
of Shared Waste Services said the following:
i. There had been approximately four or five long term
absences at one time over a period of thirty days; some had since left the
company or their health had improved.
ii. The
collection crews consisted of a number of staff who were older and more experienced;
the job was physically demanding and this did have an impact on those
individuals over a prolonged period of time.
iii.
Information was placed in the Council’s community magazine with the Customer Contact Centre phone number to report
when the bins had not been collected. Resident Groups were also advised of the
contact centre number which could be shared with residents.
iv. Collection
times were regularly reviewed; it could be beneficial to bring the collection
start time in line with South Cambridgeshire District Council at 6.00am,
missing the rush hour traffic and bins returned before residents left for work.
v. Collection
times to start later in the day would put pressure on the crews to empty their
refuse trucks before the tip closed.
vi. Thanked
the refuse crews and staff for their hard work over the winter months.
The Committee endorsed the recommendations
by 5 votes to 0.
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: Suzanne Hemingway, Trevor Nicoll
Recommendations to improve, protect and enhance Hobson's Brook.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 10/04/2018
Effective from: 15/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
Hobson’s Brook Corridor is an important green
infrastructure corridor extending between the natural spring at Nine Wells on
Cambridge’s southern fringe and running northwards in to the city centre.
Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision (covering
the period 2018 – 2028) describes the nature and character of the corridor,
defines various pressures faced and outlines management and maintenance
priorities over the next 10 years; based upon an assessment of historical
records and more recent data gathered.
It is
intended to guide activities which focus on water quality improvements,
ecological enhancements, maintenance and restoration work along with community
engagement activities within the corridor.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces
i.
Endorsed the Hobson’s
Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision as an evidence base to inform planning policy and
decisions, and to influence management and maintenance priorities.
ii.
Supported the
establishment of a delivery action plan setting out future investment
priorities in order to assist obtaining funded as needed.
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 Sustainable Drainage Engineer.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
There was a disappointing response rate to the
Hobson Conduit public consultation.
ii.
Queried if land owners near the Conduit,
particularly the University of Cambridge, were disengaged. If so, would this
cause difficulties regarding consent and funding for future work?
iii.
Councillor O’Connell offered to help engage the
University of Cambridge in the Hobson Conduit public consultation process in
her capacity as Ward Councillor.
iv.
Historically the Market Square fountain was an
important feature as the end of the Conduit and a source of drinking water.
Requested this be brought back into the Vision document, possibly as a way to
reduce the number of plastic drinking bottles in the city.
v.
Raised concern about the number of pollutants and
chemicals that could affect the Conduit and local water supplies through
surface run off from agricultural and industrial areas in/around/bordering the
city.
The Sustainable Drainage
Engineer said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The University of Cambridge were directly engaged
through stakeholder consultation. Further engagement work would continue in
future.
ii.
It was unclear if future problems would arise from
stakeholder disengagement.
iii.
The Vision document was not a contentious document,
which may explain the low consultation response rate. The Conduit was seen as
an asset to the city.
iv.
The majority (70%) of consultees were involved in
earlier stakeholder engagement work ie landowners
along the Conduit corridor such as the University of Cambridge.
v.
There was greater public interest in the visible
parts of the Conduit (eg the open brook) than
underground sections. Both were equally important but the open sections had a
higher profile as a public amenity. Funding would be easier to target for the
open sections.
vi.
Various water quality tests were undertaken over
time to ensure there were no adverse impacts from local farms or (new)
developments. There were no issues to report at present eg
floating pennywort or pesticide pollution. Part of the checks were to measure
and collate what was occurring with the brook ie what
was in/on it and whether this was good or bad.
vii.
Officers engaged with Pemberton Farms who were
major land owners on the south of the city. Land use and ownership around the
brook was changing over time.
viii.
Local wildlife charities were engaged in the
consultation rather than national ones as they were seen as more appropriate.
The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
Councillors Abbott and Barnett did not vote due to their declarations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. She undertook to raise the suggestion of
reconnecting the Market Square fountain to Hobson’s Conduit (as a potential
drinking fountain) with the Planning Department and Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.
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
To confirm the continued involvement of the Council in the partnerships based on an informed view of their added value and achievements.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 10/04/2018
Effective from: 15/03/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report provides an update on
the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board and Children’s Trust as a part of
the Council’s commitment given in its “Principles of Partnership Working”, to
set out annual reports on the work of the key partnerships it is involved with.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
Agreed to continue to work with the Health and
Wellbeing Board and the Children’s Area Partnership, at a time of change, to
ensure that public agencies and others can together address the strategic
issues affecting Cambridge and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens are
responded to.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny and the committee made no
comments in response to the report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.
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: Graham Saint
To approve a revised HRA garages charging structure.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 17/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Housing
Revenue Account managed a portfolio of 1,652 garages and 43 parking spaces,
which were let as separate tenancies on a weekly rental basis to a variety of
customers, including council housing tenants, leaseholders, and other residents
of the city, charities, business and commuters.
The current
complex variable charging structure for garages had been in place since a whole
scale review of garages in 2013/14. It was now considered timely to review and
simplify the process, particularly in light of new garages and parking spaces
available as part of the new build programme and in preparation for the
intended replacement of the existing Housing
Management Information System.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved
the garage and parking space charging structure as outlined in Appendix A of
the Officer’s report.
ii.
Approved
delegated authority to the Strategic Director to designate an area of garages
or parking spaces as being in a high value or high demand area, and therefore
attracting the higher rental charge.
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 Business Manager &
Principal Accountant, Shared Housing Finance Team.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Questioned the even-handedness of charging some
tenants more for their garages based on their addresses.
ii.
Questioned why tenant representatives had not been
involved in the review and requested better engagement in the future.
The Principal Accountant said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Confirmed that if renting a garage or parking space
was a condition of the tenancy, then those charges would be eligible for
housing benefit.
ii.
Confirmed that where tenants were facing an
increase in garage costs, these could be phased in over a 5 year period.
iii.
Garages in high value areas would not be classed as
high value assets.
iv.
Confirmed that sensible decisions would be made
regarding future development where the boundary between high and low garage
rents crossed the site.
v.
Housing officers were responsible for marketing
garage and discussed options with potential tenants on site visits.
vi.
Potential tenants were never forced to take a
property with a garage which incurred a cost and was unwanted.
The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 2 and one abstention to endorse the
recommendation.
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 propose Revenue and Capital Budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years 2018/19, (Estimate), 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 (Forecast). To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2018/19.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 12/02/2018
Decision:
The purpose of the discussion was to ask questions of the Liberal
Democrat Members on the Scrutiny Committee on their group’s budget amendment.
The Labour Members of the Committee asked the following questions. The answers provided by Liberal Democrat
Members immediately follow.
i.
B0008. Enhancement to Rough Sleeping Strategy
funded from increased empty homes tax. What is the basis for the calculations?
It was based on the current profile of
receipts received from empty homes and Cambridge City Councils share of the
government proposed increase to Council Tax Empty Homes Premium.
ii.
S0004. Why are you proposing to delete the
budget for Public Information Films?
It was hard to justify prioritising this
expenditure against other proposals.
iii.
Why are
you proposing a cut in paid time for staff to undertake union duties?
The
saving is based on the budget plan and would restore the pre 2015 position.
iv.
Would a
reduction to paid union time represent a real saving as union representative
are widely used at times of change to support the workforce?
The proposed cut is not based on the value of the contribution but
rather on the size of their client group. The workforce has reduced in recent
years. The service was adequately delivered, with less paid union provision,
before 2015.
v.
How would the risks
(of the proposed investment of houses within the Cambridge City Housing Company),
identified on p 24 of the report be mitigated?
The risks are similar to those already existing
within the housing company. Additionally, the proposed capital structure is
more conservative.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
Introduction of charges for the hire of Shopmobility equipment
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 16/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
To consider the options for the
shop-mobility service.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport
i. Approved the Introduction of annual
membership fee & hire charge for equipment whilst maintaining the shopping
escort and bus stop and Dial a Ride collection services.
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 Commercial
Operations Manager which referred to the withdrawal of funding contributions
from Cambridgeshire County Council in 2016 of £49,500. The shop-mobility
service had continued to operate using the General Fund to cover the £49,500
shortfall with a budgeted cost of £165,000 for the current 2017/18 financial
year.
The Commercial Operations Manager, the Head of Commercial
Services and Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Noted the comments regarding a valued service.
ii.
Research showed that Cambridge City Council was
the only local authority who offered a free shop mobility service with escorted
shopping and the ‘dial a ride service’.
iii.
Abled bodied lonely people did not have access
to the service.
iv.
Of the approximately 1500 service users a total
of 36% were Cambridge residents.
v.
With the introduction of charges a minimum
reduction of 20% in usage had been forecasted. This had been viewed as a
cautious approach which had been built into the budget, although the figure
could be higher or lower.
vi.
Service users would be given an opportunity to
provide feedback on the changes via different media services.
The Executive Councillor reiterated Cambridge BID and
significant trade representatives had been consulted, those who had responded
said that they would not make a monetary contribution but supported this
approach as a way of sustaining the service.
Councillor Tunnacliffe proposed to defer the decision of the
Committee in order to find alternative sources of revenue to maintain a free
shop-mobility service
Councillor Bick seconded the proposal.
The proposal was lost by 2 votes to 5.
The Committee endorsed the recommendation by 5 votes to 0.
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: Sean Cleary
Adopt recommended changes to market fees and charges for forthcoming financial year.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 16/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the proposed changes to the market fees
and charges for the financial year 2018/19.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Waste Services and City Centre.
i.
Approved the
price changes for market fees and charges for the financial year 2018/19 as set
out in 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 Markets and Street
Trading Development Manager.
The report highlighted that on the General & Sunday
Market, the Premium pitches continued to perform very well for all days of
trading. The Standard pitches also performed well, between Wednesday and
Sunday. To increase the attractiveness of the Standard pitches on Mondays and
Tuesdays on the General & Sunday Market, the proposal was to drop the
charge. To compensate for the associated reduction in income arising from the
proposed reduction in charge, would see an introduction of applying a marginally higher than corporate
recommended inflationary adjustment to the fees for the daily Premium pitches
and for the standard pitches, between Wednesday and Sunday.
In response to Members’ questions the Markets and Street
Trading Development Manager said the following:
i.
There had been no charge to the market traders
who took part in five night markets held in 2017 giving an additional
opportunity for income and potential new client base.
ii.
There had been a 70% spending increase for
cleansing the market than two years ago. This included in the increase an
additional 2 hours mid-day clean seven days a week.
iii.
Acknowledged that there was more that could be
done to improve the market.
iv.
Cambridge City Council offered free social media
classes to the market traders in order to promote their business and the
market.
v.
Believed the charges to be fair and balanced,
highlighting the reduction of charges of a standard pitch to trade in the
centre of Cambridge on Monday and Tuesday.
vi.
Traders also needed to take responsibility for
the cleansing and hygiene of the market. There had been a number of proposals
put forward in item 12 of the agenda (Revisions to General & Sunday
Charter) to improve the cleanliness and waste problems which had been
highlighted by the traders.
The Executive Councillor stated the Market Team worked very
hard to ensure that the market was run seven days a week. The team had recently
won the national award ‘Market Team of the Year’ and Cambridge had placed
second in ‘Britain’s Favourite Market’. She acknowledged the negative comments
from the survey but stated there were also positive comments. It was hoped that
the £10.00 pitches would encourage more traders which would bring more business
to all and have a full market on Mondays and Tuesdays.
One of the issues with cleanliness was the boards which the
traders were given on a daily basis and asked to return at the end of the day.
Due to instances of the boards being left out overnight (which hindered the
cleaning of them by the street cleansing team) this had prompted the change in
regulation.
The Executive Councillor concluded that she would look
further into the matter of the issue of the market being left in need of an
emergency clean in the morning (when required) and highlighted Cambridge BID’s
call out team for emergency cleaning.
The Committee endorsed the recommendations by 5 votes to 0.
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: Daniel Ritchie
Adopt proposed changes to the General & Sunday Charter Market Regulations.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 16/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the proposed changes to the Charter Market Regulations (CMR).
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.
i. Approved the adoption of the proposed changes to the Charter Market Regulations (CMR) Terms & Conditions as set out in Appendix A 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 City Centre Management, Markets and Street Trading Development Manager. The report noted the General & Sunday Charter Market Regulations had not been reviewed for seven years.
A number of the proposed revisions were to remove terminology that was no longer relevant whilst other proposals were aimed at improving the performance of the market.
There was no debate on this item.
The Executive Councillor did not take the decision but advised she would wait until five working days had passed to be in accordance with the access to information requirements of the Constitution.
This was because Appendix A referenced in the report which had the proposed recommendations had not been included in the agenda and was only published the day before the meeting.
The Executive
Councillor approved the recommendation on 22 January 2018.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor
Lead officer: Daniel Ritchie
Adopt proposed revisions to All Saints Gardens terms of market trading.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 16/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the proposed changes to the All Saints
Gardens (ASG) Market Terms & Conditions (T&C).
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.
i.
Approved the adoption of the proposed changes to the All Saints Gardens (ASG) Market Terms &
Conditions (T&C) as set out
in Appendix A 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 City Centre
Management, Markets and Street Trading Development Manager. The report noted
the All Saints Gardens (ASG) Market Terms & Conditions (T&C) had not
been reviewed for at least four years.
A number of the proposed revisions were to remove
terminology that was no longer relevant whilst other proposals were aimed at
improving the performance of the market.
There was no debate on this item.
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: Daniel Ritchie
To seek Executive Councillor approval to award grants to community groups for community-led housing funding.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 19/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
The award of grant by the Department for
Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Community Housing Fund to local
authorities to promote community-led housing, has led to a new initiative being
proposed by South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City
Council. It was designed to help
community groups deliver housing schemes on land identified by the community;
help make sure designs are right for the local area and meet the needs of
people in need of affordable housing.
ii.
The scheme would allow interested groups each to
bid for up to £4,500 to scope a project in their area as well as explore and
develop capacity to take approved schemes forward.
iii.
This report sought delegated authority for
awarding grants to such groups.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Delegated authority to a Strategic Director to award
grants of up to £4,500 each to community groups, to assist them to develop
proposals for community-led affordable housing through such models as
Co-housing, Community Land Trusts or self-build schemes.
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 Growth Projects Officer (Community & Culture).
The Growth Projects
Officer (Community & Culture) said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Grants would be widely publicised and
expressions of interest would be welcomed from many groups including:
Co-operative housing Groups, Community Land Trusts and low income groups.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
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: Julian Adams
Information report - no decision required.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 16/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the shared waste service ABCD
(Alternative Bin Collection Day) initial project review from planning and
design to month 9 of operations.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.
i.
Noted the report for information.
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 Shared
Waste Services which referred to the original business case creating a shared
service with new collection rounds. This had been devised to ensure efficiency
and to achieve target savings of £700,000 over three years. These changes meant
that residents had a change in day and / or sequence of bin collections, which
started on 27 February 2017.
The report provided a review of collections and the lessons
learnt over the nine month period.
In response to Members’ questions the Head of Shared Waste
Services and the Health and Environmental Services Director (South
Cambridgeshire District Council) said the following:
i.
Welcomed Members feedback.
ii.
Recognised that errors had been made. The
changes had been complex, difficult and on a large scale.
iii.
Lessons had been learnt and there were things
that could and would be done differently.
iv.
A Project Manager was now in place to oversee
the implementation of the ICT for shared waste services and had engaged with
the wider stakeholders and would continue to do so.
v.
Acknowledged that shared ownership of bins
stores did create a problem, particularly when one of the parties was a commercial
business but access issues were currently being addressed.
vi.
Apologised to all residents who had their bins
missed during collections.
vii.
Praised the hard work of the refuse crews who
had a very hard and physical job. They had shown great dedication to improve
the service with the high levels of successful collections over the nine months
and would continue to do so.
viii.
South Cambridgeshire District Council operatives
had always started at 6.00am while those who had transferred from the City
Council started at 7.00am. The reason was that those starting at 7.00am before
the transfer would have had very little travel time to their destinations. As
the refuse trucks left at 6.00AM from Waterbeach
there was a thirty minutes travel time in to the City. The route was carefully
planned to minimise noise around the City. This was one area of the service
which was yet to be harmonised but would be looked at once the best system has
been determined.
ix.
The new vehicles would also be quieter as well
as being environmentally friendlier.
The Strategic Director advised that a Shared Management
Board had been set up to oversee the amalgamation of future shared services and
would share the corporate learning from previous projects.
The Committee and the Executive Councillor noted the report.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor
Lead officer: Trevor Nicoll
Information report – no decision required.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 19/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
This report provided an up-date on the sites in the Council’s New Build
Housing Programme – whether recently completed; under construction or being
assessed in terms of feasibility and viability for development. The latter is
known as the Rolling Programme.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
The Executive Councillor noted the up-dated position of schemes.
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 Strategic Director (Fiona Bryant).
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Sought clarification regarding the status of
funding if projects were suspended.
ii.
Sought clarity on staffing structures and the
differing roles of the two Strategic
Directors.
The Strategic Director said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Clarified the term windfall sites as being sites
not currently in council ownership which could be brought forward for
development in partnership with other parties.
ii.
Confirmed that scheme proposals moved on an off the
list. Funding for suspended schemes was retained in the central pot.
The Committee and the
Executive Councillor noted the report.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
To approve the transfer of land at Markham Close Garages to CIP for the delivery of new social housing.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 19/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report provided details of the indicative capacity
of the site at 1-12 Garages, Markham Close.
Originally highlighted on the Development Rolling Programme (updated HSC
June 2017) it was estimated that the site had the potential to deliver 2
affordable homes. Following a more
detailed inspection this had now been revised to 4 No. 1 bedroom flats.
The report sought approval of a
capital budget for the HRA based on the indicative capacity study which had
been undertaken for the site and the outline appraisals referenced in the
report.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the indicative mix of the proposed scheme
ii.
Approved the indicative capital budget of
£855,190 to cover all construction costs, professional fees and associated fees
to deliver a scheme that meets an identified housing need in Cambridge City.
This sum had been allocated in the most recent publication of the Budget
Setting Report (January 2018).
iii.
Approved that the site is offered to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP)
to progress for development to deliver a scheme which will meet the strategic
aims of the Council in the delivery of new social housing. The scheme will be developed in accordance
with the CIP process which had been approved at Strategy & Resouces Committee on 9th October 2017.
iv.
Noted that the Executive Councillor had a
delegated authority to approve the transfer of land to CIP for the
redevelopment of the site at a later date. This would be subject to CIP
demonstrating that its development proposal meets the Council’s strategic aims
for the site and the development and delivery milestones are in accordance with
the CIP Approvals Process agreed at S&R Committee on 9th October
2017.
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 Interim Head of Housing Development Agency. The Committee noted that the
site was in King’s Hedges Ward and not Queen Edith’s as stated in the report.
The Interim Head of
Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The numbers of properties that could be
accommodated on the site was constrained by neighbouring properties and a
restricted access route.
ii.
The Planning Department and County Council Highways
Department had not expressed any concerns about the proposals.
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: Nicola Hillier
To approve the transfer of land at Gunhild Way Garages to CIP for the delivery of new social housing.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 19/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report provided details of the indicative capacity
of the site at 1-12 Garages, Gunhild Way. Originally
highlighted on the Development Rolling Programme (updated HSC June 2017) it was
estimated that this site has the potential to deliver 2 new family homes.
The report sought approval of a capital budget for the
HRA based on the indicative capacity study which has been undertaken for the
site and the outline appraisals referenced in the report.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the indicative mix of the proposed scheme.
ii.
Approved the indicative capital budget of £585,720 to cover all construction
costs, professional fees and associated fees to deliver a scheme that meets an identified
housing need in Cambridge City. This sum had been allocated in the most recent
publication of the Budget Setting Report (January 2018).
iii.
Approved that the site is offered to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP)
to progress for development to deliver a scheme which will meet the strategic
aims of the Council in the delivery of new social housing. The scheme will be developed in accordance
with the CIP process which was approved at Strategy and Resources Committee on
9th October 2017.
iv.
Noted that the Executive Councillor had a
delegated authority to approve the transfer of land to CIP for the
redevelopment of the site at a later date. This would be subject to CIP
demonstrating that its development proposal meets the Council’s strategic aims
for the site and the development and delivery milestones are in accordance with
the CIP Approvals Process agreed at S&R Committee on 9th October
2017.
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 Interim Head of Housing Development Agency.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Questioned how the properties being delivered
matched the current needs of those on the Housing Register.
ii.
Discussion of points to be raised in the response
to CIP: it’s not for profit status, how it was monitored for value for money
and how it was funded.
The Principal Accountant said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Clarified the position regarding disabled adapted
properties. These would be delivered by the development programme but would not
be available on every small scale development.
ii.
Stated that lessons learnt from concerns raised about
security of mailboxes on other sites would be incorporated into the design
process.
iii.
A design guide was in place for projects and an
expert in “Secure by Design’ would review plans.
The Executive Councillor stated that in
house staff had delivered new build properties to a high standard. However, the
team lacked the capacity to deliver all small scale project.
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: Nicola Hillier
To agree revisions to the Empty Homes Policy.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 19/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Empty
Homes Policy 2012 was in need of revision following operational changes and the
introduction of the Empty Homes Loan (2017).
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
The Executive Councillor approved the proposed changes and
the adoption of the revised Empty Homes Policy 2017 attached as 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 Empty Homes Officer (Private
Rented Sector).
The Committee
noted the following correction to 10.3 bullet point 4, of the Empty Homes
Policy:
The
City Council’s leasehold services if the owner wishes to sell and previously
exercised their Right to Buy.
Is
deleted and replaced with:
The City Council’s leasehold services,
if the owner had previously exercised their Right to Buy
and wishes to sell.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Thanked the Officers for their hard work on the
project.
ii.
Welcomed the achievement to-date.
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: Danae Evans
a) Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities
b) Consider the revenue budget proposals
c) Consider the capital budget proposals
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 19/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report detailed the budget proposals relating to this
portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2018/19 which
would be considered at the following meetings:
Date |
Committee |
Comment |
22 January 2018 |
Strategy & Resources |
Consider proposals / recommendations from all Scrutiny
Committees in relation to their portfolios |
25 January 2018 |
The Executive |
Budget amendment may be presented |
12 February 2018 |
Strategy & Resources |
Consider any further amendments including opposition proposals |
22 February 2018 |
Council |
Approves General Fund Budget and sets Council Tax |
Date Committee Comments
The report also included a recommendation concerning the
review of charges for this portfolio.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Housing
Review of Charges:
i.
Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s
services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A to the Officer’s report.
Revenue:
ii.
Noted the revenue budget proposals as shown in
Appendix B of the Officer’s report.
Capital:
i.
Noted that there were no capital bids or savings
presented for this portfolio.
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 Business Manager &
Principal Accountant, Shared Housing Finance Team.
Diana Minns suggested that consultation methods should be reviewed and
improved as current response rates, from families in particular, were very low.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the
recommendation.
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
a) Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities
b) Consider the revenue budget proposals
c) Consider the capital budget proposals
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 16/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the budget proposals relating to the
Waste Services and City Centre portfolio that were included in the
Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2018/19.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.
Review of Charges:
i.
Approved the proposed charges for this
portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s
report.
Revenue:
ii.
Noted the revenue budget proposals
as shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.
Capital:
iii.
Noted the capital budget proposals
as shown in Appendix C 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 Principal
Accountant (Services).
In response to Members’ questions the Principal Account
(Services) and the Head of Shared Waste Services said the following:
i.
Would report back the number of staff that the
5% pension increase (Visit Cambridge & Beyond VCB)
unbudgeted provision over twelve months related to and the total budget cost.
ii.
The charge to remove domestic appliances of
three items had always been included in the budget but as people generally
disposed of one item at a time this new charge for one item had been introduced
iii.
Suppliers of domestic appliances had a legal
responsibility to take them away if requested.
The Strategic Director confirmed she would advise outside
the meeting the level of electric power achievable on the vehicle replacements
referenced on page 74 of the agenda pack.
The Executive Councillor advised the Market Square Project
would be carried in conjunction with the movement and spaces project.
The Committee endorsed the recommendations by 5 votes to 0.
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: Chris Humphris
a) Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities
b) Consider the revenue budget proposals
c) Consider the capital budget proposals
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 20/03/2018
Effective from: 16/01/2018
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report detailed the budget proposals relating to the
Planning Policy and Transport portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting
Report (BSR) 2018/19.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
Review of Charges:
i. Approved
the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in
Appendix A of the Officer’s report.
Revenue:
ii. Noted the
revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.
Capital:
iii. Noted that
there are no capital bids or savings presented for this portfolio.
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
Accountant (Services).
Councillor Bick noted the increase in parking fees as a
‘step in the right direction’ and questioned what had prompted the change which
recognised a broader car park strategy (last year there was a reduction in
charges).
The Executive Councillor stated a good working relationship
had been established with Cambridgeshire County Council and Greater Cambridge
Partnership looking at transport issues in and around the City including ways
to reduce congestion; such as the County’s proposed removal of parking charges
at the park and ride sites. It was hoped that the change in parking fees would
encourage a proportion of drivers to change their habits and use the park and
ride sites or the bus network. This would be monitored over the year to see if
there had been a change.
The Committee endorsed the recommendations by 5 votes to 0.
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: Chris Humphris
To agree to £90,000 Cambridge City Council contribution towards ICT provision for the Greater Cambridge Planning Service as set out in the officer report. £60,000 did not have budget provision.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 19/03/2018
Effective from: 19/03/2018
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE CITY
COUNCIL
Record
of Executive Decision
ICT GREATER CAMBRIDGE PLANNING SERVICE |
Decision
of: |
Councillor
Robertson, Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources |
||
Reference: |
18/URGENCY/SR/01 |
||
Date
of decision: |
16/3/18 |
Recorded
on: 16/3/18 |
|
Decision
Type: |
Non-Key
Decision |
||
Matter for Decision: |
To agree to £90,000 Cambridge City Council contribution towards ICT
provision for the Greater Cambridge Planning Service as set out in the
officer report. £60,000 did not have budget provision. |
||
Why The
Decision Had To Be Made (And Any Alternative Options):
|
This is explained in the detailed officer
report attached. |
||
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
To agree to £90,000 Cambridge City Council contribution towards ICT
provision for the Greater Cambridge Planning Service as set out in the
officer report. This will be funded
from ICT provision for the shared service (£30,000) and via capital receipt
(£60,000)
|
||
Reasons for the decision: |
This is
described in the officer report attached. Part 4C
section 6.1 of the Councils Constitution, permits decisions to be taken which
are outside of the budget framework if the decision is: a matter of
urgency (answer-it is) it is not
practical to convene a quorate meeting of the Council (answer- it is not practical) and the Chair of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee agrees the
matter is of urgency. The next
available ordinary Full Council meeting is the 19 April 2018 which is too
late. |
||
Scrutiny consideration: |
The spokesperson of the strategy and resources scrutiny committee was
advised that the chair agreed that the
matter was urgent
|
||
Report: |
An officer report detailing the background and financial considerations
is attached. |
||
Conflicts of interest: |
None
|
||
Comments: |
This urgent decision will be reported back to the next Full Council
meeting on 19 April 2018. |
Cambridge City Council
Item
To: Executive
Councillor for Finance and Resources: Councillor Richard Robertson
Report by: Stephen
Kelly, Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development
Relevant scrutiny
committee: Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee
Urgent Decision
Wards affected: All
Wards
Greater Cambridge Planning Service ICT
Provision
Non - Key Decision
1. Executive summary
1.1 The
proposal for the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service was approved at the
Council’s Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee on 20 March 2017. One of
the key drivers for the success of this project is an appropriate single
software system.
1.2 Demonstrations
from the existing suppliers and another potential supplier has
been received. An independent consultant
also undertook a GAP analysis in a review of the current two planning systems
run by the respective councils.. It was identified that upgrading the current
Cambridge City Council (CCC) system, already embedded in CCC systems and
extending it to South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) on a phased basis
will optimise the functionality of the system and minimise the cost to
CCC.
1.3 The
proposal has been supported by the 3C ICT Project Board and the CCC Capital
Board subject to the allocation of additional project management resources
being allocated as mitigation to the risks identified.
1.4 The
costs of the upgraded software are to be shared proportionally between SCDC and
CCC, although in accordance with previous approaches project management is
shared equally. Apart from the benefit
of there being a single supplier, the proposal represents a small saving on
annual maintenance cost to CCC, with no increases over a five-year period.
1.5 Procurement of the upgraded software will be
through the Crown Commercial Services (CCS )
Framework.
1.6 The reason for an urgent decision is the need
to secure the benefits of the new contract before the end of the existing
(annual) contract and secure the project management resource.
2. Recommendations
The Executive Councillor, is recommended, under
urgency, to approve the expenditure of £90,000 as a contribution towards the
cost of ICT provision for the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service,
including £30,000 towards ICT project management:
3. Background
3.1 The
proposal for the creation of a Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service was
approved at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee on 20 March 2017.
Taking lessons from other shared service initiatives it was identified that one
of the key drivers for the success of this project is an appropriate single
software system around the Development Management functions (planning
applications).
3.2 There
are a limited number of software systems available in the market place. Based on discussions with other Shared
Planning Services it was estimated that the purchase of an entirely new
software system would cost in the order of £500,000, including project management
costs, a substantial investment. In
October 2017, (on a without prejudice basis) Idox
(current supplier to CCC since 2003), APAS (current supplier to SCDC) and
another potential supplier, DEF, were invited to present to the Joint Director,
representatives from 3C IT and the planning services at both authorities. This
aided the understanding of the principal systems currently available in the
market and their capabilities.
3.3 In
addition to this soft testing of the market, an independent consultant was commissioned
to undertake a GAP analysis in a review of the current two planning
systems. Neither current system was
found to provide the best customer experience or fully embraces the capacity
for agile, mobile and multi-site working, with both authorities still heavily
reliant on paper. Upgrading the current CCC system and adding the Enterprise
Module and extending use to SCDC in a single IT solution will optimise the
functionality of that solution. As Idox Uniform™ is embedded and linked in to other CCC
systems its continued use will allow continuity, and significantly minimise the
cost to CCC which would follow from the use of a new supplier, either Agile
APAS or DEF. The proposal is to provide Idox Uniform Enterprise ™ system at CCC, develop improved
work flow processes and undertake testing before data migration and roll out to
SCDC.
3.4 At
the earlier stage in the process of developing this proposal insufficient
information was available on the costs, procurement requirements and risks
involved for the project to be included in the CCC Capital Programme. The project has now been refined and the
procurement approach clarified.
Procurement of the software can be achieved from the CCS Framework,
without the need for the use of the OJEU process.
3.5 The key objectives
of the project have been identified as:
·
To provide improved and efficient workflow
systems
·
To provide a more effective performance
management system
·
To enable agile, mobile and multi-site
working
·
To facilitate a resilient and efficient
planning service across Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire
·
To prepare for the efficient transfer and
merging of existing data from the two software systems for use in the preferred
system
3.6 Several risks for the project have been
identified, in particular, the 3C ICT and the CCC Capital Board were concerned
that there would be a shortfall in ICT project management resources available
because of the number of other major ICT projects under way. To mitigate it was
recommended that an additional £60,000 be allocated, shared equally between the
two Councils, in line with other project management costs, to ensure that a
resource is available.
4. Implications
(a) Financial
Implications
·
Opting for acquiring software which enables
existing links to other CCC systems to be retained has substantially reduced
the costs from the initial estimated costs of £500,000. However, working through
the procurement options led to a delay in bring forward a more detailed
and refined capital bid.
·
The total cost of the acquisition of the
software is £140,000. As with other
elements of Shared Services this is divided proportionally, in this case based
on the number of users so that the CCC cost will be £60,000 funded by capital receipt. However, the 3C ICT Board and CCC Project
Board identified the need for additional ICT Project Management Resource in the
light of quantity of other current ICT projects, at a cost of £60,000 to be
shared, as in the case of other project management costs, equally between the
two Councils, bringing the total cost to £200,000.-
£90,000 to CCC and £110,000 to SCDC.
·
The current planning software maintenance
budget is £15,915 per annum, although the invoice for 2018/2019 is £18,000. For
the five years of the contract maintenance costs will remain fixed at £12,880.
(b) Staffing Implications
There are no direct staffing implications
associated with this urgent decision.
(c) Equality and Poverty Implications
An Equalities Impact Assessment has been undertaken
in respect of this project and it is determined that it is low impact, with
potential benefit from the opportunity for remote and flexible working for
work/life balance and the need for appropriate staff training.
(d) Environmental Implications
An assessment of environmental implications
associated with this project identified a low positive potential for the
reduction in the need to travel resulting from the development of remote and
flexible working, and a reduction in the use of paper through more efficient
processes.
(e) Procurement
There are no direct procurement implications associated with this
project as the CCS Framework will be used.
(f) Consultation
and communication
There has been liaison and discussion with the key planning service
staff and the 3C ICT team.
(g) Community
Safety
There are no community safety implications
associated with this report.
4. Background
papers
There are no background papers used in the
preparation of this report:
5. Appendices
Appendix A - The Business Case Part A and B.
6. Inspection of Papers
To inspect the background papers or if you have a query on the report
please contact:
Author’s
Name: Stephen Kelly
Author’s Phone Number: 01223 457009
Author’s Email:
Stephen.Kelly@cambridge.gov.uk
Lead officer: Stephen Kelly
To consider the Panel's recommendations for additional SRAs the Council requested that the Panel consider.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Made at meeting: 14/02/2018 - Civic Affairs
Decision published: 16/03/2018
Effective from: 14/02/2018
Decision:
The Committee received a report from the Democratic Services Manager which referred to Council’s request in June 2017 for the Independent Remuneration Panel to review a small number of councillor roles which had not been covered under the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) and to recommend whether any should receive a SRA.
Separately, the Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation (the Executive Portfolio responsible for Democratic Services) had requested a short report on the Mayoral allowance and the budgets allocated to it.
In response to Members questions, Graham Jagger (Independent Remuneration Panel Member) said the following:
i.
At the time of writing the report in October
2017 there had been insufficient time to establish the impact of Councillor
involvement, commitment and contribution to the appointment of the following:
a) Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly.
b) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.
c) Police and Crime Panel Member.
The Democratic Services Manager confirmed payment of the Mayor’s taxi travel was taken from Civic and Twinning Cost Centre while tips for the taxi drivers were from the Mayoral allowance.
Resolved (unanimously) to:
i.
Agree
with the IRPs recommendations for Council decision the following:
a) A special responsibility allowance
of 25% of the Basic Allowance (£1,120) be paid to the
Cabinet Member on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Combined Authority. This is for the
2017/18 Municipal Year ie backdated to May 2017.
b) To carry out further evidence gathering on the
work of the City Councillor responsibilities on the Combined Authority, Greater
Cambridge Partnership and Police and Crime Panel, reporting back to the Civic
Affairs Committee in the new Municipal Year.
ii.
To
agree that the statements on the Mayor’s Allowance which will be included in
the Mayor’s Handbook.
iii.
To
agree that the IRP’s remit will cover
the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s Allowance (including all hospitality
budgets) with any changes in time for implementation for the 2019/20 Mayoral
year.
Lead officer: Gary Clift
To receive the Ernst and Young report on their audit work on claims and returns in respect of 2016-17.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Made at meeting: 14/02/2018 - Civic Affairs
Decision published: 16/03/2018
Effective from: 14/02/2018
Decision:
The Committee received the Certification of claims and
returns annual report produced by Ernst & Young (EY), the Council’s
external auditor.
Suresh Patel summarised the audit plan and confirmed there
were no significant issues.
Resolved
(unanimously) to:
i. Note the contents of EY’s Annual report.
Lead officer: Charity Main
To note areas of significant judgement and approve any required changes in accounting policy.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Made at meeting: 14/02/2018 - Civic Affairs
Decision published: 16/03/2018
Effective from: 14/02/2018
Decision:
The Committee received a report from the Principal
Accountant (Technical & Financial Accounting) regarding the Audit and
Accounts Regulation. From the 2017/18 financial year these regulations had
changed the statutory timetable for the approval and audit of the Statement of
Accounts.
The reported highlighted the significant changes in
accounting policy and significant areas of accounting judgement in relation to
the Statement of Accounts.
In response to members’ questions the Principal Accountant
(Technical & Financial Accounting) said the following:
i. The example of
the draft revised expenditure and funding analysis was to show all the
information of the report in one place. This should simplify the reading of the
report and make it easier for discussion.
ii. The 5% referenced in the rateable values
across the life of previous valuation lists provided a broad percentage
consistent with those used by Central Government and finding advisors in
assessing the likely level of appeals.
iii. Noted the Acting Independent Person comments
on the Business Rate Appeals provision at the 5% level which he had deemed
reasonable but agreed that it would be kept under review.
iv. A report would be taken to the February
meeting of the Civic Affairs Committee each year at which approval would be
sought for any required changes in accounting policy and any expected
significant areas of judgement would be highlighted.
Resolved
(unanimously) to:
i. Note and approve the proposed presentational changes, accounting policies and significant areas of accounting judgement in relation to the 2017/17 Statement of Accounts.
Lead officer: Charity Main
To receive the 2017-18 Ernst and Young Audit Plan.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Made at meeting: 14/02/2018 - Civic Affairs
Decision published: 16/03/2018
Effective from: 14/02/2018
Decision:
The Committee received an Audit Plan from Ernst & Young
(EY) which summarised their approach to the audit of the financial statements
and the value for money (VFM) conclusion for 2017/18. The Plan also highlighted
what EY considered were the most significant audit risks emphasising the
implementation of the new financial management system as a substantial risk.
In response the report, the Principal Accountant (Technical
& Financial Accounting) explained that officers had chosen not to parallel
run during the migration process but had carried out extensive user acceptance
testing. This had included some aspects of parallel running of the old and new
system. Currently over 700,000 lines of
data from April 1 2016 to January 2018 had been migrated to the new financial
management system. In conclusion a staged approach had been taken to manage any
risks that may have occurred.
The Head of Finance confirmed Cambridge Investment
Partnership had transferred their year-end to March 31 2018 and would be able
to produce their accounts within the time scale set.
Resolved (unanimously)
to:
i. Note the contents of the external audit plan.
Lead officer: Charity Main
To consider the appointment of the Council's Independent Person.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Made at meeting: 14/02/2018 - Civic Affairs
Decision published: 16/03/2018
Effective from: 14/02/2018
Decision:
Councillor O’ Connell proposed the nomination of former
Councillor Colin Rosenstiel as an Honorary Councillor
Councillor Benstead seconded the nomination.
Resolved
(unanimously) to:
Recommend to Council the appointment of the former Councillor Colin Rosenstiel as an Honorary Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Tunnicliffe
Approval of following years work plan and the supporting strategy for the service.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Made at meeting: 14/02/2018 - Civic Affairs
Decision published: 16/03/2018
Effective from: 14/02/2018
Decision:
The
Committee received the draft Internal Audit Annual Plan and Strategy for 2018 /
2019 for consideration. The plan had been subject to consultation with all
Directorates, the Chief Executive and a copy shared with the External Auditor,
Ernst and Young.
The Head
of Internal Audit reassured Members that sharing the service with South
Cambridgeshire District Council did not mean a loss of quality in the detail of
future audit plans, and staff would work to align impending plans between the
two local authorities. This would also assist in balancing staff resources. The
recruitment process had begun to fill the three vacancies in the team.
Comments
from the Acting Independent Person regarding universal credit representing a
risk to the Council had been noted.
Resolved (unanimously) to:
i) Approve the draft Audit Plan and
Strategy.
ii) Approve the supporting Charter and the
Code of Ethics.
Lead officer: Jonathan Tully
To consider a draft Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 and a proposal for a Cambridge Weighting to bring pay rates to the equivalent of a minimum of £10 per hour.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Made at meeting: 14/02/2018 - Civic Affairs
Decision published: 16/03/2018
Effective from: 14/02/2018
Decision:
The Committee received a report from the Head of Human Resources
which set out a draft Pay Policy Statement as required under the Localism Act.
The Committee received a report from the Head of Human
Resources which set out a draft Pay Policy Statement as required under the
Localism Act.
In response to Members’ questions the Head of Human
Resources advised that the trade union claim (for the budget provision) was 5%
at an estimated cost of £1,000,000 to the Council. The impact of the proposed
national pay offer contained a considerable element of bottom loading (higher
percentage awards for the lower pay points) but there would be a minimal impact
of this as the Council paid the living wage.
Resolved
(unanimously) to:
i. Recommend to
Council the draft Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 attached as Appendix 1 of the
Officer’s report.
ii. Recommend to Council the proposal to
introduce a Cambridge Weighting to be paid to employees and agency workers
earning less than £10 per hour, with effect from April 2018.
iii. Recommend to Council to delegate authority
to the Head of Human Resources to update the weightings on each relevant pay
point, subject to the limit of £10 per hour, depending upon the current hourly
rate and the Real Living Wage supplement payable at that time.
iv. Note the position on the National Joint
Council (NJC) pay offer which relates to Bands 1-11 of the City Council’s pay
scales, the national Chief Executive pay claim, and the national Chief Officer
pay claim (relating to Strategic Directors and Heads of Service) and to receive
an update at the meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2018.
v. Recommend to Council to delegate authority to the Head of Human Resources to update the Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 should an NJC and/or Chief Executive and/or Chief Officer pay award be agreed.
Lead officer: Deborah Simpson