A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register

Decisions

Earlier - Later

Decisions published

19/03/2018 - Housing Investment Programme Proposal ref: 4727    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - Strategic Development of Park Street Car Park ref: 4726    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - Combined Authority Update ref: 4719    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - Cambridge Northern Fringe East ref: 4717    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - Annual Update on the Work of our Strategic Partnerships - S&T Portfolio ref: 4715    Recommendations Approved

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


13/03/2018 - Greater Cambridge Planning Service - 2018/19 Business Plan ref: 4710    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - Shared Internal Audit Service - 2018/19 Business Plan ref: 4709    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - 3C ICT 2018/19 Business Plan ref: 4708    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - 3C Legal Service 2018/19 Business Plan ref: 4707    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - Discretionary Housing Payment Update ref: 4706    Recommendations Approved

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


13/03/2018 - Air Quality Action Plan ref: 4704    Recommendations Approved

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


13/03/2018 - 3C Building Control 2018/19 Business Plan ref: 4705    Recommendations Approved

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


13/03/2018 - Shared Waste 2018/19 Business Plan ref: 4703    Recommendations Approved

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


15/03/2018 - Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision ref: 4659    Recommendations Approved

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


15/03/2018 - Annual Update on the Work of our Strategic Partnerships - Communities Portfolio ref: 4661    Recommendations Approved

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


17/01/2018 - HRA Garages Charging Review ref: 4636    Recommendations Approved

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


12/02/2018 - Budget Setting Report 2018/19 ref: 4635    Recommendations Approved

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


16/01/2018 - Introduction of Charge for Hire of Shopmobility Equipment ref: 4643    Recommendations Approved

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


16/01/2018 - Proposed Revisions to Market Fees and Charges for 2018/19 Financial Year ref: 4647    Recommendations Approved

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


16/01/2018 - Revisions to General & Sunday Charter Market Regulations ref: 4649    Recommendations Approved

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


16/01/2018 - Revisions to All Saints Gardens Terms & Conditions of Trading ref: 4648    Recommendations Approved

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


19/01/2018 - Community-Led Housing ref: 4640    Recommendations Approved

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


16/01/2018 - Shared Waste Service – Post Day Change Update ref: 4646    Recommendations Approved

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


19/01/2018 - New Build Affordable Housing Update ref: 4642    Recommendations Approved

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


19/01/2018 - New Social Housing on Housing Revenue Account Infill Site at Markham Close Garages ref: 4638    Recommendations Approved

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


19/01/2018 - New Social Housing on Housing Revenue Account Infill Site at Gunhild Way Garages ref: 4639    Recommendations Approved

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


19/01/2018 - Review of the Empty Homes Policy ref: 4641    Recommendations Approved

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


19/01/2018 - Housing Portfolio Revenue and Capital Budget Proposals for 2018/19 to 2022/23 ref: 4637    Recommendations Approved

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


16/01/2018 - ES&CC Portfolio Revenue and Capital Budget Proposals for 2018/19 to 2022/23 ref: 4645    Recommendations Approved

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


16/01/2018 - PP&T Portfolio Revenue and Capital Budget Proposals for 2018/19 to 2022/23 ref: 4644    Recommendations Approved

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


19/03/2018 - ICT GREATER CAMBRIDGE PLANNING SERVICE ref: 4634    Recommendations Approved

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


14/02/2018 - Independent Remuneration Panel-Special Responsibility Allowances Update ref: 4616    Recommendations Approved

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


14/02/2018 - External Audit Certification of Claims and Returns Annual Report 2016-17 ref: 4614    Recommendations Approved

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


14/02/2018 - 2017-18 Statement of Accounts - Accounting Policies and Significant Areas of Judgement ref: 4613    Recommendations Approved

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


14/02/2018 - Ernst and Young Audit Plan ref: 4615    Recommendations Approved

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


14/02/2018 - Nomination for Honorary Councillor ref: 4617    Recommendations Approved

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


14/02/2018 - Internal Audit Plan & Strategy 2018 / 2019 ref: 4618    Recommendations Approved

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


14/02/2018 - Draft Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 ref: 4619    Recommendations Approved

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