Decisions

Matter for Decision

 

The report referred to an overview of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure (NSIP) projects identified for delegations, and which are known/believed to follow the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, to enable an opportunity for members to express their views to officers.

 

The relevant projects covered by the delegation were:

·      Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Works relocation

·      East-West Rail

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

 

      i.         Noted this update report in respect of the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Works relocation and East West Rail.

    ii.         Confirmed agreement to an update on GCP infrastructure projects covered by the delegation being provided at the next meeting on 21 March 2023.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

In response to Member’s comment the Strategic Sites Delivery Manager and Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.         The Councils main representations on the proposals would be formalised prior to submission either at Committee or an Out of Cycle Decision approved by the Executive Councillor in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes dependent on time scale.

    ii.         The business case for East West Rail was dependent in part on the amount of growth that it unlocks. Initially, it had been advised that this was expected to be centred around the nodes and not be ribbon development along the track.

   iii.         Questions would be asked of East West Rail to determine what contribution they would make directly or indirectly in terms of growth in the Bedford to Cambridge corridor.

  iv.         It was vital to highlight with East West Rail that development referenced should be treated as part of a sustainable pattern of transport infrastructure to support growth, with careful integration of public transport solutions including with the Greater Cambridge Partnership projects.

 

Noted the comment that the local representative group set up by East West Rail required improvement and better use of that Forum was needed.

 

The Committee

 

Unanimously approved the Officer’s recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2021-2022

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

      i.         Agreed the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2021-2022 (included as Appendix A) for publication on the Councils’ websites.

    ii.         Delegated any further minor editing changes to the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2021-2022 to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Senior Policy Planning Officer.

 

In response to Member’s questions the Senior Planning Officer, Planning Policy Manager and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.         The development of large wet lab spaces throughout the City would be monitored by planning permissions.

    ii.         Acknowledged that change of use for retail units that did not require planning permission could be difficult to monitor. Options had been considered as to how it could be monitored such as available commercial data sets to determine if there was any information available, but this could be expensive. Physical surveys of every site could in theory be undertaken by officers but was not likely to be cost effective.

   iii.         As part of the Cambridge Local Plan Policy (CLPP) six district centres were monitored which had shown around 55% of those units remained as retail in the sub centres.

  iv.         Additional information was also used in conjunction with the CLP, consultants were used to provide additional information on retail, using a wide range of resources such as information on changing economy when looking at the change of use.

    v.         Officers had considered how it might be possible to collect information using a number of different service and organisations data bases to improve monitoring however some information would be covered under data protection regulations and data formatting meant that technology available to the service was not currently capable of such analysis.

  vi.         There had been no contact from residents’ groups in Cambridge City to undertake a Neighbourhood Plan, except for South Newnham, despite the Service Website promoting Nieghbourhood Planning. This was different in South Cambridgeshire where several Parish Councils had elected to produce Neighbourhood Plans.

 vii.         The Council continued to use S106 funding streams rather than the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) but would be reviewing the merits of this approach, and the costs levied against a backddrop of suggested change by Government to a new Development Levy.

viii.         Density was measured when the sites had been completed which varied year on year dependent on the size of site.

  ix.         To support the 2018 Local Plan, a Playing Pitch and Indoor Facility Strategy had been commissioned which included swimming pools. An update of these strategies would be prepared to test the proposals for the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

    x.         Evidence would be updated regarding the open space standards and green infrastructure needs which should be ready to present later in the year.

  xi.         The reported increase in amenity space of 3000sq m of D1 floorspace was as follows:

·      1700sq m for a new library at Magdalene College, not open to the public

·      Day nursey at Homerton College not publicly accessible.

·      New community space at Mill Road depot housing scheme.

·      Extension to Salvation Army Chapel.

 xii.         Previous quality of life indicators has presented challenges. For example, the Government ceased the Quality-of-Life survey. Through the emerging Local Plan Officers would have to determine a new set of indicators to look at wellbeing.

xiii.         Officers were undertaking work on ‘Placemaking’ which could form a focus on quality of life and wellbeing. Work was already underway to understand place metrics through specific datasets which would be presented to the relevant Committee when concluded.

xiv.         The emerging Local Plan would provide guidance on the development of Mitcham’s Corner; the service would be happy to meet with the West Chesterton Forum.

xv.         Floor space was being monitored through planning permission and did not consider whether the space was occupied or vacant.

 

The Committee

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport 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.

 

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommends that Councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Executive Councillor for Communities and Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 27 January 2022. The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory powers regulated by RIPA since February 2010. This report sets out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy.

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety:

 

·       Review the Council’s use of RIPA set out in paragraph 3.5 of this report.

·       Note and endorse the steps described in paragraph 3.7 and in Appendix 1 to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

·       Approve the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 to this report.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Head of Practice introduced the report.

 

The scrutiny committee unanimously supported the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensation granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

1. To agree to extend the councils contract for management services if required by Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT), until 31 March 2024
2. To note that the council’s management and operation of Storey’s Field Centre will end 31 March 2024 and that eight Council employed posts will then transfer under a TUPE arrangement, to a new operator appointed by Storey’s Field Centre Trust

Matter for Decision

The Storey’s Field Centre (SFC) on the Eddington Development in the Northwest of the City, opened to the public in February 2018 and has been managed and operated by the City Council under a contract for services with the Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT) since June 2016.

 

At some point the intended model for operating the new centre was changed from direct management by the Trust, to a contract for services. It was agreed that the Council would, in the first instance, enter a five-year services contract to operate the centre, partly to contribute community centre management expertise, but also to support establishment of the new centre to be able to meet the needs of a new community in a key city growth area. It was always the Council’s intention for this to be a medium-term arrangement, to support the newly formed Trust until a centre manager and team had been recruited, trained and a centre programme had been established.

 

At the request of SFCT the council’s contract for services has been extended twice, to give the Trust time to review the future direction of the centre, and to complete a procurement process to appoint a new operator. The current contract for services is due to end 31st March 2023.

 

SFCT undertook an open procurement process in July 2022 to seek a new operator, however, this was unsuccessful.

 

The recommendation made in the Officer’s report was for the council to make a further extension to its contract for services with SFCT for 12 months until 31st March 2024, for the following reasons:

a.    For SFCT to assess the first procurement process and have sufficient time to complete a second tender process if required.

b.    For SFCT to review and agree the future direction for the centre.

c.    To give the SFCT staff team greater certainty regarding their ongoing employment.

 

At the end of the contract term on 31st March 2024, the Council Community Services team would focus on working collaboratively with SFCT and The University to ensure a joined-up programme across community facilities in the local area and that requirements in the Section 106 agreement were met.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development

      i.         Agreed to extend the councils contract for management services if required by Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT), until 31 March 2024.

    ii.         Noted that the council’s management and operation of Storey’s Field Centre will end 31 March 2024 and that eight Council employed posts may then transfer under a TUPE arrangement, to a new operator.

 

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 Project Manager.

 

The Strategic Project Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The City Council were working closely with Cambridge University to reach a sustainable future for the Storey’s Field Centre.

    ii.         The City Council were working with Storey’s Field Centre Trust due to s106 obligations. No details had been given about a new contract operator.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The plant-based food motion passed at full Council in May 2022, required officers to:

      i.         Explore a wide variety of catering options for civic events (including consideration of social enterprises) and bring a costed report of fully plant-based catering options for civic events to a future Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee.

    ii.         Investigate the practicalities of using civic events to promote and showcase plant-based food options, alongside displayed information about the climate benefits and relative cost of different protein/food sources.

 

Following the motion, the Officer’s report provided a detailed, costed assessment of fully plant-based catering options and part plant-based options which could be served at future civic events.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development

Agreed:

      i.         All future civic events will promote plant-based food by always providing some plant-based food options and plant-based milks as standard (where reasonably possible).

    ii.         ‘Catering at Annual Full Council meeting in 2023 will consist of 75% plant-based options. This will increase to 100% plant-based in 2024, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.’

   iii.         Catering at all other civic events in 2023 (apart from the Annual Full Council meeting) will consist of 25% plant-based options with the remaining 75% made up of vegetarian and meat and dairy options. This will increase to 50% plant-based options in 2024, 75% in 2025, and 100% in 2026, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.

  iv.         The Council will no longer procure and serve beef and lamb at civic events due to their reported impact on greenhouse gas emissions and will reduce the amount of pork procured for civic events.

    v.         The Council will endeavour to procure services from social enterprises for civic events, providing that they are available and can offer the services required.

  vi.         The Council will use the Plant-Based Foods Association definition of plant-based food: foods made from plants that contain no animal derived ingredients.

 

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 Climate Change Officer.

 

The Climate Change Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The Council would keep advertising/promoting the reasons why it would provide plant based food at events ie trying to lower the Council’s carbon footprint.

    ii.         Officers would monitor the amount of food eaten at events to ascertain the take up of plant based food (compared to other types) and seek comments from delegates.

   iii.         Plant based food would be introduced in a phased approach so people could become used to it. The Council did not want to contribute to food waste by providing food event delegates did not wish to eat.

  iv.         Food providers were legally obliged to clearly label food, be mindful of food allergies and avoid contamination of food. Therefore it was not practicable to mix plant based food in with other types so people would eat it without noticing it was plant based food instead of meat/dairy etc.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report (amendment shown as bold text):

 

Proposer: Councillor Holloway

Seconder: Councillor Pounds

 

‘Catering at Annual Full Council meeting in 2023 will consist of 75% 50% plant-based options. This will increase to 100% 75% plant-based in 2024, and 100% plant-based in 2025, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.’

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report (amendment shown as bold text):

 

Proposer: Councillor Copley

Seconder: Councillor Hauk

 

‘Catering at Annual Full Council meeting in 2023 will consist of 100% 75% 50% plant-based options. This will increase to 100% 75% plant-based in 2024, and 100% plant-based in 2025, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.’

 

The amendment was lost by 4 votes to 3.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation as originally amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve in principle the proposal to review, extend and vary the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for dog control across the city and authorise officers to carry out consultation as required.

Matter for Decision

The Public Spaces Protection Order (Dog Control) 2017 (“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2023, having been successfully reviewed and extended for three years in 2020. At any point before expiry of the Order, the Council can vary or extend it by up to three years if they consider it is necessary to prevent the original behaviour (for which it was introduced) from occurring or recurring.

 

The Officer’s report revisited the terms of the current Order (Appendix A), and asked the Executive Councillor to approve, in principle, the proposal to extend and vary the Order in respect of dog control (including dog fouling, dog exclusion, seasonal dog on leads requirements, means to pick up faeces, dogs on leads and restriction on number of dogs requirements) within Cambridge, in the form set out at Appendix B and the locations set out in Appendix C; and to authorise officers to publicise the proposed orders and to consult, as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“The Act”).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development

      i.         Approved the proposal to extend and vary the Order for dog control within Cambridge in the form set out at Appendix B and the locations set out in Appendix C; and

    ii.         Authorised officers to publicise the proposed Order, as set out in Appendix B and C of the Officer’s report, and to carry out consultation as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager.

 

The Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         A Public Spaces Protection Order would only be implemented after consultation to ascertain what the public wanted. Details on the consultation process were set out on P66-67 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.         A Public Spaces Protection Order would be in place for up to 3 years. It could be reviewed or renewed any time. Officers tended to review how a Public Spaces Protection Order was working in order to recommend amendments for the next one.

   iii.         Public Spaces Protection Orders were considered for all City Council owned open spaces. If one was considered necessary Officers would observe an area, then write reports using public comments as evidence to ensure recommendations reflected how people wanted the area to be used.

  iv.         People could report issues to the Police or City Council via its webform. Noted Councillor suggestion to list website details as posters in areas covered by Public Spaces Protection Orders so people could see the areas affected.

    v.         The Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager did not recommend implementing a Public Spaces Protection Order or ‘dogs on lead restriction’ for unfenced open areas as there was no clear barrier to enforce/separate where a dog should not go.

  vi.         There had been no complaints about dogs in Lammas Land since 2017 so the Public Spaces Protection Order had been removed from play areas in this location.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Committee received the annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It provided an overview of the process, eligibility criteria, budget and applications received with recommendations for 2023-24 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Equalities, Anti-Poverty and Wellbeing

Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2023-24, as set out in Appendix 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2023 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager.

 

The Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Evaluation of recent grant rounds had been omitted due to Covid lockdown pressures. Details about the 2021-22 Annual Report were included in the Officer’s report. Councillors were invited to give feedback on information they would find helpful to include in future Annual Reports.

    ii.         Applications were judged on their own merits. Funding was not issued to applicants who did not meet criteria or provided insufficient information.

   iii.         Small grant funding was piloted as an initiative to support small groups who were new to the funding bidding process.

  iv.         The City Council were keen to explore how they could support charities and small groups in the long term but were limited by (available) City Council finances. Community Services were looking at options such as multiple bidding windows for funding instead of an annual one.

    v.         A number of stakeholder groups were involved in the small grant application question design to ensure they were fit for purpose and understandable for Applicants. The funding scheme was widely promoted to encourage take up. Officers were investigating alternative/additional ways in future. Officers used their knowledge to signpost Applicants to alternative funding sources if they did not meet City Council criteria.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) found there was fault by the Council “but not causing injustice”, in relation to how the Council investigated a noise complaint from a large item of commercial equipment within the city.

 

The LGO found the Council at fault for how it initially investigated the noise complaint, which it determined to not be a statutory nuisance. However, this did not cause the complainant a personal injustice, as the Council subsequently acted without fault in its further noise investigation work relating to the commercial equipment; and which came to the same conclusion, ie it was not a statutory noise nuisance.

 

There was no legal definition of a statutory noise nuisance, but further general information on this subject matter may be found in the footnote below.

 

The LGO also formally accepted that all the identified service improvement actions, offered by the Council to the complainant, had been fully actioned by the Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre

Noted the findings of the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman in respect of this case and the actions taken by the Council in response to these findings.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

The Environmental Health Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         This was the first complaint against the Noise Complaint Service referred to the LGO, or upheld by LGO.

    ii.         The Noise Complaint Service received several complaints which officers triaged to ascertain if they were statutory noise issues that the Council could take action against. The Council were unable to take action against other noise types.

   iii.         The complaints received by Environmental Service were generally because people were unhappy about something affecting them, not because they were unhappy with the Noise Complaint Service.

  iv.         Officers usually visited on their own noise sources that were the subject of a complaint. A colleague was taken if the situation became more serious and a second opinion was required. A second officer was not requested by the (lone) officer investigating the noise in this complaint.

    v.         It was down to an Officer’s professional opinion if noise was designated as a statutory nuisance or not.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

This report outlines work undertaken toward identifying a housing development scheme to be delivered through the Housing Development Agency, and seeks approval by the Executive Councillor for the proposed development and associated budget.

Matter for Decision

The report sought approval to proceed with the redevelopment of the former East Road garage site to provide circa 40 new highly sustainable homes. These new homes would be developed in parallel with the delivery of associated improvements to the adjacent housing estate.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

i.               Approved that the 100% affordable housing scheme (option A) be brought forward and be included in the Housing Capital Programme, with an indicative capital budget of £10,964,000. Budget will be drawn down from the sum already ear-marked and approved for investment in new homes.

ii.             Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme including the affordable rent levels, number of units and mix of property types, sizes and tenure as outlined in this report.

iii.            Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to adopt option B; to deliver 40% affordable housing (16 homes), with rents set at 60% of Market rent or Current Local Housing Allowance, whichever is lowest, should this be necessary to ensure continued financial viability.

iv.           Approved delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to agree the terms in relation to the sale of land, should option B be adopted and market sale units be delivered upon which a capital receipt to the council would be due.

v.             Approved that delegated authority be given to the Executive Councillor for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to enable the site to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council.

 

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 Housing Development Agency.

 

The Head of the Housing Development Agency and Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development said the following in response to the Committee’s questions:

      i.         Concerns raised by resident’s regarding the height, density and massing of the site would be looked at as part of the planning application process. Officers would engage with residents as part of this process.

    ii.         Noted concerns raised about the style of questions asked during the public consultation. The questions asked were high level questions as it was not a consultation on a detailed scheme at that time. 

   iii.         It was an ambition for the proposed development to provide 20% biodiversity net gain within the site, further information could be provided outside of the meeting.

 

Councillor Robertson requested for it to be minuted that although he supported the recommendation, he may need to support local residents if plans remained unchanged and there was strong feeling from local residents against it.

 

Councillors Porrer, Gawthrope Wood and Howard advised that they were also members of the Planning Committee and wanted to note that by supporting the recommendations they were not fettering their discretion should a scheme be brought to a future Planning Committee.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the annual bid round for grants made to organisations providing homelessness prevention services.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the award of homelessness prevention grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2023-24, as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer’s report.

ii.             Approve that funding from this grant programme is set aside so that a procurement exercise can be opened for a three-year contract for winter accommodation for rough sleepers, beginning from the winter of 2023-24.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Housing Services Manager.

 

The Housing Services Manager said the following in response to the Committee’s questions:

      i.         There were two reasons why the grant award to Cambridge Women’s Aid was lower compared to other organisations. The first was that the grant funding ideally needed to focus on preventing homelessness and the second was due to the introduction of the County wide domestic abuse service. It was felt there could be an element of double grant funding. This was a difficult decision to make.  

    ii.         The Council were fortunate as they had been able to use reasonably priced education accommodation for homeless people during the winter period. A longer-term accommodation solution was required, and the council was looking at carrying out a procurement process to have a 3-year contract with an organisation to provide such accommodation.

   iii.         The length of time grant funding would cover would be looked at as it was noted that there were benefits to providing grant funding annually, but it also provided more certainty to organisations if funding was guaranteed for a longer period of time (for example over a 3-year period).

  iv.         A small amount of grant funding was not allocated at this stage so that it could be used for unforeseen events during the year. For example, during the extremely hot weather in July 2022 some severe weather emergency provision was required and was funded from the funding which was not allocated.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes in favour to 0 against and 1 abstention to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

This report provides an update on the housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

 

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 Housing Development Agency.

 

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

      i.         Reports for housing redevelopment schemes usually contained an external grant funding option and an option funded without grant funding for viability. Currently grant is from Homes England or Right to Buy receipts. Neither of these funding sources would fund replacement dwellings (i.e.: development had to be for new housing).

    ii.         ERDF stood for European Regional Development Fund.

   iii.         ERDF funding had been sought for the development of housing at St Thomas and Paget Road unfortunately due to criteria the scheme was ineligible for the funding. The cost for delivering the development as a net zero carbon development was however still built into the budget.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report detailed a review of current council voids repair processes which had been undertaken, with a programme of communication with tenants and prospective tenants scheduled from January 2023.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the Council’s Void Management Policy and the revised re-let standard, recognising the factors influencing the Policy that has resulted in the prioritised works to be undertaken in the stock whilst vacant.

    ii.         Agreed the revised Cambridge Re-Let Standard and note how the Standard will be communicated to current tenants looking to transfer and those on the Housing Register, via the Council’s website and in the Sign-up pack.

   iii.         Recognised that this Policy will need to be reviewed again within 2 years, as the Government White Paper for Social Housing Regulation was not yet passed as formal legislation at the time of writing this report and we believe this will have implications on this Policy, once in place.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets.

 

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

      i.         Factors which contributed to the increased void management workload included properties earmarked for specific initiatives ie: rough sleeper accommodation which needed to be turned around quickly and properties required for decanting tenants from blocks earmarked for redevelopment, unauthorised alterations by tenants which necessitated remedial works by the council. 

    ii.         Tenancy audits would assist in picking up concerns about property conditions. Sub-contractors had been used to assist in-house officer’s workloads.

   iii.         Tenancy agreements contained a clause requiring tenants to maintain and leave a property in a certain condition. Costs spent by the Council to undertake any remedial works that are considered rechargeable repairs would be added onto a Tenant’s Arrears Account.

  iv.         Statutory provisions were available to gain access to properties when tenants refused access, however this was an un-tested area.

 

In response to concerns raised by the Committee, the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities advised that an update report would be brought back to Committee in a years’ time. It was also noted within recommendation 2.3 that the Void Management Policy may need to be updated in any event when legislation arising from the Government’s White Paper for Social Housing Regulation was passed.

 

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.

To note the Housing Ombudsman’s findings, the Council’s actions to remedy the fault and act on lessons learnt.

Matter for Decision

The report provides elected members with brief details of the Housing Ombudsman’s finding of fault in two cases. The report details why fault was found and outlines the actions the council has taken to remedy the matter for the customer and identifies areas for improvement in the future.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the information contained within the officer’s report.

    ii.         Approved the remedial actions outlined and measures established to reduce or eliminate the risk of repeat mistakes in future cases.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing.

 

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

      i.         Asked the Committee to note that it was standard procedure on a stage 2 complaint response to refer people to the Housing Ombudsman if they were not satisfied with the response provided by the Council. It was noted that not all Council’s did this as standard practice.

    ii.         Advised that the pilot hospital discharge scheme was ended for a number of reasons. This included the fact that the funding from Central Government had ceased, and that the Council already had other processes in place.

   iii.         It was accepted that the complaints had arisen from officer errors. Training had been put in place to ensure that the issues did not arise again.

 

The Committee resolved by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the status of the compliance dashboard with reference to Electrical Inspection Condition Reports. The compliance team were currently reviewing and consolidating Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) and Electrical Installation Condition Reports (EICR) data. The heating services and maintenance contract was to include the delivery of electrical inspections reporting from November 2022. The request related to Electrical Inspection Condition Reporting as data was being reviewed and verified and had not been completed at the time of reporting.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to the Committee’s questions:

      i.         The cause for concern cards which were used by officers when undertaking inspections of properties had been updated to include damp, mould, condensation and fuel poverty concerns. It was noted that any officer within the council could refer concerns to the Condensation Team.

    ii.         The high proportion of concerns raised regarding condensation came from people living in older solid wall properties. It was expected that the number of concerns raised about condensation would increase over the winter months.

   iii.         The email address to report concerns about damp, mould and condensation to was condensation@cambridge.gov.uk.

  iv.         EIC stood for Electrical Installation Certificate and EICR stood for Electrical Installation Condition Report. An EIC could be accepted for an upgrade to a whole system within a property and it could reset the timer on the condition report.
An EIC could therefore act as a condition report for a new installation provided that it covered the whole system. The difference between an EICR and an EIC was that an EICR included observations which an EIC did not.

    v.         It was noted that there were some delayed repairs and complaints arising from a change in the heating services contractor. Datasets could be provided on request. Officers were monitoring the performance of the new contractor to ensure that performance of repairs was back up to 98-100%.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.