Decisions

To agree the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Preferred Options and supporting documents and evidence for public consultation.

Matter for Decision

The First Proposals (Preferred Options) represented the next stage in the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan being jointly prepared by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. It was proposed the public consultation would take place between 1 November and 13 December 2021.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

  i.  Agreed the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (preferred options) (Regulation 18) (Appendix A) for public consultation;

  ii.  Noted the First Proposals Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix B) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appendix C) and agreed them as supporting documents to the First Proposals that would also be subject to public consultation;

  iii.  Agreed the following supporting documents to the public consultation: (a) Topic papers for each theme (Appendix D) (b) Statement of Consultation, including the Councils’ consideration of and responses to representations received to the Issues and Options consultation 2020 (Appendix E); (c) Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (Appendix F); (d) Draft Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground (attached at Appendix G) (e) Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix H);

  iv.  Agreed the findings of the following background document that informed the First Proposals and was proposed to accompany the public consultation: (a) Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Appendix I and errata at appendix J);

  v.  Noted the findings of the following background documents that have informed the First Proposals and are proposed to accompany the public consultation (see Background documents to this report): (a) Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Conversation (issues and options) (Regulation 18) data release published September 2020 (b) Interim Evidence published in November 2020 (c) New Evidence published August 2021; 6. Agree that any subsequent material amendments be made by the Lead Member for Planning Policy in Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, in consultation with respective Chairs and Spokes;

  vi.  Agreed that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning Policy in Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, in consultation with respective Chairs and Spokes.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Joint Director of Planning Policy and Economic Development introduced the Officer’s presentation which outlined the first proposals and where the project was in the process.

 

Following a detailed presentation from the Planning Policy Manager and the Engagement and Communication Lead Officer, the following responses were given to Members’ questions. The questions were taken under four headings:

 

Needs and Numbers

  i.  Affordable housing (AH) was a key element to the Plan; it was important to maximise delivery of AH through the Plan.

  ii.  If the number of homes calculated were not provided this could increase commuting into Cambridge as the jobs in the City increased and would put pressure on accommodation costs.

  iii.  The job market in Cambridge was extremely successful which brought both benefits and disbenefits, increased commuting, a scarcity of housing for those working in Cambridge which impacted the rising cost of housing.

  iv.  The Climate Change Study had stressed the importance of homes being located appropriately for jobs in the city to reduce the volume of long-distance commuting.

  v.  A complex modelling exercise had been undertaken to quantify the growth of the job market; it sought to identify those sectors/jobs which would continue to draw people into Cambridge and who needed to be housed in locations that provided good access to those jobs. This would also address the quality of life issues which have been highlighted in the emerging Plan.

  vi.  Noted the comment that on p345 the reference ‘200,000 vehicles crossing the boundary every day’, should be 200,000 vehicle movements crossing the boundary every day.

 vii.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines sustainable development to included economic, social, and environmental considerations. Therefore, the emerging Plan needed to look at delivery of the governments definition of sustainable development which meant it did not just look at the housing need but had to look at the economic needs of the area for the Plan to be found sound.

viii.  The price/cost of workspaces in Cambridge had increased significantly which had an impact on small and local businesses as well as large companies.

  ix.  Within the emerging Local Plan, a flexible supply of employment land had been allocated, whether for multinational or local businesses. It was important to ensure that small local businesses were not priced out of the market.

  x.  Noted the comment there was an increased chance of achieving the goal of 40% affordable housing in the urban extension than adding new homes into new settlements.

  xi.  Work had been undertaken to try to determine the trajectory of water consumption; a wider water resource management plan for the region is being prepared which was expected to identify long and shorter term measures for supplementing or changing the existing supply arrangements  - in recognition of the impact upon the chalk streams that existing abstraction was having.

 xii.  The Environment Agency were due to review the abstraction licences for Cambridge Water from the aquifer as part of the regional water planning process.

xiii.  There was a regional planning process to address water issues and a Water Resources Management Plan was due to be published next year. This timeline meant that Officers would be aware of the outcome of the process of that Plan before the more formal stages of the emerging Plan were concluded.

xiv.  While consideration had been given to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER), the emerging Plan did not seek to provide for the economic growth rates referred to in that plan but followed its recommendation and  was informed by additional evidence considering the need for homes and jobs in the Greater Cambridge area;

xv.  Officers would advise what the split of the 20,000 office and industrial positions were from the 58,500 jobs created during the Plan period outside of the meeting. 

 

Proposed sites and green space

  i.  The definition of sites referenced as the ‘edge of Cambridge’ and the ‘city of Cambridge’ followed the Issues and Options Consultation which had categorised site by location. When viewing the digital map of the emerging Plan the locality of these sites would be clearer to the reader.

  ii.  When viewing the Plan digitally the reader would be able to search by area.

  iii.  With reference to the BioMedical Campus Policy S/CBC, noted the comment that the proposal submitted through the call for sites from  landowners, from Jesus College, St John’s College, Pembroke, and Cambridgeshire County Council.

  iv.  The Plan identified an appropriate windfall allowance within the Cambridge area and South Cambridgeshire area; these figures had been determined by a housing delivery study.

  v.  The annual monitoring report published by the Council highlighted locations of sites and anticipated sites which would be brought forward including windfall sites. The data which showed the completion of sites could be found through the annual survey. With this data it would be possible to undertake further tracking of assumptions around the windfall sites and the cumulative impact as it was important to understand the infrastructure needs.

  vi.  Noted the comment there was no reference to cumulative impact under the banner of health and wellbeing.

 vii.  Noted the suggestion the CBC Addenbrookes site would come under greater scrutiny for use of the green belt.

viii.  The issue of open spaces would continue to be looked at throughout the Plan process; it was important to get the right balance between off site contributions towards green open spaces

  ix.  There was a policy proposal which would ensure a good level of self-builds would be provided.

  x.  Noted the recommendation that the needs of Gypsy, Romany, and Travellers needed to be accommodated. Currently an assessment was being undertaken regarding this matter; permanent provision and / or temporary space would be investigated based on the needs collated from the results.

  xi.  The delivery study explored issues such a market absorbency, market trends, and current issues in the area; these would be considered when determining if the sites could be delivered at a faster rate.

 xii.  Central Government had a substantial stake in the two sites identified in the Plan for faster delivery. The Council’s expected to engage with Homes England on the matter of new/additional tenures and at ways in which more accessible housing could be delivered. 

xiii.  The Housing Strategy would also explore the ongoing issues around the delivery of affordable housing and the build to rent properties.

 

Environmental issues – policies

  i.  Noted the advice that it would be helpful to provide additional information on article 4 directions (which can add additional controls for changes of use that do not otherwise require planning permission) regarding retail centres, so the public have a greater understanding of the meaning of article 4.

  ii.  Noted the suggestion the wording on the section regarding retail centres could be changed from Cambridge city centre and village centres to local centres within the city.

  iii.  The people and place responsive design did highlight community engagement to inform design decisions and would look to develop this point further. 

  iv.  Believed the Plan did take a strong and innovative approach regarding visitor accommodation but noted the comments regarding better control of short term lets.

  v.  Work would begin on the statement of consultation for the plan which would address community engagement.

  vi.  The digital glossary would allow the reader to click on a word such as neighbourhood plan or article 4 and an explanation of the term would appear.

 vii.  As part of the consultation, residents would be welcome to put forward policy suggestions to be carried over from the existing plan or new policies for consideration.

 

Resilience/ structures to support the plan

  i.  Believed that through evidence and engagement work to date, the Council was in a good position to understand the infrastructure and collateral requirements required as part of the Plan process with those external agencies who would assist with delivery.

  ii.  It was important to recognise the issues of working with external agencies, such as utilities companies, or external partnerships such as the Greater Cambridge Partnership, to ensure the growth strategy could be met by all involved or whether due to the level of growth had to be rethought.

  iii.  Through the independent examination process the deliverability of the plan would be tested.

  iv.  The emerging Plan related to several internal and external documents which could be used as an evidence-based document when speaking to Central Government.

  v.  The 10% buffer included in the number of new homes to the year 2041 would allow flexibility and safeguarding of supply.

  vi.  Officers would be exploring whether it was possible to seek agreement with Central Government for greater flexibility over issues such as  the 5-year housing land supply (as Oxfordshire had done as part of the housing and growth deal for their area). This discussion could be progressed with government as part of the ongoing work surrounding the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework.

 vii.  The Plan would be accompanied by a viability assessment. Such an assessment had been carried out at this current stage which had demonstrated that the proposals were reasonably viable. Polices and standards were developing which would be fed into the viability assessment for further work.

viii.  Noted the conversation around resilience from the utility companies, climate change resilience and the wish to expand on community resilience in the Plan.

  ix.  Would investigate whether it was possible to take out the word ‘options’ from the title Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Preferred Options (Regulation 18) – For consultation.

  x.  Noted the point that it needed to be clearer that approximately 11,500 homes were required for the new plan; 37,000 homes were existing commitments.

 

The Committee

Resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations and congratulated Officers on their efforts to produce such outstanding work.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any

Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

- To agree a joint response to the government consultation ‘Creating a vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc’ with Cambridge City Council

- Endorse the shared environment principles; and,

- Supports the future development of an Arc Environment Strategy which will provide for how the principles can be delivered.

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to agree Cambridge City Council’s response jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council, to the Government's Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation for which the deadline for responses was 12th October. Also, for Cambridge City Council to endorse the locally led Environment Principles produced by the Arc Leadership Group.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

i.   Agreed a joint response with South Cambridgeshire District Council to the Government’s Creating a Vision Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

ii.   Endorsed the shared Environment Principles at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report hereto.

iii.   Supported the development of an Arc Environment Strategy which would provide for how the principles could be delivered.in the Officer’s report.

iv.   Agreed to write to Anthony Browne MP and Daniel Zeichner MP requesting they support the Environmental Principles at Appendix 2 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

In response to Members’ questions Officers said the following:

  i.  Noted Members’ assumption that rail would be electric and should be the only option.

  ii.  As reported at the previous Planning and Transport Community meeting, the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes had in response to East West Rail Informal Consultation Stage expressed their support of electric rail only.

  iii.  Important to understand the environment principles had been formed by the local authorities and would be difficult for central Government to ignore if all local authorities were to approve them.

  iv.  The consultation was aimed as a ‘first conversation’ with communities across the arc. This was not the primary channel for Local Authorities as there were work streams which they were being engaged upon.

  v.  Believed it was important to put forward the Council’s position in relation to the emerging Local Plan.

 

Councillor Bick proposed an additional recommendation:

  i.  To write to Anthony Browne MP and Daniel Zeichner MP requesting they support the Environmental Principles at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report.

 

The additional recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee

The recommendations in the Officer’s report were voted on separately by the Committee, the votes were as follows:

 

  i.  The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendation i as set out in the Officer’s report.

  ii.  The Committee endorsed the recommendation ii as set out in the Officer’s report by 8 votes to 0.

  iii.  The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendation iii as set out in the Officer’s report.

  iv.  The Committee unanimously endorsed the additional recommendation iv to write to Anthony Browne MP and Daniel Zeichner MP requesting they support the Environmental Principles at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report

 

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.

 

Matter for Decision

This report summarises a complaint upheld by the Housing Ombudsman Service relating to a housing repair, acknowledges that there were shortcomings in relation to working practices and sets out the action taken in response.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

·      Noted the findings of the Housing Ombudsman Services in respect of this case and the actions taken by the Council in response to these findings.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing.

 

The Committee 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

This report provided an update on the housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the Combined Authority programme.

    ii.         Noted the work undertaken to date toward development of the new housing programme for 2022-2032.

   iii.         Delegated authority to the Section 151 officer to start the process to set- up a housing company as a Registered provider with a full report of the details of this proposal to be brought to a future committee.

 

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 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

Two garage sites had been identified for a proposed Net Zero Carbon pilot: St Thomas's Road Garages and playground (Coleridge) and Paget Road Garages (Trumpington).

 

The scheme was being brought forward because it represented an opportunity to redevelop existing garage sites to create new additions to the Councils rented housing stock, built in accordance with Net Zero Carbon Standards. It was hoped that the project would be seen as an exemplar for the region and will facilitate knowledge transfer of Net Zero Carbon technology

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the scheme budget of £3,947,000. This is split between St Thomas’s Rd Garages (£2,105,000) and Paget Rd Garages (£1,842,000). Part of the scheme budget totalling £265,0000 (£141,000 and £124,000 respectively) is subject to a successful bid to the ERDF to cover the cost of the uplift from Passivhaus to Net Zero. 

    ii.         Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for housing to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in 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 Committee received a report from the Head of the Housing Development Agency.

 

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.

 

This report updates the committee on work undertaken to date toward outlining regeneration opportunities across the councils stock, and recommends approval by the Executive Councillor of proposed approaches to regeneration activities. This report is accompanied by an updated regeneration policy detailing the council’s approach to engaging with local residents and stakeholders.

Matter for Decision

 

The Council committed to a proposed new delivery programme of 1,000 new Council homes at the Housing Scrutiny Committee on 24th September 2020.

 

The city’s constrained boundaries as well as emerging differences in quality standards across new and old council housing stock has led to a proactive approach by council officers to reviewing the potential for estate regeneration as part of the programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the progress made to date towards identifying possible suitable candidate sites to be considered for regeneration as part of the new housing programme and the estates that have already been identified.

    ii.         Noted that the programme of review of estates will be carried forward including survey work and consultation with residents. Ward Members will be consulted prior to the commencement of survey work and prior to the commencement of consultation with residents on particular estates.

   iii.         Approved the revisions to the Council regeneration policy as set out in Appendix 2 and discussed in Part 5 of the officer’s report and to add the policy to the council’s lettings policy.

  iv.         Approved that the scheme be brought forward at Aylesborough Close with an indicative capital budget of £19,030,000 to cover all site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees.

    v.         Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme at Aylesborough Close including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in this report. 

  vi.         Approved that, subject to Council approval of the budget, delegated authority be given to the Executive Councillor for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to enable the Aylesborough Close 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.

 vii.         Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to commence Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings on Leasehold properties to be demolished to enable the development at Aylesborough Close, should these be required.

viii.         Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.

  ix.         Noted the work done to date toward investigating the potential for modular rooftop and infill development across the Council’s holdings as outlined in Part 7 of the officer’s report.

    x.         Approved the inclusion of airspace developments in the programme of new housing development for which finance has already been made available.

  xi.         Approved the outline approach of proceeding with a Joint Venture partnership as the preferred method for implementation of modular rooftop (airspace) development, subject to further investigation and a further report.

 xii.         Authorised the Head of the Housing Development Agency to approve a site for a pilot project subject to consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, the Head of Housing, the Head of Finance and the Ward Members.

 

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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

        i.       Tenant and Leaseholder representatives had insisted that a letter was sent to tenants and leaseholders if their estate was being considered as part of the regeneration programme.

      ii.        Noted that a rigorous examination of sites proposed for regeneration would be undertaken and that this would include what further works were needed and any alternative options.

    iii.        Noted the proposal to use a joint venture to deliver the air space programme and queried if local people would be trained to retain specialist knowledge and skills in Cambridge.

    iv.       Questioned why a tenant in rent arrears might not be offered alternative housing. Referred to page 284 of the agenda.

      v.       Noted reference to compulsory purchase powers and demolition notices in relation to Aylesborough Close and queried what steps were taken to inform the community about these processes.

    vi.       Noted reference to roof top developments and queried if this could happen on existing homes. Asked what steps would be taken to support existing residents. Did not want the living standards of existing residents lowered as a result of these proposals.

  vii.        Noted that the number of units on site was doubled and asked if the density on all sites would be increased.

 

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

        i.       Confirmed that they were only in the early stages of the joint venture air space project and that local labour and supply chains would be encouraged.

      ii.        Most tenants were on social rent, new homes would be built for affordable rent. There were clear provisions in the Council’s Lettings policy; tenants who were affected by redevelopment would be awarded emergency housing status and would therefore get top priority for rehousing.

    iii.        Confirmed that modular roof top developments would involve building on top of existing houses. There were benefits to this type of development as it was a good way to get improvements to existing housing stock for example adding a lift to the development.

    iv.       The recommendations proposed in the officer report were the same as those used on previous reports in relation to formal notices. Compulsory purchase powers had not had to be used before as they had been able to work with existing tenants. If it got to the point where there was only one tenant preventing the development going ahead then more serious options may need to be considered.

      v.       Noted that each site needed to be assessed on its own merits. Development was a planning led process, they were not working to a fixed density on sites.

 

The Executive Councillor commented:

        i.       That the council was only at the initial stages of exploring potential sites for redevelopment, no decisions had been made, they were only at the start of the process.

 

The Committee resolved:

- unanimously to endorse recommendations 2.1 and 2.2.

- unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.3.

- unanimously to endorse recommendations 2.4 to 2.8.

- by 7 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations 2.9 to 2.12.

 

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

A Shared Ownership Policy has been produced to outline the Council’s approach to the management of the current units of shared ownership within the Housing Revenue Account, as well as the approach the Council will take to support current shared owners in working towards or achieving 100% ownership.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the Shared Ownership Policy for current stock.

    ii.         Agreed that the Council promotes staircasing, to 100% ownership where financially feasible, with current Shared Ownership Leaseholders.

   iii.         Agreed the revised approach for deciding on the repurchase of shared ownership units

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

        i.       Noted that flexible tenure allowed leaseholders to sell back shares to the Council in times of hardship and expressed concerns about the removal of an option for people who were struggling financially.  Asked if there were any current examples and the costs involved of offering flexible alternatives.

      ii.        Queried who set the cost of re-buying shares in a property.

 

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

           i.          Short of repurchasing shares in a property (which as the report outlines the Council would only do if it made strategic sense for the Council to do so) the Council does not directly offer any intermediate housing options. With regard to social/affordable housing, there is a paragraph in the Council Lettings Policy which states:

 

4.12.1 In line with the ‘Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in England’, Cambridge City Council will usually only allocate social housing to homeowners in exceptional circumstances. However, the City Council may allocate housing that is in low demand. Applicants who are homeowners will usually be allocated a Band D status. In exceptional circumstances Cambridge City Council may consider a homeowner’s status. For example, Cambridge City Council may allocate housing to applicants who require support and whose age qualifies them for housing for older people, but who have insufficient financial resources to access housing for older people in the private sector.

 

If, like any other potentially homeless applicant, a shared owner has to sell their shares or defaults on the mortgage, is facing repossession and does not have the financial means to secure an alternative housing option the Council, through its homelessness prevention services, can assist an applicant to access the private rented sector through rent in advance and a rent deposit or via our Housing Benefit Plus scheme which offers a one or two year rent subsidy and employment support to help a household get back on its feet.

    iii.        The Council used a valuer to calculate the buy-back value of shares in a property. This was based on market value and depended on the percentage of the share.

 

The Committee resolved:

- unanimously to endorse the recommendation 2.11

- unanimously to endorse the recommendation 2.12.

- by 10 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation 2.13.

 

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 sets out a car parking strategy for both existing residents’ car parking and future new build sites. Its aim is to provide a template for parking management at new and existing City Homes neighbourhood car parking areas across the City. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Agreed to the approach to parking as set out in Figure 1 of the officer’s report and utilise this approach across new build sites, except for those that are managed by third parties (e.g. Management Company).

    ii.         Agreed to use Cambridgeshire County Council’s Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) enforcement on the existing resident car parking areas identified by City Homes in the future.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.         Noted the system for issuing permits was poor and the proposals should improve services.

    ii.         Queried provision for active travel and access for the deliveries.

   iii.         Queried car club provision and expressed concern with the equality implication that ‘the issue of carers will be looked at’ and noted that informal carers would have no-where to park.  Noted that tension could arise if there were no spaces for workmen or contractors to park.

  iv.         Noted there were no EV charging points and queried the council’s strategy taking into consideration that the deadline for when diesel and petrol cars would no longer be produced would be 2030.

 

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

        i.       Noted the report was the start of the process and hoped it would make the process easier.

      ii.        Officers were working with the County Council regarding access and an area had been identified for e-cargo bikes. Access for deliveries and contractors where a barrier existed typically worked on a fob system with the ability to ring a flat for deliveries. In terms of e-cargo bikes, they wouldn’t expect them to use the barrier as there would usually be a cycle lane out. If not, a fob system would allow them entry and exit.

    ii.         Car Clubs were part of the Council’s Design Guide and would become increasingly important as car park ratios declined. The amount of car club spaces would also depend on how close and how many bays there were to the development.

   iii.         Noted that Environmental Health Officers were working with County Council Officers on a pilot on-street EV charging scheme.

  iv.         Noted that new build sites would be well served for EV charging provision but that further consideration needed to be given to existing sites.

 

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 approve the revised Empty Homes Policy for adoption.

Matter for Decision

The Empty Homes Policy is due for review every three years. The review of the Empty Homes Policy 2017 was delayed due to the Covid19 pandemic. The revised Policy reflects operational changes at Cambridge City Council, mainly the removal of the Empty Homes Loan and the inclusion of partnership working with Town Hall Lettings, the Council’s social lettings agency.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved and adopted the revised Empty Homes Policy 2021 attached as Appendix 1 to 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.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

        i.       Asked to see a table showing the number of empty properties and length of time empty. Also for a link to the Empty Home Officer’s list of empty properties to the Council tax list of empty properties.

      ii.        Said it would be interesting to see if there were clusters of empty properties.

    iii.        Asked how many properties were empty due to probate delays.

    iv.       Queried if more information could be included on the Council’s website to explain why properties may remain empty for some time.

 

The Empty Homes Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

        i.       There were 2 long term empty properties, over 10 years on their list due to probate delays.  There was not a list of which properties were empty solely due to probate.

      ii.        Asked to be sent details of empty properties that the committee were aware of.

 

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing (Part 1)

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

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

·      2021/22 and future year revenue budgets, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of changes in these and the need to respond to unavoidable pressures and meet new service demands, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix D and summarised in Appendices G (1) and G (2) of the document.

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing to recommend to Council (Part 2) to:

   iii.         Approved proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 21 October 2021.

  iv.         Approved proposals for new housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 21 October 2021.

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

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

        i.       Queried the cost of building new homes versus the cost of retrofitting older properties.

      ii.        Asked to see the greenhouse gas impact of the development proposals (ie: the effect on emissions if the council didn’t do anything).

 

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

      i.         No councils had been successful in gaining partnership status with Homes England, officers had a meeting with them the following day for feedback on their application. The benefit of having strategic partnership status was that it would have guaranteed a grant for the whole of the development process.

    ii.         Some registered providers had been successful in gaining strategic partnership status and these were generally larger organisations than the City Council.

   iii.         Ditchburn Place had some issues with void properties whilst refurbishments were being carried out but this was necessary to enable the refurbishment to be undertaken.  The Covid pandemic also had an impact as the vulnerable nature of residents and the number of communal areas meant that they weren’t able to re-let the properties. They were now able to re-let and were down to the last few properties.

 

The Committee resolved:

- by 10 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations 2.1 – 2.2.

- by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations 2.3 – 2.5.

 

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.

 

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

Matter for Decision

The report provided 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 current position of the Council regarding Compliance, and the progress of ongoing associated works.

 

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 Risk and Compliance Manager.

 

The Interim Risk and Compliance Manager and Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The asbestos register included garages as it covered solid structures.

    ii.         Would follow up whether the emergency lighting had been fixed.

   iii.         Had requested the Internal Audit Team considered potential for learning in relation to the gas safety issues, with a report coming back to this committee when that work is completed.

  iv.         Future reports would include an update on Hanover and Princess Courts and Kingsway until works had been completed.

    v.         Nobody would be left without heating for their home. If tenants had gas central heating, the proposal was to change them to electric central heating. 19 homes to date had been capped off.

 

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 presented the revised Under Occupation Scheme Policy. The proposed changes reflected the Council’s intention to provide help to more tenants who wished to move but lacked the financial resources to do so.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the revised Under Occupation Scheme Policy as set out in appendix 2 of the officer’s report.

    ii.         Approved the implementation of the revised Under Occupation Scheme Policy from 1st April 2022.

   iii.         Extend the spending limit under this scheme in Financial Year 2021/22 by £10,000 to a total £31,900 through virements from underspent budget areas, with BSR adjustments applied if necessary through the next budget cycle

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing.

 

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

        i.       The fundamental driver is that no-one suffers financial hardship.

 

Councillor Dalzell proposed the following amendment, additional text underlined and deleted text struckthrough.

Under ‘2. Recommendations’ add an additional recommendation:

‘2.3  To extend the spending limit under this scheme in Financial Year 2021/22 by £10,000 to a total £31,900 through virements from underspent budget areas, with BSR adjustments applied if necessary through the next budget cycle.’

 

Under ‘3. Background’, amend:

3.7   To address the issues outlined, the council seeks to introduce the following:

·      In the current financial year, raise the financial cap on this scheme by £10,000 now through virements from underspend budgets, or through adjustments in the 2022/23 HRA Budget Report if required.

·      From 1 April 2022, reduce the under-occupation payment so that more tenants can benefit from the scheme

·      Introduce a Financial Statement assessment so that those who may be experiencing financial hardship are prioritised and the burden of debt is minimised or avoided.

 

Under ‘6. a Financial implications’

Approval would be given for overspends on the current budget for 2021/22 by up to £10,000 funded through virements from other budgets, which can be further supported by additional funding in 2022/23 HRA Budget Setting Report if required.

The budget of £21,900 for 2022/23 will remain unchanged and a mid-year review of the impacts of the new policy will take place in September 2022. To help inform the mid-year review, additional performance monitoring will be implemented to assess if the aims set out in this report have been achieved and financial adjustments considered within the MTFS.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to accept the amendments.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.