Decisions

Recommendations (part 1) a to k were chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair /Tenant Representative) and recommendations (part 2) I to w were chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

As part of the 2021/22 budget process, the range of assumptions upon which the HRA Business Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy were based, have been reviewed in light of the latest information available, culminating in the preparation of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

The HRA Budget-Setting Report provides an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It sets out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and final budget proposals and is the basis for the finalisation of the 2021/22 budgets.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Review of Rents and Charges

a)   Approved that council dwellings rents for all social rented properties be increased by inflation of 0.5%, measured by the Consumer Price Index(CPI) at September 2020, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of 1.5%,with effect from 5 April 2021. This equates to an average rent increase at the time of writing this report of £1.52 per week.

b)   Approved that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) are reviewed in line with rent legislation, to ensure that the rents charged are no more than 80% of market rent, with rents for existing tenants increased by no more than inflation of 0.5%, measured by the Consumer Price Index(CPI) at September 2020, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of up to1.5%. Local policy is to cap affordable rents (inclusive of all service charges) at the Local Housing Allowance level, which would usually result in rent variations in line with any changes notified to the authority in this level if these result in a lower than 1.5% increase. As the Local Housing Allowance was increased significantly in late March 2020, affordable rent increases will be capped at 1.5% from April 2021.

c)    Approved that rents for shared ownership properties are reviewed and amended from April 2021, in line with the specific requirements within the lease for each property.

 

d)   Approved that garage and parking space charges for 2021/22, are increased by inflation at 0.9% in line with the level of inflation incorporated into the HRA as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy process, and that charges for parking permits are reviewed, with resulting charges as summarised in Section 3 of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

e)   Approved the proposed service charges for Housing Revenue Account services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

f)      Approved the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2021/22, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

g)   Approved that caretaking, building cleaning, window cleaning, estate services, grounds maintenance, temporary housing premises and utilities, sheltered scheme premises and utilities, digital television aerial, gas maintenance, door entry systems, lifts, electrical and mechanical maintenance, flat cleaning, third party management, specialist equipment and catering charges continue to be recovered at full cost, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September 2020 (0.5%) plus 1%,wherever possible.

h)   Approved with any amendments, the Revised Budget identified in Section 4 and Appendix D (1) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, which reflects a net increase in the use of HRA reserves for 2020/21 of £550.

i)      Approved with any amendments, any Non-Cash Limit items identified in Section 4 of the HRA Budget Setting Report or shown in Appendix D (2)of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

j)      Approved with any amendments, any Savings, Increased Income, Unavoidable Revenue Bids, Reduced Income Proposals and Bids, as shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

k)    Approved the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised in the Housing Revenue Account Summary Forecast2020/21 to 2025/26 shown in Appendix J of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

The Executive Councillor recommended Council to:

l)      Approve the need to borrow over the 30-year life of the business plan, with the first instance of this anticipated to be in 2022/23, to sustain the proposed level of investment, which includes ear-marking of funding for delivery of a net 1,000 new homes over a 10 year timeframe.

m)  Recognise that any decision to borrow further will impact the authority’s ability to set-aside resource to redeem 25% of the value of the housing debt by the point at which the loan portfolio matures, with the approach to this to be reviewed before further borrowing commences.

n)   Approve the latest Decent Homes Programme, to include updated decent homes expenditure for new build dwellings to recognise the increased ongoing costs of maintaining homes at Passivhaus standards, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

o)   Approve the latest budget sums, profiling and associated financing for all new build schemes, including revised scheme budgets for Tedder Way, Kendal Way, Clerk Maxwell, Campkin Road, Colville Road and Kingsway, based upon the latest cost information from the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) or direct procurements, as detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

p)   Approve allocation of funds from the budget ear-marked for the delivery of 1,000 net new homes to the five schemes at Fen Road, Ditton Walk, Aragon Close, Sackville Close, and Borrowdale in line with the scheme specific reports presented to Housing Scrutiny Committee in the committee cycle.

q)   Recognition of removal of the budget and associated MHCLG grant income for the acquisition of property to accommodate rough sleepers, following confirmation that the authority was unsuccessful in the 2020/21 round of the Next Steps Grant bid process.

r)     Approve the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix K of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

s)    Approve the inclusion of Disabled Facilities Grant expenditure and associated grant income from 2021/22 onwards, based upon 2020/21 original grant levels, with approval of delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to approve an in year increase or decrease in the budget for disabled facilities grants in any year, in direct relation to any increase or decrease in the capital grant funding for this purpose, as received from the County Council through the Better Care Fund. Approval of delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to determine the most appropriate use of any additional Disabled Facilities Grant funding announced in year, for the wider benefit of the Shared Home Improvement Agency.

t)      Approve delegation to the Strategic Director to review and amend the level of fees charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for disabled facilities grants and repair assistance grants, in line with any decisions made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board.

u)   Approve delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down resource from the ear-marked reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the purpose of open market land or property acquisition or new build housing development, should the need arise, in order to meet quarterly deadlines for the use of retained right to buy receipts or to facilitate future site redevelopment.

v)    Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to include both expenditure and income budgets in respect of any grant bid made to MHCLG as part of the Next Steps Grant Programme, recognising that any net impact for the HRA will need to be retrospectively incorporated as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in 2021/22.

w)  Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make the necessary technical amendments to detailed budgets in respect of the outcome of the review of recharges between the General Fund and the HRA, with any change in impact for the HRA to be incorporated as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in September 2021.

 

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

      i.          There was an initial increase in rent arrears for tenanted properties in the first lockdown, this stabilised in May 2020 so the broad trend was that closing cash offices did not increase rent arrears as people moved onto other payment methods e.g. online.

     ii.          There was sufficient provision for bad debt in the Medium Term Financial Strategy. This also set out interest rates for loans.

   iii.          There were no proposals to reduce the number of Open Door (magazine) issues from three to two. Funding for this had not been removed, there was historic underspend in the resident grant budget over a period of years so the budget had been reduced.

   iv.          The Community Alarm Charge of £5.32 should include an enhanced response time by the County Council. As this service would not be provided, the figure was expected to change to £3.42 for a response within sixty minutes (as opposed to thirty under the £5.32 figure). This was subject to written confirmation from the County Council, which would then be agreed by Housing Scrutiny Committee and at Full Council.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Council had a 30 year business plan to build and maintain housing stock.

     ii.          The above inflation rent increase was fair and in line with other local authorities. Cambridge City Council had measures in place to assist people who had difficulties paying rent.

   iii.          Reiterated that rent arrears were stable over a period of several months. Sufficient resources were in place to support tenants who experienced financial difficulties. No-one would be evicted during the pandemic. The council was trying to balance income with investment and service provision. Rents would be kept under review.

 

Councillor Martinelli introduced the Liberal Democrat Amendment to the 2021/22 Housing Revenue Budget.

 

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

1.3ii A proposal to include a revenue bid for £50,000 to fund a project to explore over two years water conservation options for the existing housing stock, recognising that the findings from the project, once fully explored and quantified, are likely to result in a future capital bid to facilitate the desired investment in the housing stock.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair  / Tenant Representative).

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Liberal Democrats Group alternative budget should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

1.3i A proposal to include a revenue bid of £30,000 to fund a

project to review responsive and void repairs service

standards, with the aim to improve service levels for council

property maintenance, to manage tenant expectations and

reduce complaints. 

 

3 votes in favour to 11 against. The amendment was lost.

 

1.3ii A proposal to include a revenue bid for £50,000 to fund a project to explore over two years water conservation options for the existing housing stock, recognising that the findings from the project, once fully explored and quantified, are likely to result in a future capital bid to facilitate the desired investment in the housing stock. 

 

Committee unanimously in favour. The amendment was accepted.

 

1.3iii A proposal to extend the funding for the Energy Assessor post, from the current two year fixed term funding, for a further three years (at a cost of £47,200 per annum), to

ensure that energy improvements can be considered for a

greater number of existing council homes, recognising that

the work of the Energy assessor is likely to result in future

capital bids to facilitate the required investment in the

housing stock.

 

3 votes in favour to 11 against. The amendment was lost.

 

Diane Best introduced the Resident Representative Amendment to the 2021/22 Housing Revenue Budget.

 

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

      i.          Fly tipping was an issue to address.

     ii.          Councillors expressed concern that enforcement action could be taken against a whole block of flats if an individual perpetrator could not be identified.

   iii.          Extra personnel could be needed in lockdown to assist tackling fly tipping in lockdown. Clean up days could be re-instated after lockdown. Council enforcement teams liaised with other officers, so if the enforcement team could not take action, other officers would.

 

The Resident Representative alternative budget: 11 votes in favour to 0 against with 3 abstentions. The amendment was accepted.

 

Unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations a to k of the budget proposal, as amended above. 

 

The following vote was chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones.

 

Resolved (5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions) to endorse the original recommendations l to v of the budget proposal. 

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Regular update on the delivery of the 500 new council homes. This is marked as a key decision as an increased budget may be required to deliver revisions to approved schemes.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the programme to deliver 500 Council homes with funding from the Combined Authority.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

     ii.          Noted the revised budget related to the Kingsway refurbishment scheme as detailed in paragraph 7.4.2 of the officer’s report approval of which was sought under the HRA Budget Setting Report (HSC Item 8, Section 5).

   iii.          Noted the revised budget related to the Tedder Way and Kendal Way schemes as detailed in in paragraph 7.4.2 of the officer’s report, approval of which was sought under the HRA Budget Setting Report (HSC Item 8, Section 5).

   iv.          Approved the revisions to the proposed Scheme at Tedder Way as outlined in paragraph 7.4.2 and Appendix 3 of the Officer’s report.

    v.          Approved the revisions to the proposed Scheme at Kendal Way as outlined in paragraph 7.4.2 and Appendix 3 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Development Agency.

 

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

      i.          Funding for some of the program came from the Combined Authority, but this would not cover the whole program. The City Council would continue to report to the Combined Authority on a quarterly basis. Future funding may come from Central Government.

     ii.          Jimmy’s Homeless Shelter managed the pods. They would provide reports to the City Council. Pods were set up in Dundee Close and Newmarket Road. Crowlands Way pods had planning permission.

   iii.          Sixteen pods were planned, future ones could be made accessible if there was demand. Pods and furniture had to be ordered in advance of being set up. The Council could order more modular homes if they were needed.

   iv.          Officers were reviewing housing sites to balance the need for conventional homes and modular ones. Officers had to look at the need for different accommodation on-site.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 (with 3 abstentions) 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 a package of new build housing schemes to be brought forward following Passivhaus design principles. These schemes require approval of capital budgets to progress up to planning application stage, and approval to commence consultation with neighbouring tenants and leaseholders.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report brought forward proposals for 35 dwellings across five sites as a first step in delivering homes on Passivhaus principles.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved new build housing schemes

a.    at Ditton Walk.

b.    at 71-73 Fen Road.

c.    at Aragon Close.

d.    at Sackville Close.

e.    at Borrowdale.

     ii.          Approved the capital budget as set out in the Officer’s report for the package of Passivhaus schemes noting that this will be reduced should any of the five sites not proceed.

   iii.          Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the schemes, including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in the Officer’s report.

   iv.          Subject to Council approval of the budget, approved the development to be carried out through the 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 Senior Housing Development Manager.

 

The Senior Housing Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Allocated disabled parking was available.

     ii.          There was a lot of misinformation around what the City Council planned for the Fen Road site, it was hoped the Officer’s report addressed this.

 

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 Officer’s report provided an update on the new build housing programme for 2022-2032.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved the recommendations from the Buro Happold Report, and agreed these should be included in the Updated Sustainable Housing Design Guide so that all council developments will be required to:

a.    Target Net Zero Carbon from 2030.

b.    Target Passivhaus certification from 2021.

c.    Attain Sustainability targets for water, overheating, post-occupancy evaluation (POE), Electric vehicle charging, car parking and biodiversity.

 

To attain this will require the adoption of:

d.    the Sustainability Roadmap to Net Zero Carbon.

e.    the decision-making process for sustainability standards.

f.      the seven principles of sustainability.

 

     ii.          Approved the following delivery strategy:

a.    Pursue a mix of delivery strategies to deliver the 10-year programme.

b.    The majority of the programme to be delivered through CIP.

c.    A programme of smaller schemes to be delivered through design and build contracts.

d.    Purchase of affordable units from developers delivered as a result of S106 agreements.

e.    Consideration of other opportunities which may arise for joint ventures or development agreements with other partners.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Development Agency.

 

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

      i.          Circa two thousand homes were being built to the Passivhaus standard.

     ii.          National bodies and other local authorities were supportive of the standard but were not building on similar scale schemes to Cambridge as the risks were higher to achieve targets.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 (with 3 abstentions) 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 item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Public Questions

 

A member of the public (representing ‘It Takes a City (Cambridge)’) asked a question as set out below.

 

      i.          Supported the strategy as it would help rough sleepers.

     ii.          Asked the council to consider some additions to the Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy:

a.    Reduce rough sleeping target to zero.

b.    Collaborate with the public, private and third sectors.

c.    Could all partners jointly own the Strategy and share actions.

 

The Executive Councillor said he would be happy to follow up with officers on how to develop the Strategy going forward.

 

Councillor Bick, speaking as a Ward Councillor raised the following points:

      i.          Welcomed the report and Strategy.

     ii.          Was seeking a joined up approach to address issues.

   iii.          The adoption of the street to home approach would be of particular help to entrenched rough sleepers through support for individuals by a link worker.

   iv.          There was concern that the County Council would close hostels, but they had stepped back from this. The County Council were looking to work with the City Council to ensure a strategy was in place before funding was withdrawn.

    v.          The ambition was to reduce rough sleeping numbers, but this would involve dealing with people with complicated issues who were sometimes hard to engage.

   vi.          The city was a magnet that attracted people to get money for substance addictions, which stopped them getting homes and jobs. This needed to be addressed to get to zero rough sleepers.

 vii.          Members of the public wanted to help the homeless community, but did not always know how to. Queried how to educate them and show links to voluntary groups.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.          Signposted priorities in the Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy to address rough sleeping and the complicated issues associated with it such as begging.

     ii.          The Strategy was looking at advice, support and enforcement actions that could be undertaken with partner organisations such as the Police.

   iii.          The public made enquiries about how to help people seen begging:

a.    Ways to give education information (eg webpages) were being reviewed.

b.    A future Communication Strategy was being considered (with partner organisations) on how to do this.

 

The Committee gave a formal vote of thanks from to the Housing Services Manager and colleagues for their work to tackle homelessness.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council is required by law to produce a Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy. This requirement is provided for in the Homelessness Act 2002 (as amended). 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy (2021-26) and the year one and two action plan as appended to the officer’s report

     ii.          Delegated authority to the Head of Housing to approve annual reiterations of the strategy action plans at years 3,4 and 5 of the strategy in consultation with the Executive Councillor

   iii.          Agreed than an update on progress made in delivering objectives outlined in this strategy was brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Housing Services Manager.

 

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

      i.          Many homeless women were ‘hidden’ as they sofa surfed instead of living on the streets.

     ii.          80% of rough sleepers were men and 20% were women, so services were geared towards men.

   iii.          Women were often homeless due to domestic abuse, so were a vulnerable group, which should be reflected in the Strategy.

   iv.          Separate male and female accommodation should be provided in homeless accommodation.

    v.          Queried how the LGBT community were affected by homelessness.

   vi.          There were people who resisted coming off the street. Different solutions were needed to get people off the street and address anti-social behaviour such as campfires and drug abuse.

 vii.          The pods were a good idea. Queried if they could be set up in all city wards. Asked Ward Councillors to recommend areas where pods could be built.

 

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

      i.          There were many reasons why homeless figures fluctuated such as inward migration. A target to achieve zero homeless people could be set, but it would be hard to achieve.

     ii.          Jimmy’s Homeless Shelter would provide an exceptions report to show the rate of homelessness to the County Council who were responsible for monitoring it.

   iii.          The City Council would support people moving from hostels to private rented or local authority housing.

   iv.          One pod will be allocated specifically for a LGBT person’s use. Officers would look at LGBT needs separately, this did not require a change to the Officer’s recommendation.

    v.          Homelessness was a wider issue than just rough sleeping.

 

Councillor Martinelli requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report :

2.3 Agree that an update on progress with this strategy is brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.

 

This was amended by Councillor Sheil (with Councillor Martinelli agreement) to:

 

2.3 Agree that an update on progress made in delivering objectives outlined in this strategy is brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this additional recommendation.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

An independent feasibility study was conducted into the need for selective licensing of private rented properties within Cambridge City. The study was for the purpose of identifying if it was appropriate for the Council to implement a scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Agreed that the Feasibility Study Report, contained in Appendix A of the Officer’s report could be released into the public domain.

     ii.          Agreed the actions outlined within the Committee Report to address recommendations of the Feasibility Study Report throughout 2021/22, continuing the Council’s focus of improving and sustaining the quality of the private rented sector within the City.

   iii.          Agreed that an annual report be brought back assessing progress on the work in time for any new bids to be submitted for work in the budget for the following year.

 

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 Residential Team Manager, Environmental Services.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The report raised several possibilities where the council could take action against private sector landlords where they did not respond to issues raised by tenants.

     ii.          The report had a wider scope than just housing (acknowledged there was a high demand for this). The report looked at socio-economic issues (eg crime) and how actions could be taken to address these.

 

The Residential Team Manager said that work was underway to set up an enforcement group to share intelligence across regulatory services within the council as well as with external stakeholders including the Fire Service.

 

Councillor Robertson requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report:

Add third recommendation: 2.3 Agree that an annual report be brought back assessing progress on the work in time for any new bids be submitted for work in the budget for the following year.”

 

The Committee unanimously approved this additional recommendation.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation 2.1.

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation 2.2 by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions.

 

The Committee approved (new) recommendation 2.3 unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

Cambridge City Council are the lead authority with overall management responsibility for the Cambridgeshire Home Improvement Agency (CHIA) shared service. In accordance with the

City Council’s corporate governance, the Officer’s report sought approval for the CHIA Board’s decision to procure new contractors for delivery of adaptations work managed by the Agency.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved the CHIA’s board decision to proceed with a procurement exercise for up to four years for the provision of three contracts for adaptations and repairs related work

     ii.          Authorised CHIA to invite, evaluate tenders and to award contracts to suitable bidders following a competitive tender evaluation process.

 

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 Home Improvement Agency Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Home Improvement Agency Manager said that the contract retendering process would encourage local contractors as those based further away may not be able to fulfil the project brief.

 

The Committee unanimously* resolved to endorse the recommendations. (*Only councillors were able to vote on part 2 items.)

 

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.

For information not decision.

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

This item was Chaired by Diana Minns (Vice-Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Noted the progress of the service review and compliance related work detailed within the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.          Officers were writing to leaseholders inviting them to use the same contract as tenants to install fire doors in flats. Some leaseholders had taken up this offer. A report would come back to committee in future after Fire Safety Bill information had been received.

     ii.          Options around payment for fire doors for Leaseholders would be set out in the report.

   iii.          Currently, it was not always possible for officers to undertake fire door work as people did not always want work personnel in their homes due to home working/schooling in lockdown. Officers were working with contractors and residents to find a compromise. Officers would wait until the end of lockdown to undertaken work if residents did not want work undertaken at present. A waiver to seek written confirmation to delay work would not be sought from residents. Officers could seek advice to ascertain the impact on home insurance if fire doors were not installed.

 

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 item was Chaired by Diana Minns (Vice-Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

The Council owns a number of blocks of flats built in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of these flats have structural concrete elements. Further to a report submitted to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2020, Estates and Facilities have been surveying blocks of flats that have three stories or more and a further list of properties where structural repair work is required has been identified. Detail designs were underway, and the work needed to be tendered in order to award a contract(s) to a building contractor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Approved the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorised the Strategic Director (following consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to carry out structural repairs and associated repair works to Council housing flats.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Asset Manager.

 

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

      i.          There would be no climate change impact from the repair work, it was making good what was already in place.

     ii.          Other programs of work in the housing capital program may have a more positive impact in reducing climate change.

Councillor Todd-Jones said work would lead to more energy efficient buildings.

   iii.          Stakeholders were being consulted about repairs, the council would listen to resident’s wishes about whether they would like repairs to be undertaken or not. Officers would be mindful of the impact of repairs (eg noise) as people stayed at home due to covid lockdown.

   iv.          The budget provision for work was already set out in the Council’s 30 year plan. If committee members wished to scrutinise progress of the contract process then a report could be brought back to Housing Scrutiny Committee.

 

Councillor Robertson said processes were in place for officers to oversee the contract process if/once delegation was given.

 

The Strategic Director said a  general capital program delivery report could be brought  to committee, but not one for individual projects.

 

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

 

Approved the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorised the Strategic Director (following consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to carry out structural repairs and associated repair works to Council housing flats.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation as amended.

 

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 findings of a self-assessment undertaken in response to the publication of the Housing Ombudsman’s (HO) Complaint Handling Code and Self-Assessment Tool.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Approved the report and associated action plan included 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 Policy and Performance Officer.

 

The Head of Housing and Policy and Performance Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Officers had compared the City Council with several other councils, we were doing well in comparison to others.

     ii.          The City Council had similar levels of complaint escalation to other councils.

   iii.          The City Council performed better in responding faster to stage 1 and 2 complaints compared to other councils.

 

The Committee resolved by 13 votes to 0 (unanimous of all present) to endorse the recommendation.

 

Mandy Powell-Hardy joined the meeting after the vote.

 

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.

To continue to work with the Health and Wellbeing Board and Cambridge Community Safety Partnership to ensure that public agencies and others can together address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens can be addressed.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board and Cambridge Community Safety Partnership as a part of the Council’s commitment given in its “Principles of Partnership Working”.

 

The rise of the pandemic this year has disrupted some of the planned activity of the partnerships to allow the wider systems to focus on the immediate priorities of responding to the pandemic and planning for future recovery and resilience.

 

During this time partnership working both with other public agencies and local communities has become more important than ever as new arrangements and ways of working have emerged. This report, however, looks at the business of the partnerships in question and does not look to these wider partnership arrangements, which have been the subject of other papers to members.

 

Decision of Executive Councillors

      i.          The Executive Councillor for Communities agreed to continue to work with the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Committees to ensure that public agencies and others can come together to address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge City, and that the concerns of citizens are heard.

     ii.          The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety agreed to continue to work with the Community Safety Partnership to ensure that public agencies and others can come together to address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge City, and that the concerns of citizens are heard.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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 Councillors approved their recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillors.

Matter for Decision

The Council passed a motion on 16 July 2020 in support of Black Lives Matter. One of the actions identified in the motion was to: “Request from the Director of Public Health a report on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on BAME communities in Cambridge by the end of 2020, to be reviewed in the Environment and Community scrutiny committee, and shared with BAME community representatives.” The report from Public Health is attached as Appendix A to the Officer’s report.

 

In addition, the Officer’s report provided details around how Cambridge City Council has been supporting Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic, especially relating to sharing Public Health messaging through community leaders.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Noted the content of the Officer’s report and Appendix A.

 

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 Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

The Director of Public Health said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Public Health see vaccination take-up as a key priority in overall control of Covid and are offering support to the NHS that is leading on the vaccination work.

     ii.          There is indication of vaccination hesitance for different groups in the community, especially some BAME groups.

   iii.          Since the start of the pandemic, Public Health has worked closely with the network of district and city councils across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to develop links with a range of community leaders trusted by different ethnic minority communities. Where there have been updates to Public Health messaging this has been co-produced with residents. For instance, there have been video blogs produced in different languages and read by community leaders.

   iv.          Referred the committee to weekly Covid-19 Gold Group updates on the Covid situation in the city. Suggested councillors liaised with the Strategic Director (who sat on Covid Gold Group) and council officers to pass on ‘soft’ data on how best can work together to help engage different communities in the take-up of vaccinations.

 

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.

To extend the use of the Council's Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget to include projects delivered by community organisations.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report recommended extending the scope of the council’s Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget to include projects delivered by community groups as well as those delivered or managed by council services. This would represent a change from the criteria agreed when the fund was proposed in a committee report in June 2018.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Agreed that the council’s Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget can be used for community-led as well as council-led projects that help deliver the objectives of the Anti-Poverty Strategy.

 

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 Head of Corporate Strategy said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The budget process set out if funding was allocated to support projects or not. The Officer’s report set out how it would be used if so.

     ii.          The funding, if allocated through the Budget-Setting Report would effectively be held in reserve in case it were needed.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

This was 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 and budget in Section 3 and Appendix 1 detailed the applications received with recommendations for 2021-22 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2021-22, as set out in Appendix 1 of this report, subject to the budget approval in February 2021 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

     ii.          Approved the following grants for 2020-21 as detailed in Section 4:

a.    £15,000 – Cambridge Online (devices and data).

b.    £10,000 – Cambridge Sustainable Food (hygiene and food supplies).

c.    £20,000 – Cambridgeshire Community Foundation (Coronavirus Fund donation for City projects).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.          Community grants were not specifically aimed at supporting projects that supported biodiversity. Projects may impact indirectly on environmental policy. Grants were awarded to projects that met assessment criteria. The Community Funding and Development Manager offered to liaise with Councillors about this after the committee.

     ii.          Officers actively monitored groups, funding applications and what funding could be given to support projects  that would make a difference for residents. The intention was to provide maximum flexibility in awarding grants.

   iii.          Officers worked with other teams to provide a joined up signpost on what funding was available so people could be directed to apply to another stream if one was unsuitable.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

Councillor Hadley did not take part in the vote.

 

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 Executive Councillor asked the committee to note the death of a member of the public art panel.

 

Matter for Decision

In June 2018, Environment and Community Services Scrutiny Committee considered a report that set out the future aspirations for public art in the City, and the need to update the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in light of changes to the national planning system and planning regulations, and to support the new Local Plan. The report included the requirement to undertake an evaluation process and have a ‘Big conversation’[1] about public art to inform future Policy work.

 

Following a process of evaluation through 2019/20, the Officer’s report sets the direction of travel to develop a Public Art Strategy (Strategy) for Cambridge and makes recommendations on the process and methodology required to ensure that Cambridge continues to be at the forefront of public art commissioning and delivery.

 

The Officer’s report set out the work that has been undertaken so far, and the work to be completed to secure the Strategy and future policy for public art provision in Cambridge.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Supported the use of the draft Manifesto for public art in Cambridge and the process set out in the report for researching and developing new public art policy.

    ii.          Approved:

a.    The process for taking the work forward, including the formation of a cross departmental Working Group.

b.   The Terms of Reference for the Working Group set out at 4.2.

c.    The use of consultation and research through events and a public survey, to test the draft manifesto and support the development of Policy.

 

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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Officers could revisit the manifesto text to clarify links between public art, health benefits and biodiversity.

     ii.          An Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken on artists.  Procurement rules can be used to focus on people with the required characteristics such as able to represent the local community.

 

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

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 Transport and Community Safety and Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 16 January 2020.

 

The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory

powers regulated by RIPA since February 2010.

 

The Officer’s report set out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

      i.          Reviewed the Council’s use of RIPA set out in paragraph 3.5 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Noted and endorsed the steps described in paragraph 3.7 and in Appendix 1 to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

   iii.          Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 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 committee made no comments in response to the report from the Officer.

 

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 Officer’s report made recommendations on the development of a Litter Strategy for Cambridge City.

 

The Strategy would comprise of four key parts:

      i.          A strategic vision including a set of principles and policies.

     ii.          An appraisal of current service issues identifying areas of opportunity and setting out a current position statement.

   iii.          A review of current and potential future behavioural change activities, including awareness raising, education and enforcement, to help deliver the Strategy.

   iv.          An action plan which sets out a phased programme of activity to deliver the Strategy.

 

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

      i.          Supported the development of a litter strategy for Cambridge as outlined in the report.

     ii.          Approved the terms of reference set out at 4.3 of the Officer’s report:

a.    The programme of work to achieve the Strategy as set out in the Project Initiation Document (appendix A) subject to approval by Business Transformation Board.

b.    The use of community and stakeholder engagement and

c.    Research to support the development of the Strategy.

 

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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Strategy would introduce new recycling initiatives.

     ii.          There was no data at present on where bins would be located or how often they would be emptied. The intention was to look at where efficiencies could be gained based on consultation feedback.

 

The Executive Councillor welcomed recommendations on bin locations and litter hot spots from the public.

 

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 item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

This report outlined grant funding to organisations providing homelessness prevention services. It provided an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget in Section 3 of the Officer’s report and Appendix 1 detailed the applications received with recommendations for 2021-22 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Approved the Homelessness Prevention Grants to voluntary, community and statutory organisations for 2021-22, as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2021 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 Housing Services Manager.

 

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

      i.          The City Council were doing a lot with a fixed amount of money.

     ii.          The same amount of grant funding was available this year as last year, but the cost of services was increasing. Expressed concern that grant funding was increasing by 1% but inflation was increasing by 2%.

 

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

      i.          Organisations would have to source funding from other sources to cover their costs.

     ii.          There had been an increase in domestic tension in the last nine to ten months due to covid. Officers were monitoring the situation. There had not been an increase in the number of people approaching the housing advice service.

 

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:	1.    To agree the response to the Government’s Consultation - Supporting Housing Delivery & Public Service Infrastructure (see Appendix 1). The response has been prepared jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council. 2.     To delegate any further minor editing changes to the response to the Government’s Consultation - Supporting Housing Delivery & Public Service Infrastructure to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they are technical matters.
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	The Government is consulting on changes to the planning system. The three main proposals are: The introduction of a new permitted development right (PDR) for a change of use to residential to create new homes To amend existing PDRs for schools, colleges and universities, hospitals and prisons, and a new streamlined planning application process for hospitals, schools and prisons The approach to simplifying and consolidating existing PDRs following changes to the Use Classes Order.   The consultation materials are available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-housing-delivery-and-public-service-infrastructure     The deadline for comments is 28 January 2021.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	That the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces:   Agreed the response to the Government’s Consultation - Supporting Housing Delivery & Public Service Infrastructure (see Appendix 1). The response has been prepared jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council. Delegated any further minor editing changes to the response to the Government’s Consultation - Supporting Housing Delivery & Public Service Infrastructure to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they are technical matters.
Reasons for the decision:	The deadline for the submission of comments to the consultation is 28 January 2021.
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.
Report:	Appendix 1 which can be viewed at the link below https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1580&ID=1580&RPID=67994079
Conflicts of interest:	None
Comments:	No adverse comments were made.

 

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Officer Urgent Decision - Record

 

Discretionary Self-Isolation Payments - revised

Decision(s) taken:	To approve the revised framework for Discretionary Self-Isolation Payments.
Decision of:	Strategic Director 2 (Suzanne Hemmingway)
Date of decision:   Reference:	28 January 2021   2021/OfficerUrgent/SR/01
Matter for Decision:	Increased funding from central government (effective from 14 December 2020) of £7,917 increases the maximum awards that can be paid from 59 to 75. Revised changes with effect from 14 December 2020:   Increase the maximum earnings rate to £37,400 for households with children Increase allowed capital held to £6,000 Requirement to pay commercial rent or mortgage Introduce significant financial hardship category   Since inception, this is the third urgent decision request in a rapidly changing environment, including changes in funding. The scheme has been extended by government to 31 March 2021 and funding is under review. Delegation is sought to allow Head of Revenues and Benefits to make changes to the discretionary criteria as needed.   During the course of this scheme and any changes to it, the Ex Cllr for F&R will be kept informed’
Any alternative options considered and rejected:	The decisions are based on the latest modelling and information at 28 January 2021 and will be kept under review.
Reason(s) for the decision including any background papers considered:	An urgent decision under paragraph 2 of section 9, Council Procedure Rules was necessary as there are no meetings of Strategy and Resources Committee within a reasonable timeframe and taking into account the current national situation it is unclear when this could be possible.
Conflicts of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive:	None.
Other Comments:	The Executive Councillor was consulted prior to the decisions taken.    There are no budgetary implications as Cambridge City Council has been given funding to administer and pay these awards.
Reference:
Contact for further information:	Suzanne Hemmingway, Strategic Director 01223 457461  Suzanne.Hemingway@cambridge.gov.uk

 

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

 

Officer Urgent Decision - Record

 

Discretionary Self-Isolation Payments - revised

 

Decision(s) taken:	To approve the revised framework for Discretionary Self-Isolation Payments.
Decision of:	Strategic Director 2 (Suzanne Hemmingway)
Decision ref:   Date of decision:	2020/OfficerUrgency/SR/17   4 December 2020
Matter for Decision:	To establish revised criteria for entitlement to Discretionary Self-Isolation Payments (above prescribed requirements) to enable awards to be made from 12 October 2020.
Any alternative options considered and rejected:	Other options rejected are included in the briefing paper.
Reason(s) for the decision including any background papers considered:	An urgent decision under paragraph 2 of section 9, Council Procedure Rules was necessary as there are no meetings of Strategy and Resources Committee within a reasonable timeframe and taking into account the current national situation it is unclear when this could be possible.  Document Officer Urgent Decision 4.12.2020 Revised - Discretionary Self-Isolation Payments - Cambridge Council
Conflicts of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive:	None.
Other Comments:	The Chief Executive and Executive Councillor were consulted prior to the decisions taken.    There are be budgetary implications as Cambridge City Council has been given funding to administer and pay these awards.
Contact for further information:	Suzanne Hemmingway, Strategic Director 01223 457461  Suzanne.Hemingway@cambridge.gov.uk

 

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Record of Executive Decision

 

RECORD OF URGENT DECISION Appointment of council representative on the greater cambridge partnership Executive board

 

Decision of:	Councillor Herbert Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships
Reference:	20/URGENCY/SR/01
Date of decision:	25/01/21	Recorded on:	25/01/21
Decision Type:	Non-key
Matter for Decision:	To agree the appointment of Councillor Nicky Massey as the Council’s member on the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board.
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	A change to the Council’s Executive Board member needs to be made by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.  The decision is required before the next meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee as the appointment is effective from 1 February 2021.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	Appoint Councillor Nicky Massey as the Council’s member on the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board with effect from 1 February 2021.  Councillor Lewis Herbert will be the alternate member.
Reasons for the decisio	The Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships wished to change the Councillor representing the Council on the GCP Executive Board.
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee and the Opposition Spokesperson were advised of the decision in advance of becoming effective.
Report:	None
Conflicts of interest:	None