To continue to work with the key partnerships so that together the Council and its partners can address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge, to the overall benefit of citizens; and to enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Matter for Decision

 

The Officer’s report set out funding to Cambridge Investment Partnership for the Purchase of Land

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

 i. Approve Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously agreed to exclude the public after considering that the public interest was outweighed by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable committee debate of the officer report.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The Officer’s report set out funding to Cambridge Investment Partnership for the Purchase of Land

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

 i. Approve Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously agreed to exclude the public after considering that the public interest was outweighed by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable committee debate of the officer report.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

 

By the time this report was received by the Strategy and Resources Committee on Monday 27th March, the 4DW Phase One trial, which included the Shared Planning Service, would be nearing its completion. The Officer’s report provides a brief insight into the first two months of the trial including KPI performance for the Shared Planning Service (which was as much data as was available up to the report deadline date). The report also sets out the next stage of the process, in terms of final evaluation of the trial.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources, Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader:

 

      i.          Note the report and agreed the decision option highlighted in 3.11 for the next stage of the process; a special meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee will meet and debate the issues to inform a decision the Executive Councillor would make on 15th May.

     ii.          Provide any feedback thought relevant to the Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire District Council.

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire District Council introduced the report.

 

The Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire District Council said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          The data in appendix 2 of the Officer’s report (the Pulse survey) was more of a temperature check. The data that they would be using to measure health and wellbeing would be a survey run by Robertson Cooper Ltd, an external agency. It would be a 120-question survey. The survey would be launched later this week and it will be open for 3 weeks.

     ii.          There were surveys for people who were specifically not in the trial to ask what the impact was in consequence of people participating in the trial. Apart from Waste Services there were few people not involved in the trial.

   iii.          The main driver behind trialling the 4-day week was concerns about recruitment. South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC), prior to the trial was carrying over £2 million in employment agency costs as staff turnover was high, which is costly and disruptive. Though could not reasonably expect to get rid of all agency costs, could reasonably expect to get rid of much of those costs which would reduce the cost of services for taxpayers. Therefore, it was in SCDC’s interests to make those sorts of savings and efficiencies rather than cutting or reducing services.

   iv.          No decisions have been made regarding extending the trial at this point. Officers would be providing data and evidence to SCDC Cabinet and to Cambridge City Council Scrutiny Committee. Both Councils would make their decision based on that data and evidence.

    v.          Recruitment was a key issue. The reason for extending the trial for a year was that SCDC could not measure the impact on recruitment in 3 months. The reason the trial did not start with a year was that it was too risky, as this was the first trial in the public sector of the 4-day week. Started with 3 months to see if SCDC could run functionally and see if the performance could be kept up for that time. If trial extended a year would have better data regarding recruitment and retention.

   vi.          It was always the plan to do a 3-month trial to see if performance was maintained.

 vii.          The health and wellbeing survey being launched would identify which service employees belonged to. Therefore, there would be data from people working in the planning service, how they fed back in August 2023 and how they were feeding back in March 2023 as a comparison.

viii.          There would be questions about whether people were able to complete their work in 4 days. Staff would be asked if they wished to be included in the trial if it was extended. Those who do not wish to continue in the trail and wish to work a 5-day week are welcome to do so. Staff who wanted to continue on a 4-day week but are struggling with workload would be provided with support to help them manage their workload.

   ix.          Employees could opt out of the trial is they so wish.

    x.          The planning service had vastly improved its service in the last year.

   xi.          The SCDC Chief Executive agreed that quality of work in the planning service must be maintained during the trial.

 xii.          During the past 6 months SCDC had done more transformation than in the last 3 and a half years combined. The reason was that people want to be more productive, as they were now invested in this process and want the trial to be successful.

xiii.           It was SCDC policy to respond to residents within 14 working days. This would not be affected if an employee had a non-working day on a Friday, so they did not respond to a resident until the following Monday.

xiv.          It would have been preferable to trial waste services first, but it was a much more complicated to do. This was due to doing a round optimisation exercise which was complex and had taken several months.

xv.          Would be able to provide KPI’s regarding processing times for planning applications from before the trial began and during the trial.

xvi.          Staff could choose any day they wished to off at the beginning of the trial. During the trial SCDC realised that it is easier to choose either a Monday or a Friday as a non-working day and have Tuesday-Thursday as core working days. It was still to be determined if this was what would remain in place going forward.

xvii.          No-one specifically requested a 4-day working week. This was an idea put forward by the Chief Executive of SCDC based on discussions with colleagues regarding staff recruitment and retention.

xviii.          Stated that salary was not always the most important factor in recruiting and retention. Based on her conversations SCDC Chief Executive has discovered that quality of life and work/life balance was just as important.

The Committee noted the report.

 

The Committee resolved (4-0 with 2 abstentions) to endorse the recommendations.:

 

      i.          That a special meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee could meet and debate the issues to inform a decision the Executive Councillor would make on 15th May.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader 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 Council has an existing General Fund Asset Management Plan approved in 2019. It was good practice to review such Plans every 5 years or so to reflect changes that have occurred since. There have been changes to property owned, how assets would be utilised post Covid and how they will be used in future as part of the Council’s wider ‘Our Cambridge’ business transformation programme so a review is timely. The Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26 had set a net zero carbon target for its buildings included in its Greenhouse Gas report. The government’s Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards also requires that leased out/commercial property achieve an Energy Performance Certificate of at least ‘B’ by 2030. The Asset Management Plan sets out how the Council will manage its General Fund assets, is updated to reflect the current environmental performance of properties and how this will be improved to meet the targets as set out above.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources, Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader:

 

·       Approve the Asset Management Plan as attached at Appendix A; and

·       Agree the proposed approach to identifying works, seeking funding and delivery to meet environmental targets by 2030 as set out in the Asset Management Plan and this report.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Head of Property Services introduced the report.

 

Head of Property Services, Assistant Chief Executive and Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          Some of the data in the report was historic data, advised that Assistant Chief Executive could provide updated data.

     ii.          The Assistant Chief Executive stated Parkside Pool had historically been the biggest emitter of carbon. Officers successfully applied to the Public Sector Decarbonisation Fund a couple of years ago and that work was completed last summer. Therefore, the data on emissions from Parkside Pool does not reflect these completed works. Members should expect to see a significant reduction is emissions from Parkside Pools when years data is published. This should be available at the October 2023 Environment and Communities Scrutiny Meeting. 

   iii.          Regarding office accommodations, officers brought a report to S&R Committee in October 2022 outlining the council’s approach. There was still demand in Cambridge for office space. Recognised there was a surplus of office accommodation at the Council. Currently most staff were based at Mandela House since COVID 19, but it was still not being fully utilised. Refurbishment to the Guildhall will take time. The council had let the ground floor to Allia who were now using and managing that space. This was helping with overhead costs in respect to the building. Going forward the council would need approximately 40% of the space that it had used historically. The Guildhall would need to be refurbished and fit for purpose when staff moved back. A project team would be working on how this could be accomplished.

   iv.          Environmental improvements would need to be undertaken with the refurbishment of the Guildhall. The district heat network would be important to this process. It was difficult to improve the performance of the Guildhall building. It was difficult to install ground source heat pumps due to its location. There were solar panels on the roof of the Guildhall but probably not enough room to install air source heat pumps. Part of the process would be how to make improvement to a listed building such as the Guildhall, to produce environmental savings and also generate income from spaces that the council did not utilise.

    v.          When reviews were done regarding Ditton Lane shops, officers would take into consideration access and crime prevention if refurbishment was considered.

 

The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader 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 recommend to Council to  approve in principle, the carry forward of estimated revenue budget amounts from 2022/23 to 2023/24.

Matter for Decision

 

This report presents details of any anticipated variances from budgets, where resources are requested to be carried forward into the 2023/24 financial year in order to undertake or complete activities which were originally intended to take place in 2022/23.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources, Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader:

 

·       Agree the provisional carry forward requests, totalling £351,070 as detailed in Appendix A, are recommended to Council to approve, subject to the final outturn position.

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Head of Finance introduced the report.

 

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

 

      i.          Justification of why funds were not spent were listed in the report as it goes through each item.

      ii.          Had discussions with the University of Cambridge regarding the Mill Lane redevelopment proposal. Officers were discussing how this may be incorporated with their wider scheme. This had not progressed at this moment. Would continue to work with the University to see when they wish to proceed, as officers believe they would in the future.

The scrutiny committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader 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.

 

No decision to be made. To be noted only.

Matter for Decision

To give Members an opportunity to ask questions about the officer’s progress with applications for the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) projects, this report provided an overview of the projects, (for which the Director for Planning and Economic Development has delegated authority) together with a high-level programme for the projects.

The GCP projects covered by the delegation were as follows:

      i.          Cambourne to Cambridge Rapid Transport Route (C2C) public transport corridor project.

     ii.          Cambridge South-East Transport Route (CSET) public transport corridor project Phase 2.

   iii.          Cambridge Eastern Access public transport corridor project.

   iv.          Waterbeach to Cambridge public transport corridor project.

    v.          Greater Cambridge Greenways (various routes).

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

 

      i.          Noted the update report in respect of the GCP projects identified in criteria (i) to (v) of Paragraph 1.3 of the Officer’s report (as shown above).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

      i.          The Shared Services response and input was determined by the project programmes that were being led by the GCP which were at various stages.

     ii.          The dialogue at pre-application stage was not publicly available. These conversations were based around technical advice around planning matters/evidence resting with the Planning Authority. GCP was the project promoter and drew upon SPS advice as required.

   iii.          Conversations involving planning policy officers working on the emerging Local Plan had been held. The LPA had referred GCP to its technical studies on the Local Plan and assisted with understanding and interpretation. 

   iv.          In terms of the Waterbeach to Cambridge public transport corridor project there was a phase one series of interventions that were required before 1600 dwellings approximately had been completed. Officers could not confirm whether the Waterbeach Public Transport Corridor was part of those phase 1 works but would advise further. Until there was a substantive number of residents, the trip effects and the transport mitigation were not required immediately. However, the cycleway enhancements along the A10 had been completed (one part of the mitigation proposals).

    v.          Noted the statements read out by Councillor Copley on the projects referenced in the Officer’s report.

   vi.          Welcomed members views, whether individually or collectively on these projects, which would be taken into consideration as part of the preparation of the Council’s responses

 vii.          The Council’s formal position at the point of statutory consultation would be formed either through the Out of Cycle decision process, approved by the Executive Councillor, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes or if possible through the Committee – but timelines for responses are fixed and not within the Control of the Council.

viii.          Noted the comment that shared space cycle/pedestrian facilities were not favoured by members - there should be separate pedestrian and cycles ways with clear signage

   ix.          Welcomed the comments that good bridle ways should also be considered.

 

The Committee

 

      i.          By a show of hands (6 votes to 0) to note the update report in respect of the GCP projects identified in criteria (i) to (v) of Paragraph 1.3 of the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor thanked Councillor S Smith for chairing the committee during the municipal year 2022/23, who had been rigorous in their reading of the emerging Local Plan and committee items. Members appreciated all the input made as Chair.

 

The Chair thanked all Members for their work for the Committee.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to combining the enforcement policies of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council into one united Compliance Policy for Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Services.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

 

      i.          Adopted the unified Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Compliance Policy.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

In response from comments from the Committee, the Assistant Director for Planning and Building Quality and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

 

i.          The policy centred upon the Planning Legislation and the policy included all the available provisions within the Planning Acts. There was other non-planning legislation which had not been referred to within the policy, but this did not stop officers from considering with colleagues other legislation where appropriate to address compliance matters.

ii.          Where an investigation identified a breach of planning control had occurred, the Town and Country Planning Act provided a range of measures that could be taken by the officers as outlined in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

iii.          A review of the Councils planning portal was being undertaken to identify ways to improve labelling/identification of applications and the mapping systems to support complainants in the early stages of the process.

iv.          Had expected a larger response to the public consultation than the nine received. The consultation had been published on various platforms, circulated to all members and other interested parties and the deadline for response had been extended.  Hard copies had also been made available for written responses on request.

v.          The enforcement policy EQIA had regard to potential effects on those with protected characteristics. The action and emphasis aimed to ensure a consistent approach based on material planning considerations.

vi.          The Shared Planning Service (SPS) did not currently collect data on enforcement and protected characteristics due to General Data Protection Regulations.  But would look to see if there could be some form of monitoring which could be undertaken.

vii.          Could not comment on individual cases but would be happy to discuss with members outside of the meeting.

viii.          Each case was treated individually. Early intervention was key, which was what officers want to achieve.

ix.          When made aware of planning breaches the objective would be for officers to work with the relevant parties to reach a resolution by consent rather than using formal enforcement measures.

x.          Where there was a sense that the applicant was deliberately breaching planning permission or simply did not engage with the compliance process, the policy would allow the service to move more quickly to undertake formal action.

xi.          With the new system in place, if enforcement breaches were reported on the electronic e-form this automatically created a case in the back-office system and can be allocated to an officer to deal with and respond to on a timely basis.

xii.          If the service had concluded it was not expedient to undertake enforcement, then that would be the decision unless new evidence had been put forward.  The enforcement of planning breaches is discretionary and the decision to determine whether action is taken or not rests with officers based upon the evidence in each case.

xiii.          Service standards relating to time scales for response and actions are included but the government is currently consulting on national performance measures for enforcement. The Compliance Policy provided for five working days to respond upon receipt of high priority cases, with ten- and twenty-day response times for medium and low priority cases. 

xiv.          Enforcement notices and other formal enforcement actions were shown on the Council’s planning portal. Work was being undertaken to enter historic information from both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire on to the portal.

xv.          Another new feature of the Council’s planning portal would be the automatic update of information on the compliance issue the individual had submitted online. This would supply the name of an allocated officer and updates when any work or changes had been made.

xvi.          Members of the public could also register on the planning portal to receive notifications of new planning information in a defined search area to help them stay informed.

 

The Committee

 

Unanimously endorsed the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor and Chair thanked the Assistant Director Planning and Building Quality and the team for all hard work and the improvements that had been made.

 

The Executive Councillor highlighted the considerate contractor scheme which she hoped contractors would sign up to; this allowed residents to work with contractors at an early stage, and Ward Councillors to raise issues.

 

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 work of the Health and Wellbeing Board and Cambridge Community Safety as a part of the Council’s commitment given in its “Principles of Partnership Working”.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety

Agreed to continue to work with partners within the framework of the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership, identifying local priorities and taking action to make a positive difference to the safety of communities in the city.

 

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

Agreed to continue to work with the Health and Wellbeing Board, and engage with the Integrated Care, and its sub-system to ensure that public agencies and others came together to address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge City and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens are heard, as the system developed.

 

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 Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities on behalf of the Strategy Officer.

 

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

      i.          Clinical factors only affected twenty percent of people’s health. This (partnership working) was an opportunity to work on the social determinants of health such as housing.

     ii.          Joining up with colleagues has led to funding for heating and health, community group engagement, joined up working with partner organisations to improve peoples’ health.

   iii.          Officers were looking to expand on this in future to develop a Health Equality Partnership. Historically there had not been an opportunity to join up to provide an integrated care system.

   iv.          How health provision fitted into the planning process was one part of how the Health Equality Partnership/Strategy aligned with other strategies and city population growth.

 

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 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“2014 Act”) gave local authorities the power to make Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs).

 

The Cambridge City Council Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden at Ditchburn Place, Cambridge Public Spaces Protection Order 2016 was due to lapse on 31st May 2023. This PSPO prohibited consuming alcohol or having an open container of alcohol in possession within the areas shown shaded red on the Order (see Appendix A-C of the Officer’s report). At the time the PSPO was introduced, these areas were the focus of complaints for anti-social drinking of alcohol.

 

Before the orders lapse, Cambridge City Council must decide to either: a) extend the period of the order for up to three years, b) vary the order or c) discharge the order.

 

As per legislation this decision should be informed by consultation with:

      i.          The Police and Crime Commissioner,

     ii.          Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the local policing body),

   iii.          Relevant community representatives,

   iv.          Ward Councillors, and

    v.          The owner/occupier of land the PSPO covers.

 

In addition to these groups, the Council sought the views of local people via the Council’s Citizen Lab consultation platform. 61 people completed the consultation. The consultation questions could be found in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

The Council also collaborated with the University of Cambridge whose Geography students completed 300 in-person surveys with the public on ASB and public spaces.

 

The evidence and consultation results have been used to inform consideration about whether to a) renew the PSPO; b) vary it; or c) discharge it and adopt a new approach to addressing alcohol related ASB. The report highlighted why options a) and b) were not recommended and how option c) is proposed to be implemented, as summarised in 3.18 of the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety

Discharged the PSPO and adopted a new approach to addressing alcohol related ASB.

 

The new approach would involve:

 

      i.          A proactive and preventative council presence on the current PSPO sites through weekly patrols.

     ii.          Better engagement and education with street drinkers, support services and local interest groups.

   iii.          A greater ability to gather intelligence on alcohol related ASB, which will be used as evidence for enforcement action, such as Criminal Behaviour Orders.

 

Discharge was recommended on the grounds of:

   iv.          A significant reduction in reports of anti-social drinking of alcohol on the sites covered by the PSPO. In 2022, the police and council received only 2 reports each.

    v.          Low frequency of incidents identified in the consultation. 36 consultation respondents had witnessed anti-social drinking in the past 12 months. Of these who had witnessed anti-social drinking, almost half witnessed this 10 times or less (an average of less than once per month).

   vi.          65% (194 of 300) respondents to the University of Cambridge’s in person surveys did not list alcohol as a core problem facing public spaces in Cambridge.

 vii.          80% of consultation respondents (49 people) supported the Council and Police managing anti-social drinking of alcohol as outlined in 2.1 – 2.3 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 Community Safety Manager.

 

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

      i.          Welcomed a joined up approach with partners to address street drinking, not just a punitive approach.

     ii.          Queried work the Street Life Officer had undertaken.

 

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

      i.          The Street Life Officer engaged with street drinkers, and they supported proposals in the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Officers regularly engaged with the street life community and their support services such as Jimmy’s (shelter).

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report made recommendations on the approval and adoption of a Litter Strategy for Cambridge City (set out in detail at Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

 

The Strategy was recommended for approval and adoption following extensive research and stakeholder engagement, including a public survey, focus group and series of officer task and finish groups.

 

The Strategy reflected public consultation results and identified areas for strategic action that included:

      i.          Effective litter disposal infrastructure provision.

     ii.          Awareness raising and education.

   iii.          Enforcement.

   iv.          Collaboration and partnership working.

    v.          Civic pride and social responsibility.

 

The Strategy was intended to support positive change in behaviours, make it easy to dispose of litter, continue with enforcement activity, when it is proportionate and reasonable to do so, maximise the productivity of streets and open spaces waste management service and minimise the volume of litter.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment, Climate Change and Biodiversity

      i.          Approved the adoption and use of the proposed ‘Litter Strategy for Cambridge’ (ref. Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Instructed Officers to format the Strategy for publication and to prepare a Communication Plan to support its adoption and implementation.

 

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 Development Manager, Streets & Open Spaces.

 

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

      i.          Officers were undertaking a number of initiatives. Examples:

a.    Working with the Keep Britain Tidy Campaign.

b.    Different bins were provided for general waste and recycling.

c.    Providing labels on bins listing how to dispose of waste responsibly.

d.    Checking bins were in appropriate locations ie where people would use them instead of fly tipping.

     ii.          No particular enforcement action was required regarding litter at present. CCTV could be used to catch culprits if required.

   iii.          Litter was not always recyclable but the aim to do so could be included in Litter Strategy Policy LS2.

   iv.          The Development Manager was working with the Waste Team on recycling policies to separate wate received into different streams (for reuse/sale) even if depositors did not. General waste and recycling bins were located together in tandem, but people usually put rubbish in the closest bin regardless of whether it was the most appropriate.

    v.          Noted that Central Government proposed six different collection types in future. This would feed into the Litter Strategy.

 

The Executive Councillor said the City Council:

      i.          Collected bins but recycling was undertaken by the County Council. If the Recycling Policy changed in future eg separating glass from paper, more bins may need to be provided and collected.

     ii.          Was engaging partners such as RECAPP about the Central Government Waste and Resources Strategy. The City Council wanted to implement a deposit return scheme but not all partners wanted to. The Central Government Strategy would impact on the City Council Litter Strategy and Waste Strategy.

 

Councillors requested a change to the report text (recommendations unaffected). Councillor Howard proposed to add the following text to those in the Officer’s report:

 

Litter Strategy (page 53) Policy LS2

 

To continue to build a knowledge base and understanding around litter and sources of litter to inform, direct, and drive all service activity and maximise our effectiveness.

We will:

 Continue our work with Greater Cambridge Shared Waste service to examine the causes of littering, including fly tipping, and so help us find solutions to deal with problems at source.

 Create campaigns and encourage businesses to design their products and packaging in ways which will reduce public waste, including reuse before recycling recyclable by default and stating clear methods of disposal.

 Ensure and support more recycling with media campaigns.

 Work with partners in the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service to design bin infrastructure on new development sites.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amendment.

 

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

On 27 January 2022 the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food & Community Wellbeing (after scrutiny) approved a Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP), which included Newnham and Arbury as the two herbicide free wards and the introduction of up to 12 herbicide free streets.

 

The Council’s declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency (18th July 2019) included a commitment to reducing and removing the need to use herbicides on highway verges, roads, and pavements, and to find viable and effective alternatives, and this was reflected in the development and application of the HRP.

 

The Council’s passing of a Herbicide Motion (ref. 21/32/CNlc - 22nd July 2021) included a commitment to undertake a range of tasks and actions to reduce the reliance on herbicide, as a means of managing unwanted vegetation on public property asset within the city.

 

The Officer’s report gave updates on the work completed on the HRP to date, including an evaluation of the two herbicide free wards and the herbicide free street scheme; and made recommendations on the further reduction in the use of herbicides in the city’s public realm.

 

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

      i.          Approved the expansion of the Herbicide Reduction Plan to include two additional herbicide free wards for 2023 - West Chesterton and Trumpington, (and continuation with Newnham and Arbury herbicide free wards from 2022).

     ii.          Approved the continuation and further development of the ‘Happy Bee Street Scheme’.

   iii.          Noted the decision of the County Council on their use of herbicides in the city and to assist them with their new approach (paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4 of the Officer’s report).

   iv.          Noted the decision of the County Council to change the grass cutting specifications in the city (paragraphs 3.5 to 3.7 of the Officer’s report).

    v.          Supported the development of a collaborative communication plan as detailed in Section 5 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 Development Manager, Streets & Open Spaces.

 

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

      i.          Complaints referred to the:

a.    Early stage of the trial where herbicide was applied by a third party who was unaware of the herbicide free trial.

b.    Appearance of the area when people were unaware the trial was underway and thought the area was untidy.

     ii.          The scheme showed how much potential the Happy Bee scheme had for the Council. There was interest in more streets joining the scheme. The Council would provide appropriate personal protective equipment to participants.

   iii.          There was a risk of accessibility around the city as wet vegetation could block/overhang pavements in open spaces causing hazards. Weeds in gutters were another issue as channels needed to be kept clear. The City Council was working with the County Council to keep channels clear.

   iv.          A Working Group had looked at rolling out the herbicide free trial across all wards, but selected just two, due to conditions such as road surfaces. The trial was limited to two wards to avoid negative impact around peoples’ homes eg perception of lack of maintenance which may lead to fly tipping.

    v.          Referred to Appendices A and B in the Officer’s report for details of actions taken and their effectiveness.

   vi.          The trial would determine how to proceed in other areas. Some DEFRA guidance was expected in 2024.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 with 2 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.

Cambridge City Council

Record of Executive Decision

Response to Government Consultation: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy

Decision of: Councillor Katie Thornburrow, Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

Reference: 23/URGENCY/P&T/04

Date of decision: 19/02/23

Date Published on website: 07/03/23

Decision Type: Non-Key

Matter for Decision: To agree the response to the Government Consultation: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy

Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options): The Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) is seeking views on how they might develop new and revise current national planning policy to support their wider objectives. Collation of feedback is via an open consultation on the changes to the text revisions of the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with these revisions seeking quick amendment to these sections. However, the consultation also discusses the potential scope of a future consultation on the NPPF, proposes other policy and legislation and includes policy and legislation related to other primary legislation and topics.

Many of the proposals link to national policy changes coming through the content Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) which is likely to gain royal assent spring 2023.

 

Consultation closes on 2 March 2023 and further information can be viewed on the DLUHC webpage for the consultation document: HYPERLINK- https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/levelling-up-and-regeneration-bill-reforms-to-national-planning-policy

 

Response to the consultation

 

Feedback is requested via submission of written responses to 58 questions included within the document; the councils’ response is set out in Appendix 1 with responses proposed for many of the questions but not all. Within the draft response many of the proposals, such as changes to 5-year housing land supply requirements, revisions to the opening chapters and specific changes to paragraph text of the framework are supported. However, the draft response also expresses concerns around some areas such as the transitionary arrangements for plan making and the approach to national development management policies.

 

Note that the response is proposed to be joint by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, subject to each council’s individual decision sign of process. 

 

Alternative options

The alternative options available are:

·       Agree to submit the response in Appendix 1, with possible minor amendments

·       Agree an alternative on no response.

The Council could choose to not respond to consultation, but if no response is made by GCSP, DLUHC would not be made aware of the Council’s views on the proposed changes to the NPPF being consulted on through the consultation.

Executive Councillor’s decision: Approved the response to the consultation on Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy as set out in Appendix 1.

 

Delegated authority is given to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development to agree any minor amendments to the response in order to finalise the joint response.

Reasons for the decision: The proposed response addresses issues raised by the consultation.

Scrutiny consideration: The Chair and Spokespersons of Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report: Appendix 1 – Council’s Response to Government Consultation: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy

Conflict of interest: None

Comments: Councillor S Davies made the following comments in response: This seems like a solid piece of work. I have a couple of observations:

Q48: given the risk this poses; I felt the response could be even more strongly worded

Q53: surprised to see n/a. Given my interests, you won't be surprised to hear that I believe better (and better funded) community engagement (including but not limited to formal consultation and Neighbourhood Plans) is key to delivering Mission 9 'Pride in Place'. Many long-term residents in Cambridge are feeling increasingly detached/alienated from 'their' place as the discussion around changes to, for example, the Beehive and the Grafton Centre, demonstrates. This is something which the planning regime can and should be addressing. A useful specific change would be requiring improvements to the public visibility of planning applications, moving beyond the laminated A4 sheet on the lamp post to something more legible, such as the format used by the City of Vancouver.

Response to comments: In response to Cllr. Davies’ point, the response to Q.48 was strengthened. Cllr. Davies’ points highlighting the importance of community engagement were integrated into the Council’s response to Q.53.  It was felt by the Lead Member that Cllr. Davies’ suggestion to improving the advertising of applications would be more appropriately dealt with under the next review of the Statement of Community Involvement rather than this consultation.

Matter for Decision: To agree the response to the Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation

Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):

 

Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) is consulting on a Sustainability Appraisal Scoping report between 1^st February and 15^th March 2023.

 

The consultation marks an initial consultation by HDC at the start of preparing a new Local Plan. In relation to this, HDC is also concurrently consulting on its Statement of Community Involvement. Officers are not recommending that the Councils make a response to that document.

 

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is systematic process for assessing the extent to which the emerging plan will help to achieve sustainable development. It is an opportunity to consider ways by which the plan can contribute to improvements in economic, environmental and social conditions, as well as a means of identifying and mitigating any potential adverse effects that the plan might otherwise have. Completing the SA process helps meet legal requirements that Local Plans are subject to.

 

The first stage of producing the plan is a scoping stage, which the  Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report relates to. This is necessary to propose and agree the way that the plan is to be drawn up including the methodology for the SA process and to collect together the necessary information to produce the plan. A thorough understanding of the context of existing plans and policies and of the current baseline situation is needed in order to be able to predict the effects the plan may have, and to identify key issues that will need to be addressed.

 

The Scoping Report:

·      Identifies relevant plans programmes and strategies – to establish how the plan is affected by outside factors, to suggest ideas for how any constraints can be addressed, and to help identify environmental protection objectives

·      Collects baseline information - to provide an evidence base for environmental impacts, prediction of what will happen without the plan as well as what effects it could have, monitoring and to help in the development of SA objectives.

·      Draws upon the above two elements to identify key sustainability issues and problems; and

·      Draws on all of the above elements to identify SA objectives and supporting decision aiding questions, which together provide a means by which the sustainability performance of the plan and alternatives can be assessed.

 

Prior to this open consultation, Huntingdonshire District Council has consulted key environmental bodies comprising the Environment Agency, Natural England and Historic England regarding the Scoping Report. Their comments are published at appendix 2 to the Scoping Report.

 

Officers have drafted a proposed brief response to the consultation focused on water supply issues.

 

Response to the consultation

 

It is proposed that the response is joint with South Cambridgeshire District Council, which will separately be considering the response.

The proposed response can be found in Appendix A of this report.

The proposed consultation response focuses solely on the need for the Scoping Report to more fully recognise the significance and severity of the water supply challenge as being an issue relevant to preparation of a new Huntingdonshire Local Plan. This echoes the response of the Environment Agency to the Scoping Report.

Alternative options

The alternative options available are:

1.             Agree to submit the response in Appendix A, with possible minor amendments

2.             Agree an alternative response.

Executive Councillor’s decision: To submit the response in Appendix A: Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation 2023 – response by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

 

Reasons for the decision: The proposed response addresses issues raised by the consultation.

 

Scrutiny consideration: The Chair and Spokespersons of Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report: Appendix A: Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation 2023 – response by Cambridge City

Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

 

Conflict of interest: None

 

Comments: None were made by the Chair and Opposition Spokes.

 

Appendix A: Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation 2023 – response by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

The Councils would like to raise one specific issue regarding the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping report regarding water supply.

In broad terms we echo the views expressed in the Environment Agency’s response to the Scoping Report, regarding the need to more fully recognise the significance and severity of the water supply challenge as being an issue relevant to preparation of a new Huntingdonshire Local Plan. As set out in our Greater Cambridge Local Plan Development Strategy Update from January 2023, provision of a sustainable future water supply is a very substantial challenge for our emerging Local Plan and we consider that many of the underlying issues are likely to relevant to Huntingdonshire. We would strongly suggest this issue should be more fully recognised in the document, including in the Sustainability Issues, SA Objective, and decision aiding questions.

We have no further comments to make regarding the document.