Decisions

Approve the recommendations outlined in the report that includes the business case, RIBA Stage 2 Report, Public Engagement Report and the Commercial Report for the Civic Quarter including: 

1.    proceeding to the next stage of developing the detailed design and submission of a planning application 

2.    procurement of a developer 

3.    Recommended option for Mandela House  

4.    Allocation of a budget 

5.    Recommendations for any shortfall in the budget 

6.    Noting the outcomes from the community engagement programme

Matter for Decision

The Council was looking at proposals for investment in the Guildhall, Market Square, Corn Exchange and public realm, making them fit for a fast growing global city in the 21st century society, which residents could be proud of.

 

This report outlined investment proposals that included:

·       Making the council’s heritage buildings net zero, and improve biodiversity and water efficiency across the site.

·       Improving accessibility and creating a welcoming new civic heart open to the public.

·       Consolidating office space in the city and creating a working environment that supports staff retention, collaboration and enhanced productivity.

·       Creating space for a cultural attraction within the Guildhall.

·       Saving the council money by reducing running costs and creating opportunities for additional income.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

i.                Recommends that Full Council note the indicative capital cost budget of £55m as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the Officer’s report and approves an allocation of £3m from the existing Civic Quarter reserve for stage 3 design costs and associated on-costs.

 

And subject to Full Council agreement approves the recommendations below outlined in the report that includes, Concept Design Report, Public Engagement Report and the Commercial Report for the Civic Quarter including to:

ii.               Note the outcomes from the first Public Consultation that took place to shape the outcomes of the Concept Designs and in response adds to the Market Square Design Principles that alongside other objectives which should bring a beneficial impact on the market itself, the project should support a substantial reduction of anti-social behaviour in the square and the achievement of an attractive public space outside of market hours.

iii.             Approve to proceed to the next stage of design with a planning submission in late summer 2025 for the Guildhall, Corn Exchange, Market Square and the associated public realm, carrying out a second public consultation in Spring 2025

iv.             Approve the allocation of a capital budget of £55m as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the Officer’s report and delegated authority to the Council’s Section 151 Officer to apply the agreed capital financing to the project in the most cost effective way.

v.              Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Councillor for Finance, and Resources to carry out a procurement process for the appointment of a contractor by Spring 2025

vi.             Approve the Civic Quarter Project team to work closely with the Corporate team, Market Operations team, Cultural Services team and Market traders to develop a business plan by Spring 2025 which would include:

a.    Completion of the Terms and Conditions and the balance of trade work on the Market ahead of the proposed second public consultation for the Civic Quarter in Spring 2025.

b.    An assessment of the revenue impact of decanting the Guildhall, Market and Corn Exchange.

c.    A business plan for the operation of the future Guildhall, Market and Corn Exchange.

vii.           Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources for the future use of Mandela House subject to review by Property Services.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director (Development).

 

Members noted the additional information which had been published following the agenda publication. This included:

 

                                                 i.     Revised Executive Councillor recommendations as follows

 

It is recommended that the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

 

1.1         Recommends that Full Council notes the indicative capital cost budget of £55m as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the officer’s report and approves an allocation of £3m from the existing Civic Quarter reserve for stage 3 design costs and associated on-costs.

 

And subject to Full Council agreement approves the recommendations below outlined in the report that includes, Concept Design Report, Public Engagement Report and the Commercial Report for the Civic Quarter including to:

 

1.2         Note the outcomes from the first Public Consultation that took place to shape the outcomes of the Concept Designs.

1.3         Approve to proceed to the next stage of design with a planning submission in late summer 2025 for the Guildhall, Corn Exchange, Market Square and the associated public realm, carrying out a second public consultation in Spring 2025

1.4         Grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to carry out a procurement process for the appointment of a contractor by Spring 2025

1.5         Approve the Civic Quarter Project team to work closely with the Corporate team, Market Operations team, Cultural Services team and Market traders to develop a business plan by Spring 2025 which includes:

1.5.1   Completion of the Terms and Conditions and the balance of trade work on the Market ahead of the proposed second public consultation for the Civic Quarter in Spring 2025

1.5.2   An assessment of the revenue impact of decanting the Guildhall, Market and Corn Exchange

1.5.3   A business plan for the operation of the future Guildhall, Market and Corn Exchange

1.6 Note the review by the Property Team of property assets including Mandela House to generate a capital receipt to contribute towards the Civic Quarter project.

 

                                                ii.     Amendments to paragraphs within the Officer’s report as follows:

·       Paragraphs 2.5.2 and 8.2.6

It is recommended that £4.5m is allocated as phase 1 to enable completion of a full roof replacement at the Corn Exchange, and this will be tabled for approval at Full Council in Autumn 2025. Approval of further funding beyond the initial £4.5m will remain subject to the agreement of the business plan. Any immediate emergency repairs required will be brought forward for approval as an out of cycle decision.

·       Paragraphs 2.6.2. and 8.2.4

It is recommended that an initial capital investment of £3m is allocated as phase 1 to enable the re-surfacing works of the Market Square, and this will be tabled for approval at Full Council in Autumn 2025. Approval of further funding beyond the initial £3m will remain subject to the agreement of the business plan.

·       Paragraphs 2.8.1 and 8.3

The overall estimated costs for the completion of the Guildhall and phase 1 of the Market Square and phase 1 of the Corn Exchange remain the same at £55m. With the updated recommendations, the estimate for design costs and associated on costs for RIBA Stage 3 is £3m (£2.5m design and survey fees plus £0.5m on costs). Approval is sought for this £3m at this stage. An updated cost estimate for design and associated on costs beyond RIBA Stage 3 will be tabled for approval in Autumn 2025

·       Paragraphs 2.8.2 and 8.9.1

Addition of the following milestones:

Full Council 28 November 2024

Full Council September 2025

 

The Assistant Director (Development) and Chief Finance Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          External finance / funding was easier to obtain when planning permission was in place. Could not confirm where the funding for the redevelopment would come from at this stage. This would be explored as part of the next phase of the project.

     ii.          Noted concerns raised regarding the impact on market traders if the redevelopment work was undertaken in two phases. The current proposals were looking at what work could be done off-site to reduce the impacts on traders and to explore if the works could be done in one phase.

   iii.          The confidential commercial report had a 5-year plan for the market. This showed a small increase in income through more efficient use of market stalls. The Council was aware of the concerns regarding business continuity for Market Traders resulting from the redevelopment proposals. Support packages for Market Traders would be looked at as part of the next phase of work when discussions could take place between officers and the contractor about the development proposals. 

   iv.          There was a confidential business plan for the Corn Exchange included within the agenda, which detailed costs and predicted revenue and indicated an increase in income because of the design changes. The next stage of the project would scrutinise these figures and explore if the figures could be improved.

    v.          The urgent repairs to the Corn Exchange’s roof were estimated to cost £180,000. Approval for this funding was proposed to be taken via an out of cycle decision.  

   vi.          The capital cost for the refurbishment of the Guildhall was estimated to be £41 million. It was estimated that the technical design costs would be £500,000-£750,000. With a capital project, costs were usually split between build costs, design costs and on-costs.

 vii.          The report set out where the business plan needed further work. The report also set out where costs were excluded; and an example was decanting costs. Advised at RIBA 2 stage it was unusual to have certainty regarding costs, this would follow at the build / contract stage.

viii.          An allocation for the estimated capital costs for the Guildhall refurbishment had been included within the report.

   ix.          The proposal in the report was to explore appropriate options regarding Mandela House for example refurbishment / lease / sale.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources and the Leader said the following in response to Members’ questions:

                                                   i.     Currently the project had approval for a conceptual design. Approval was being sought at the next Full Council meeting to develop the proposals in more detail to RIBA stage 3 to submit a planning application.  It is intended to return to Committee in Autumn 2025 for a decision on the final designs and business plan.

 

Councillor Bick proposed an amendment to the amended recommendation 1.2 (additional text underlined):

 

1.2         Note the outcomes from the first Public Consultation that took place to shape the outcomes of the Concept Designs and in response adds to the Market Square Design Principles that alongside other objectives which should bring a beneficial impact on the market itself, the project should support a substantial reduction of anti-social behaviour in the square and the achievement of an attractive public space outside of market hours.

 

On a show of hands, the Committee unanimously supported the amendment to recommendation 1.2. The Executive Councillor also accepted the amendment to recommendation 1.2. 

 

Councillor Bennett proposed an amendment to recommendation 1.1 that the recommendation set out the detail of the costs contained within paragraph 8.3 of the officer’s report rather than the recommendation referring to paragraph 8.3 of the officer’s report. The amendment was not seconded and therefore the amendment fell and was not voted on. 

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 1 to endorse the amended 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 Council has adopted The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management (Revised 2021).

 

The half-year report was prepared in accordance with the Code and covered:

·       An economic update for the first half of the 2024/25 financial year.

·       A review of the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy.

·       The Council’s capital expenditure, as set out in the Capital Strategy, and prudential indicators.

·       A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2024/25.

·       A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2024/25; and

·       A review of compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits for 2024/25.

 

Cash and investment balances at 30 September were £105 million. The balance was forecast to gradually reduce over the remainder of the year as existing balances were used to fund General Fund (GF) and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) capital expenditure.

 

Interest receipts for the year were projected at £6.6 million which was £3.1 million higher than the original budget. The variance was due mainly to sustained higher investment rates and higher cash balances being held for longer periods than expected.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.                To recommend to Council the council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2024/25 to 2027/28 (Appendix A).

ii.               To note that no changes have been made to the counterparty list (Appendix B).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Finance Officer.

 

The Chief Finance Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The additional borrowing detailed on p113 of the agenda mainly related to the Housing Revenue Account programme and was dependent on whether the capital expenditure was incurred this year. It was anticipated that there may be some slippage if there were delays with redevelopment projects. The Council only borrowed funding when it needed to. 

     ii.          Liquidity instruments (referred to on p128 of the agenda) were treasury management investments used to manage day to day (short term) cashflow e.g. a deposit on demand / 3-day notice deposit.

   iii.          The Council was limited in the progress it could make to decarbonise investments by the Statutory Investment Guidance that Local Authorities were required to follow and the CIPFA Treasury Management Code. Both of these statutory guidance documents required the Council gave priority to security of investments, then liquidity of investments, then yield and then environmental / social and governance (ESG) considerations. 

   iv.          The Council had a contract with Barclays Bank until 2026. A procurement exercise would be required to be undertaken before the end of the contract term for the services the contract delivered. The Finance Team were aware of the May 2024 motion referred to (minute reference 24/55/CNL Agenda for Council on Thursday, 23rd May, 2024, 11.05 am - Cambridge Council).

    v.          Confirmed the figure contained within column GF / CFR 2027/28 in the table at paragraph 7.2 of the officer’s report should be 106,185 and not 127,846. The correct figure had been used in Appendix A on page 120 of the agenda.

 

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 self-assessment process was a new statutory requirement. Its purpose was to check that the Council’s complaints process is compliant with the Codes of Practice for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman.

 

Part of the new requirement was that the assessment is presented and then published on the Council website. This focused on the process the Council used and did not cover reporting on actual complaints received.

 

Going forward this self-assessment would be scrutinised alongside the Annual Customer Feedback Report so that information on both the process and on complaints and feedback received was presented at the same time.

 

Decision of the Leader

      i.          Approved the self-assessment for publication

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

This was a statutory requirement therefore there were no alternative options to consider.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

Before the report was introduced the Chair confirmed that an addendum to the report was provided to members and published on the Council’s website that clarified elements of the report, providing more context on the reason the report was being presented to committee.

 

The report was presented by the Customer Services Development Manager. It was explained to the committee that this was being presented due to a new statutory code from the Housing Ombudsman, introduced on the 1 April 2024, to monitor the Council’s compliance with this new code. This needed to be published on the Council’s website on an annual basis, having been through members. This would be presented in future alongside the Annual Customer Feedback Report. It was essential that this was approved by the deadline of 29^th November 2024 so that the Council stayed complaint with the code.

 

A smaller report relating to housing complaints would be presented to the Housing Scrutiny Committee.

 

Overall, on reviewing this new code with the Council’s complaints processes it was deemed that the Council was largely compliant overall with some minor tweaks to the process being undertaken. Once the report was published the Council would be fully compliant with the new code.

 

The Customer Services Development Manager responded to questions from members:

      i.          This new code applied to any authority that signed up to the Housing Ombudsman Service. The new code referred to Landlords, but this was wider and referred to the Council as a whole. The language would be updated going forward to make this clear.

     ii.          Officers would look to make it clearer what was a service request against what was deemed a complaint against a service the Council provided. For example, when the Council had a request come in for the first time this was different from a request that the Council had already been made aware of and not actioned, the Council would then deem this as a complaint. For clarification the Council had adopted the recommendation from the Housing Ombudsman on what was a complaint.

   iii.          The Council had a triage team that reviewed complaints as they were made and would recategorize these if they were a service request, or vice-versa.

   iv.          Further information would be provided to members over what was classed as a service request.

    v.          Training could be provided to members should they wish to receive this

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Leader of the Council approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader of the Council (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Leader of the Council.

Matter for Decision

The information report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board. Therefore, there was no decision to be made by the relevant Executive Councillor.

 

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 Councillor A Smith. 

 

In response to Members’ questions Councillor A Smith said the following:

i.                There were strict rules about how the Combined Authority could consult on the bus franchising consultation. Acknowledged the form wasn’t easy to complete. Noted there was a summary regarding what the consultation was about and that there were two versions of the consultation which could be completed either a shorter or a longer version.

ii.               The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Business Growth Company Limited was being wound up because it was set up to support a time limited project ‘Growth works’, which had concluded its business at the end of December 2023. The company potentially could have supported other projects, but these were being managed in-house by the Economy and Growth Team at the CPCA.

iii.             There were many ways in which the £10.6 million Government bus funding could be used. The CPCA had been required by auditors to set out how the CPCA could fund bus franchising itself, however this did not restrict the CPCA to have to fully fund bus franchising. The business case set out where other sources of funding could come from. 

iv.             Noted that in future it might be useful to invite lead officers from the CPCA to attend future Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committees to discuss other areas of CPCA work.

 

The Chair thanked Cllr A Smith for their update report.

Matter for Decision: To agree the proposed joint response to Huntingdonshire Local Plan (Regulation 18) Further Issues and Options, to enable the decisions to be processed and completed in time for the end of the consultation period.

 

Why the Decision had to be made (and any alternative options): The Huntingdonshire Local Plan (Regulation 18) Further Issues and Options consultation runs between 18 September and 27 November 2024. The contents of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (Regulation 18) Further Issues and Options consultation could in principle impact on Greater Cambridge and have implications for the emerging joint Greater Cambridge Local Plan. The proposed response seeks to minimise negative and maximise any positive impacts of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan on Greater Cambridge. Given the proximity of Huntingdonshire to South Cambridgeshire, the contents of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan could in principle impact on the emerging joint Greater Cambridge Local Plan, and a joint response from Greater Cambridge is recommended. 

 

Background: Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) are at the early stage of preparing a new Local Plan; having consulted on Issues and Options in April – July 2023, to which joint responses were made by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

HDC are now undertaking further issues consultation, and are currently consulting on the following documents:

• Further Issues and Options paper
• Land Availability Assessment
• Sustainability Appraisal

In addition, there is the opportunity to promote sites though the Call for Sites, which remains open until 31 December 2024.

Further Issues and Options paper

The Further Issues and Options paper sets out options for a series of issues that are key to the future planning of Huntingdonshire. These issues are structured into topic areas addressed in the following 11 chapters:

• Vision and Objectives
• Settlement Hierarchy
• Approach to Employment and Economy
• Housing Figures and Requirement
• Achieving well designed places
• Growth strategy options
• Our green and blue infrastructure
• Approach to climate change
• Tackling flooding and water
• Housing tenures and housing mix
• Transport and connectivity

The consultation document explores options within the above topics but doesn’t currently include the preferred approach for the Greater Cambridge Councils to respond to. The Councils therefore have an opportunity to identify key cross-boundary matters they consider require active exploration by Huntingdonshire in the preparation of their Local Plan.

Land Availability Assessment

The Land Availability Assessment assesses over 400 sites submitted through the 2023 Call for Sites; there are no strategic scale sites close to the boundary with South Cambridgeshire.

Main Issues: The paragraph below identifies the points raised in the proposed response to consultation which is included at Appendix 2. The proposed response focuses comments on aspects that impact on Greater Cambridge rather than providing a general commentary on all elements of the forthcoming plan, which is a matter for Huntingdonshire District Council with their community and ultimately their inspector.

The proposed response identifies the following response points requiring future substantive engagement: 

• The potential impact of the new Government’s Cambridge Growth Company project under Peter Freeman and its ambition for a significant increase in economic activity across the Greater Cambridge geography and potential spillover effects on Huntingdonshire.
• The importance that Huntingdonshire District Council explore fully water supply issues, and stress the importance of ambitious water efficiency policies for both housing and non-residential development, particularly as part of Huntingdonshire district is served by Cambridge Water as is Greater Cambridge. 

• Note merits of discussing potential cross-boundary green infrastructure opportunities. 

• Note travel to work, housing market and economic connections, and encourage further engagement regarding these topics as well as on proposed strategic infrastructure projects including the A428 upgrade and East West Rail project and transport improvements around Huntingdon and St Ives to support future growth. 

• Encourage Huntingdonshire District Council to adopt ambitious climate and biodiversity policy approaches in their new plan. 

As a proposed joint response with Cambridge City Council, a mirror report is also being taken to Cambridge City Council.

Alternative options: 

1. The options are:  

a.   Agree the proposed response to the consultation without amendments 

b.   Agree the proposed response to the consultation with amendments 

c.   Decide not to submit a response to the consultation – this option is not recommended as the plan would progress without awareness of potential impacts on Greater Cambridge 

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision:

• Agreed the proposed response to the consultation at Appendix 2 
• Delegated authority to the Joint Director for Planning to agree any minor amendments to the response agreed by South Cambridgeshire District Council that are consistent with the response at Appendix 2. 

Reason for the decision: as detailed above.

 

Scrutiny Consideration: The Chair and Spokesperson of  the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised, no adverse comments made.

 

Report: Appendix 1 - Background Papers and Appendix 2 - Huntingdonshire Local Plan (Regulation 18) Further Issues and Options consultation proposed joint response from Greater Cambridge.

 

Conflict of interest: [None].

 

 

Report Authors: 

 

Claire Spencer – Senior Planning Policy Officer 

Telephone: (01954) 713418

 

Stuart Morris – Team Leader - Planning Policy & Strategy

Telephone: 07514 925 287

 

 

 

Appendix 1: Background Papers 

 

Background papers used in the preparation of this report: 

• Huntingdonshire Local Plan (Regulation 18) Further Issues and Options consultation materials are available online:  Huntingdonshire District Council Consultation Home - Keystone

 

Appendix 2: Huntingdonshire Local Plan (Regulation 18) Further Issues and Options – proposed joint consultation response 

 

This response to the Huntingdonshire District Council Further Issues and Options Paper (Regulation 18) consultation is made by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning on behalf of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, and focuses on matters which could impact on Greater Cambridge.

The recently elected Government has made clear its intention to review but continue with the former Government’s “Case for Cambridge” project aimed at intensifying and accelerating economic growth in the Greater Cambridge area. It is not yet clear what this ambition, and the work of the Cambridge Delivery Company, will mean for areas beyond Greater Cambridge but it will be important for the HDC Local Plan to track potential spillovers from that work and to consider what it may mean for the decisions reached by the Council as it continues to develop its Local Plan.

The main issue we wish to raise is that it is very important that Huntingdonshire District Council considers fully water supply issues in the preparation of a new Huntingdonshire Local Plan, noting the severity of the issue in Cambridge Water’s Water Resource Zone which covers part of Huntingdonshire and the whole of Greater Cambridge, and that the whole of the East of England region is under water stress as was set out in the Regional Water Resources Plan (2023). Water supply has been a key consideration in the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

We note that the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Further Issues and Options Paper references recent publication of an update to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (Level 1) and Water Cycle Study (stage 1). The new Local Plan must carefully consider the water supply available from both Anglian Water’s and the emerging Cambridge Water’s Water Resources Management Plans, taking into account when new sources of supply such as the planned pipeline and Fens Reservoir are due to become operational; in particular in terms of the phasing of delivery and cumulative impacts of planned growth. Noting that rivers and catchment areas cross administrative areas, we consider it important that Huntingdonshire continue to engage with Greater Cambridge as well as the water companies, Water Resources East, and the Government’s Water Scarcity Group on this critical issue. 

Noting the water supply challenge, we would stress the importance of ambitious water efficiency policies which set out levels of water use for both housing and non-housing development.

For housing this should follow as a minimum the optional Part G Building Regulations level of 110 litres/person/day, but considering whether a lower level may be justified due to the level of water stress. We note that the Water Cycle Study notes that Huntingdonshire is in an area of serious water stress and there is sufficient justification for the tighter water efficiency target currently allowed for under building regulations of 110l/p/d (usage based on litres, per person, per day). The Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals included water efficiency standards that went beyond what Local Authorities were able to require of 80 litres/person/day. Since then a Written Ministerial Statement in December 2023, announced a review of building regulations to allow local planning authorities to introduce tighter water efficiency standards in new homes. It stated that ‘In the meantime, in areas of serious water stress, where water scarcity is inhibiting the adoption of Local Plans or the granting of planning permission for homes, I encourage local planning authorities to work with the EA and delivery partners to agree standards tighter than the 110 l/p/d that is set out in current guidance’.

For non-residential development, high water efficiency levels are also an important consideration, related to categories Wat 01 and Wat 03 of BREEAM. In the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals we include a requirement for full credits for category Wat 01 of BREEAM unless demonstrated impractical.

For Greater Cambridge the case for greater water efficiency in response to the level of water stress is so strong that there is a case for seeking the above approach to both housing and non-housing development, and this may also be the case in Huntingdonshire, at least for the area covered by Cambridge Water.

Aside from the water issue, we note the potential Strategic Green Infrastructure initiatives identified in our Local Plan evidence that could cross the administrative boundary between Huntingdonshire and Greater Cambridge, including the Great Ouse Fenland Arc and Western Gateway multifunctional GI corridor. We would welcome continued dialogue on this topic as our plans progress.  

We also note that Huntingdonshire and Greater Cambridge have travel to work, housing market and economic connections, and that strategic infrastructure projects including the A428 upgrade and planned East West Rail route pass through both of our areas. We note that Cambridgeshire County Council are currently consulting on transport improvements around Huntingdon and St Ives to support future growth; these could impact existing routes serving the Greater Cambridge area and it is important these wider impacts be appropriately assessed and mitigated. The Councils value previous joint working with Huntingdonshire on these issues and will look to continue this as our respective plans and key infrastructure projects progress. 

Beyond the above, in common with Huntingdonshire District Council, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council have both declared climate emergencies. The Councils acknowledge the challenges faced by Huntingdonshire District Council in addressing the Climate Emergency. Given the cross-boundary (and indeed global) nature of both opportunities and impacts in relation to the climate and biodiversity emergencies, we encourage Huntingdonshire District Council to adopt ambitious climate and biodiversity policy approaches in their new plan, noting the approach taken within the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.  

We note the publication of a Land Availability Assessment for consultation; the Councils would welcome continued dialogue on any site allocations which may impact on Greater Cambridge, including those close to the district boundary.

The Councils are already engaging with Huntingdonshire District Council under the Duty to Cooperate in relation to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. We would welcome further dialogue with Huntingdonshire as our respective plans progress, including but not limited to the cross-boundary matters identified above. 

 

Record of Executive Decision

 

East Barnwell Regeneration Scheme - Urgent Decision Briefing Paper

Decision of: Councillor Simon Smith, Executive Councillor for Strategy and Resources

 

Reference: 24/URGENCYS&R/15

 

Date of decision: 18/11/2024

 

Date Published on website:19/11/24      

 

Decision Type: Key

 

Matter for Decision: To approve a lease for the new East Barnwell Community Centre to Abbey People for a 25-year lease term at a nil rent.

 

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

This decision is required in advance of this date and out of cycle due to:

1.    The complexity and urgency of legal agreements that must be finalised for the scheme to be able to proceed without causing contracting delays

2.    Delays to the programme and the risk and potential for increased costs for construction arising from this

3.    Delays to the programme causing potential further risk to obtaining Homes England grant funding.

The complexity arises because the lease of the community centre must be compatible with the parallel lease to the County Council for the pre-school and the library which sits in the same building as the community centre, and shares communal areas.

The terms of the lease and a land transfer are required to fall under one agreement for construction to commence, which is currently anticipated for early December 2024, to facilitate a ‘start on site’ in January 2025.

The Executive Councillor’s decision:

 

Approved a lease for the new East Barnwell Community Centre to Abbey People for a 25-year lease term at a nil rent.

 

Reason for the decision: As detailed in Document 241118 Out of Cycle Decision: Approval of lease for the new East Barnwell Community Centre to Abbey People - Cambridge Council

 

Scrutiny Consideration: The Chair and Spokesperson of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

 

Report: Document 241118 Out of Cycle Decision: Approval of lease for the new East Barnwell Community Centre to Abbey People - Cambridge Council

 

Conflict of interest: None.

 

Comments: The Chair and Opposition Spokespersons were supportive of this urgent decision.