Decisions

Approve entering into a Development Agreement with Wrenbridge.

Approve the surrender of existing leases and grant of a new 150-year lease to Wrenbridge in respect of Plots 9, 10-11 & 12

Approve Wrenbridge, in conjunction with the Council, to master plan the wider Mercers Row area to include Plots 6-8 and 13-16.

To delegate authority to the Interim Property Lead for the final approval of the proposed development agreement and lease terms.

The Committee unanimously voted and 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 Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

 

Matter for Decision

 

      i.         The Council’s Corporate Plan, Our Cambridge transformation programme and the Target Operating Model outline an ambitious agenda for the Council for the next three years. Our People and Culture strategy sets out how we will align our workforce to achieve these ambitions over the same period.

    ii.         The Council’s last People Strategy was for the period 2007– 2011. Since the last strategy was developed, our communities, workforce and Council have undergone considerable change. Our communities want services delivered in different ways, and the expectations that employees have of their employers has changed.

   iii.         This People and Culture Strategy builds on the work and achievements we have made in all aspects of people management to date and takes forward learnings gained to outline the people and workforce priorities and considerations for the next three years.

  iv.         Once approved and launched, employee workshop sessions will be held to develop the action plan – “the People Plan” that will accompany the people and culture strategy. This will include new actions and projects as well as aligning people implications of existing programmes, initiatives and activities. The people plan will have clear accountability and will be regularly reviewed by a People Strategy Governance Board.

Decision of the Leader of the Council

 

      i.         To recommend, following scrutiny and debate at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee, to agree to the People and Culture strategy being launched across the Council commencing with employee engagement to shape the People Plan.

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 People.

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

 

i.      If points in strategy regarding carers was not explicit enough, would certainly improve that.

ii.    Had noted the point of having Senior Champions for each team. Would explore this further.

iii.   Currently exploring and investigating how to set up meaningful staff networks for those who wish to be involved.

iv.  Regarding diversity and applications, that was a big focus for the Council. Working with external organisations and internal networks. Working with vulnerable groups within the community to see what could be done to get more people into employment, not only with the Council but in general.

v.    There was a large amount of data in report going to Equalities Panel in regarding disabilities. Though report states that 7% of workforce had reported a disability, were aware that it was much higher. Many employees did not wish to declare their disability.

vi.  In September an all staff survey focusing on well-being would be launched to get data to help feed into the action plan going forward.

vii. Trade Unions had seen the strategy in the report. Would make that more explicit.

The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The 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 report provided an update on the compliance related activities delivered within the City Services Compliance Team, including a summary on gas, electrical, fire, lifts, legionella and asbestos.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the progress of the compliance related work detailed within the 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 Strategic Delivery Manager.

 

The Strategic Delivery Manager and the Assistant Director for Housing and Homelessness said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Noted the concerns raised regarding timescales for action / responses by the Council included within the Damp Condensation and Mould (DCM) Policy and advised would look into whether these were realistic and achievable. Noted concerns which had been raised by a Tenant Representative that these had not been achieved when a concern had been raised by them.

    ii.         Commented as a social landlord there was a requirement to promote ways in which tenants could complain if they were not happy with the way the council delivered services. It was noted that there was an internal complaints system Compliments, complaints and suggestions - Cambridge City Council and also complaints could be made to the Housing Ombudsman Home | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).

   iii.         Further data regarding DCM issues had started to be collated by officers and would be included within future reports. This included information regarding why DCM had arisen, the seriousness of it and the effectiveness of measures taken to remove it.

  iv.         Confirmed that ‘live’ figures for DCM and how the cases were being dealt with would be included in future reports.

    v.         Confirmed that responsive repairs would continue to be undertaken for any cases of DCM reported for Ekin Road properties.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing advised in response to a question about whether the DCM Team was appropriately resourced that officers had advised that the Team covering this area of work was appropriately resourced at the current time. 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on progress in respect of the project to recalculate and correct rents and refund any overpayment for properties affected by either of two identified rent regulation errors.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted progress in respect of the correction and quantification, calculation and repayment of any overpayments resulting from the two identified rent regulation errors.

 

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 Finance and Business Manager.

 

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

      i.         Noted concerns raised about the impact of repayments to those in receipt of universal credit and that this could affect their universal credit payment. Each repayment would be calculated on an individual basis but could be in the region of thousands of pounds for some tenants.

    ii.         The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had expressed concern about repayment being made back to tenants directly, where they would be responsible for paying this money back to the DWP as there was no mechanism for the DWP to recover this money back from the tenant. There was legislation which allowed the DWP to demand the money back from the Council directly, even though payment of the rent had been paid by the tenant themselves. 

   iii.         Reassured the Committee that housing benefit refunds could be made directly back to the DWP and acknowledged Tenant Representative’s concern that some people could struggle to manage their finances. Further discussion with the DWP was required to explore whether direct repayments could be made with regards to universal credit as legislation stated that it was the DWP’s decision which approach was adopted. 

  iv.         Officers were communicating with tenants about the refund payment and the impact of this on any threshold of income considered for benefits. Tenants had also been advised that the refund payment could be used to pay off any other debts that they may have.

    v.         In response to a question about the ‘anonymous’ tenants detailed in section 4a of the report. Advised that the Housing Management Renting System had the GDPR function switched on which meant that tenant’s information was deleted (in accordance with data protection rules) 6 years after they ceased to be a council tenant and when there was a ‘nil’ balance. This created problems for repayment as the council could calculate how much a tenant had paid but information about the person who lived in the property was not held. Former tenants were able to provide information to support any claim for a refund of overpaid rent.

 

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 note the achievements and progress of the key strategic partnerships that the City Council is engaged with.

 

To note the most recent decisions of the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority.

Matter for Decision

 

This report provides an annual report on the work of the key strategic partnerships that the Council is involved in; and covers the recent decisions on the Cambridge & Peterborough Combined Authority

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council

 

      i.         Note the achievements and progress of the key strategic growth and economy-related partnerships that the City Council is engaged with, as detailed in paragraphs 3.3 – 3.41.

    ii.         Note the recent decisions of the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority Board at Appendix A & B, and invite the City Council’s representative to provide an update.

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 Chief Executive.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

i.      The Council’s representative in the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Anna Smith was available at every meeting of Strategy & Resources and was able to answer any queries as related to the CPCA.

ii.    The Leader stated that he agreed that the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) should be coming to this Committee for scrutiny as the CPCA does.

iii.   A unitary authority would not affect the Council’s current relationships with partnerships, perhaps apart from the GCP.

iv.  The Leader stated that he would look at partnerships and see if there was a possibility for greater scrutiny and bring back to Committee.

v.    Councillor Anna Smith stated she was available to answer any questions in regards to the CPCA and was happy to have conversations regarding CPCA business with Members.

The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The 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

 

      i.         This report presents the Digital, Data and Technology (DDaT) Strategy 2024-2029 for approval, which sets out the Council's vision and framework for effectively managing digital, data and technology over the next five years. For clarity, this is an internal (not public facing) technical strategy and does not relate to the 3C ICT Service Review.

    ii.         Customers are placed at the heart of this Strategy. A key component of the Strategy is the digital customer journey which focusses on improving both user experience and accessibility for our customers, where those who can engage digitally, choose to do so because it is more convenient and preferable to other alternatives.

   iii.         The Strategy aims to achieve the following outcomes: more agile response to community needs; improved digital accessibility; increased operational efficiency, better decision-making capabilities, an adaptable and resilient IT estate, and provide staff with improved digital and data skills.

  iv.         The Strategy is structured into four strands: digital customer journey, data and information management, technology and innovation, and digital and data skills development. Each strand has specific missions and actions to deliver the desired target state of the Council.

Decision of the Leader of the Council

 

Approve the 5-year Digital, Data and Technology (DDaT) 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 Strategic Digital Lead Manager.

 

The Strategic Digital Lead said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

i.      3C ICT, Strategy and Data were not a part of the service offer. That service agreement was currently being reviewed.

ii.    3C ICT review likely coming to this Committee in September.

iii.   Working on improving digital exclusion had internal support. Could improve signposting what the Council was already doing.

iv.  Part of the strategy was more bespoke training for staff.

v.    The Technical Design Authority (TDA) would be made up of Strategic Digital Lead, counterparts from 3C ICT. Were currently looking for a Solutions Architect to join the team. Depending on the outcome of the service review, may have representatives from South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire Councils as well.

vi.  As part of digital function that was being looked at internally, were looking at how to create a business intelligence function. Would like to look at Councils data assets and make that available to staff and the public.

vii. In response to a comment by the Chair about concentrating on the summary in the report in order for Members to more easily take in the information, Officer stated that she would take that feedback on board going forward.

The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The 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

Approval to publish the report to the City Council website.

Matter for Decision

 

This report invites the Leader of the Council to approve the text of the Annual Report in advance of its formatting, design and publication on the council’s website and the Key Performance Indicators. It also invites the Leader to note the Annual Complaints and Customer Feedback Report

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council

 

i.               Approve the Annual Report against the Corporate Plan and associated KPI table.

ii.             Note the Annual Complaints and Customer Feedback 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 Customer Services Operation Manager.

 

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

 

i.       Stable management teams were now in place to focus on complaints, most notably in cultural services. This had been a year of transition for that team.

ii.       Complaints were monitored, highlighted and escalated.

iii.      The percentage of complaints dealt with within target had decreased this year.

iv.      The Leader of the Council stated that he welcomed KPI’s (Key Performance Indicators) as it allowed the Committee to scrutinise The Executive’s performance. Stated that if Members felt KPI’s needed to change, this Committee would be the place to raise any concerns.

v.      There were approximately 20,000 housing repairs with 184 complaints which is approximately 0.92%.

vi.      The Homelink service had 2696 applications with 16 complaints for 0.59% ratio.

vii.     The Housing Advice service had 2297 application with 23 complaints for 1% ratio.

viii.    The Leader of the Council stated that response times from complaints had increased and would be investigated.

ix.      The Leader of the Council stated that there were 230,000 contacts to Customer Services and there were only 24 complaints.

 

The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations by a vote of 6-0-2.

 

The 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 report sought approval of a revised Housing Strategy for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils for 2024 to 2029, to replace the existing Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019-2023.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.    Approved the overarching vision for the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached as Appendix A to the officer’s report): “Affordable, Healthy, Safe and Sustainable: Homes and Communities for All”.

ii.  Approved the objectives laid out in the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached as Appendix A to the officer’s report):

a.    Building the right homes in the right places that people need and can afford to live in.

b.    High quality, low carbon, energy and water efficient homes.

c.    Settled lives.

d.    Building strong partnerships.

iii.            Approved the priorities laid out in the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached as Appendix A to the officer’s report):

a.    Increasing the supply of new homes, including affordable housing, contributing to healthy and sustainable communities.

b.    Enabling the housing market to meet a wide range of local housing needs and to support sustainable growth.

c.    Mitigating and adapting to climate change through good design and quality of new homes.

d.    Improving housing conditions, management, safety and environmental sustainability of homes, and making best use of existing homes.

e.    Promoting health and wellbeing, tackling poverty, and promoting equality and social inclusion.

f.     Preventing homelessness.

g.    Working with partners to innovate and maximise resources.

iv.           Approved the updated Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 document itself (attached as Appendix A to the officer’s report)

v.             Approved the new and updated policy annexes to the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached within Appendix B to the officer’s report):

a.    Annex 1: Housing for specific groups.

b.    Annex 2: Affordable Housing Requirements.

c.    Annex 3: Clustering and distribution of affordable housing.

d.    Annex 4: Affordable Rents policy.

e.    Annex 5: Build to Rent Policy.

vi.           Noted the content of the non-policy related annexes to the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached within Appendix B to this report):

a.    Annex 6: Summary of Evidence.

b.    Annex 7: Glossary.

c.    Annex 8: Key Achievements 2019-2023.

vii.          Approved the Year 1 action plan attached as Appendix C to this report.

viii.        Subject to Executive Councillor approval of the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029, Annexes, and Year 1 action plan (attached at Appendices A,B & C to this report), gave delegated authority to the Assistant Director of Housing & Homelessness to agree any minor changes which may subsequently be required.

 

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 Strategy Manager.

 

The Housing Strategy Manager, Joint Director for Planning, Assistant Director for Housing and Homelessness said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Used to have an Older Persons Housing Strategy several years ago, as well as other separate housing related strategies, but had moved towards having one Housing Strategy (as well as a statutory Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy) which covered all different groups of people. 

    ii.         The requirement for a proportion of home ownership in terms of affordable housing delivery had been in Council policy for several years. Under the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in 2006 which required 75% of new affordable homes on larger developments to be rented homes, the remainder would be of an intermediate home ownership tenure. National Planning Policy requires at least 10% of all homes on new developments of 10 or more dwellings to be affordable home ownership. For the Council’s new policy it was not being specified that this had to be shared ownership, but that shared ownership was the preferred tenure when considering intermediate tenures, although it was recognised that there may be areas within Greater Cambridgeshire where this was not deliverable. For example, since the last strategy was introduced, a new First Homes Policy had been introduced by the Government. A First Homes Statement had been published on the Council’s website to explain why First Homes did not really work in a high value area like Cambridge.  Also, some Housing Associations were able to cross subsidise the delivery of shared ownership properties to be able to deliver affordable rent properties.

   iii.         There was evidence provided through the work carried out on the emerging new Local Plan which gave a starting point for the sizes of affordable homes which might be required. There was a separate set of individual criteria which is considered when each individual site comes forward including the number of applicants on the Housing Register and how many homes are becoming available in that area. Acknowledged that there could be differences between City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council need. Will also look at the size of properties required by people coming through the homelessness route and any house size requirements through existing Section 106 Agreements across the wider development. For example in large scale developments it might be more appropriate to develop smaller houses in one phase of the development and take this into account when looking at the next phase of development to try and get a balance across a development. The affordable housing mix will be considered taking into account the overall housing mix proposed for the development.

  iv.         The Housing Strategy was to be read in parallel with the National Planning Policy Framework and would be used to shape third party new development. The strategy was a facilitator alongside Planning Policy which would look to customise the housing format, tenure split etc based upon locality and circumstances. It would then be put in front of the Planning Committee for their final judgment on the point of balance.

    v.         With reference to Annex 5 (Build to Rent) a minimum of 20% of homes in developments of 10 or more homes would be required to be provided as affordable private rent and the rent should be set at least 20% below market rent. At the moment there was no evidence to suggest that more than 20% could be delivered. Including a higher target figure within the strategy would need to be considered in the context of the national planning guidance which set those figures.

  vi.         One of the other elements in the Build to Rent Policy was that when large scale developments came forward with several different tenures, then the council would seek 40% affordable housing across the whole development. Whether this was achievable or not would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

 vii.         The affordable private rent levels for Build to Rent housing schemes as a percentage of market rent had to be determined through the Local Plan process. The way that the affordable private rent process is delivered is through the regulatory framework provided by the Town and Country Planning Act.

viii.         The design of new homes would be dealt with via the planning process and would be bound by the requirements in the Local Plan and any Supplementary Planning Documents. The Local Plan process was subject to independent examination, so the policies (and requirements within them) were appropriately tested. The Housing Strategy was a material planning consideration but was not subject to the same examination process and could not be used to set planning policy.  However, the Housing Strategy was the appropriate document to contain guidance on affordable housing mixt, tenure, and form.

  ix.         Noted that the number of comments made on the draft Housing Strategy during the consultation period were low in comparison to the number of residents in Cambridge and corporately the council was looking at how it can engage with residents better. 

    x.         When development applications came forward if they were unable to meet requirements set out in the Housing Strategy, they would need to provide evidence why. 

  xi.         Had tried to set out within the Strategy that there could be differences in certain areas of the strategy between Cambridge City Council compared to South Cambridgeshire District Council. A Cambridge City Council specific annex on a particular theme could be developed. However consideration would need to be given to any impacts of this for example where developments straddled the two authority’s boundaries.  

 xii.         It was noted that requirements which were dictated by the National Planning Policy Framework and national guidance and those which could be set by the council could be made clearer within the strategy.           

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 against 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.

Matter for Decision

Report on building safety at Stanton House and future use of the building.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the cost of essential Compliance related works required to Stanton House at £635,000.

    ii.         Noted the options appraisal for Stanton House carried out by Rock Townsend Architects LLP and agreed in principle that it was no longer viable to retain the building in its current form.

   iii.         Approved removing Stanton House from the Councils operational Housing portfolio, which would include the planned decanting of all existing residents in line with the Regeneration Policy which included information on statutory home loss and disturbance payments.

  iv.         Approved a capital budget of £333,000 to cover the decanting payments to residents of Statutory Home loss and Disturbance payments. This budget would be drawn down from the existing budget approved for investment in the delivery of new homes.

    v.         Agreed that there will be further consideration of the redevelopment options for the Stanton House site that will be brought back to this committee in September 2024 for decision.

 

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 Director for Housing and Homelessness.

 

The Assistant Director for Housing and Homelessness said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Noted concerns expressed regarding the potential loss of sheltered housing and replacement with family homes. The Council was looking to bring forward an additional sheltered housing scheme which had 8 units, acknowledged this was smaller than Stanton House and that repairs were currently being undertaken to the property. Commented that the Council needed to understand what the older persons housing need was as currently there didn’t appear to be a high demand for sheltered accommodation. However, there could be a need that the council was not aware of.

    ii.         Noted ward councillor’s preference for the retention of social housing on the site. Options for the site (refurbishment / redevelopment) were being considered afresh. Considerations would include viability and what (if any) grant funding may be available.

 

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

Report on the redevelopment scheme at Ekin Road.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the completion of JLL Final Report (Stages 2 and 2b) of the options appraisal for Ekin Road.

    ii.         Approved that a mixed tenure scheme be brought forward, and a planning application submitted in line with the emerging design proposals set out in the officer report for the redevelopment of the Ekin Road estate excluding the 14 houses to the south of the estate. The development of the proposals to include further engagement with residents of the estate.

   iii.         Authorised the Chief Operating Officer (COO) in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units, tenure, mix of property types and sizes outlined in the officer’s report.

  iv.         Authorised the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Executive Councillor to approve the transfer of the land known as Ekin Road and Ekin Walk (excluding nos. 33-59 odd Ekin Road and 1 – 6 Ekin Close) and shown edged red on the attached plan in Appendix 1, to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) for redevelopment. The transfer would be at a value provided by a further independent valuation.

    v.         Authorised the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Executive Councillor to approve an Affordable Housing Agreement with CIP for the purchase of 64 affordable homes. This agreement would be at a value provided by an independent valuer.

  vi.         Approved draw down of a budget of £19,859,734 from the budget approved for the delivery of new homes, to fund the purchase of the affordable homes and associated development costs including on costs, the purchase of freehold and leasehold properties and the costs of decant for residents of the estates.

 vii.         Approved giving 82 affected council tenants required to decant the highest priority on the Council's choice-based lettings system (Home-Link).  The emergency banding status would be applied to all existing secure tenant applications from 18 June 2024.

viii.         Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to take steps preparatory to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in respect of any Leasehold and Freehold properties required in order to deliver the scheme.

  ix.         Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to make a CPO in respect of any leasehold or freehold interests that cannot be acquired by private treaty within a reasonable timescale and at a reasonable cost subject to the Chief Operating Officer being satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the use of compulsory purchase powers, and that all legal and policy requirements for the making and confirmation of a CPO have been met;

    x.         Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.

  xi.         Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to investigate and approve a scheme of works to improve the seven Council owned properties that would be retained.

 

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 Director (Development).

 

The Assistant Director (Development) and Assistant Director for Housing and Homelessness said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The Council would continue to apply for grant funding from Homes England. The success of the 500 homes programme was based on less stringent grant arrangements compared to grant arrangements which were in place now. Detail was included within the officer report around what it was believed the rent levels would be. There was a chance to try and increase the number of affordable homes on the development. Further work was required with the Planning Department.

    ii.         The fourteen homes along the south were the more straight forward to remove from the application site. Within the middle of the officer report and as part of the appendix to the JLL report there was a separate summary by the architect which looked at the four clusters of housing and their constraints. The scheme needed to balance the right mix of homes, open space, and other associated planning considerations.

   iii.         The council learned things from every redevelopment scheme. For this scheme it was important to consider the impact of the redevelopment proposals on the community as a whole and not just the residents included within the ‘red line’ development site. ‘Place based’ communication was key as well as genuine and meaningful engagement and consultation. Difficult choices had to be made when considering redevelopment of the council’s housing stock.

  iv.         Consultants were employed to provide independent and specialist advice.

    v.         Tenants had a statutory legal right to return to the estate following any redevelopment. In previous experience it was found that most tenants didn’t return as moving twice in a short period of time was a lot.

  vi.         If redevelopment was approved, then construction traffic would be controlled via the planning system.

 vii.         Where major refurbishment works were required to council properties and it was not possible for residents to remain in the property whilst works were undertaken, tenants could be decanted temporarily into alternative accommodation. There was financial assistance available in these circumstances to help with the temporary move, but this was different to the statutory home loss payment, which would not apply.

viii.         Officers had met with three council tenants the previous evening and would work with them to keep them together should redevelopment be approved.

  ix.         As far as officers were aware on previous redevelopments where decanting had taken place, only one council tenant had advised that they would want to return if redevelopment took place.

 

 

Cllr Tong proposed the following amendments to recommendations, deleted text struckthrough, additional text underlined.

 

Councillor Martinelli seconded the amendments to enable votes to be taken on the amendments.

 

Amended recommendations

2.2 Approve that a mixed tenure scheme be brought forward, and a planning application submitted in line with the emerging design proposals set out in this report for the redevelopment of the Ekin Road estate excluding the 14 houses to the south of the estate and the 6 houses on the north-east corner of the estate. The development of the proposals to include further engagement with residents of the estate. 

 

2.3 Authorise the Chief Operating Officer (COO) in consultation with the Executive Councillor for housing, Chair and Spokes to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units, tenure, mix of property types and sizes outlined in this report. 

 

2.4 Authorise the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes to approve the transfer of the land known as Ekin Road and Ekin Walk (excluding nos. 33-59 odd Ekin Road, 13-23 odd Ekin Road, and 1 – 6 Ekin Close) and shown edged red on the attached plan in Appendix 1, to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) for redevelopment. The transfer will be at a value provided by a further independent valuation.

 

2.5 Authorise the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes to approve an Affordable Housing Agreement with CIP for the purchase of 64 affordable homes. This agreement will be at a value provided by an independent valuer.

 

2.8 Delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer to take steps preparatory to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in respect of any Leasehold and Freehold properties required in order to deliver the scheme. Hab 

  

2.10 Delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer to serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985. 

 

2.11 to serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985. 

 

2.121 Delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer to investigate and approve a scheme of works to improve the seven eleven Council owned properties that will be retained.

 

The proposed amendments to the recommendations were lost by:

2.2 – 1 vote in favour, 6 against and 2 abstentions

2.3 – 3 votes in favour, 6 against

2.4 – 1 vote in favour, 6 against and 2 abstentions

2.5 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against

2.8 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against

2.10 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against

2.11 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations:

i. 2.1, 2.7 and 2.12 unanimously

ii. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11 by 8 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

 

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 new council homes under the 500 and 10 year new homes programmes.

Matter for Decision

The report provided a regular quarterly update on the City Council’s new housing delivery and development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

    ii.         Approved the updated Regeneration Policy as outlined in Paragraph 11.1 and appendix 2 of the officer’s report.

   iii.         Noted that negotiations on commercial leases at Arbury Court would now take account of the need to consider future options for a District Centre.

 

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 Director (Development).

 

The Assistant Director (Development) updated their report and advised that properties at Brackyn Road were no longer being considered for potential redevelopment as part of the Davy Road site. The properties that were under consideration for redevelopment were 2-28b Davy Road, and the Council garages on the site. A consultation with residents would be undertaken after the pre-election period was over, with a view to providing a recommendation to the Committee in September 2024.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes in favour to 0 against 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.

Matter for Decision

The Council had two long-term planned maintenance works contracts in place. One was with Foster Property Maintenance Limited, and one is with TSG Building Services. The contract with Foster Property Maintenance Limited was due to expire in September 2025. It was proposed that the Council carried out a procurement exercise to award a replacement contract so planned maintenance service delivery could continue uninterrupted at the end of the current contract.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorise the Director City Services to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to carry out planned building maintenance works and associated services to Council housing and other buildings for a period of five years from September 2025 to September 2030, with an option to extend for one or more year(s) up to a maximum extension of three years.

 

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.         Any potential bidders for the maintenance contract would need to set out how they would meet the requirements set out in the detailed specification document as part of their bid.

    ii.         Noted concerns raised by members regarding the current contract and that issues had arisen with the use of sub-contractors who may not be aware of the council’s ethos.

   iii.         There were monthly meetings held with the current contractor and there were key performance indicators (KPIs) that their performance was assessed against. Customer feedback was also collected.

  iv.         Noted member’s request to be provided with more information about the key performance indicators. In terms of the flexibility to undertake repairs, work at the weekend was usually restricted to 8-12 noon on a Saturday as it could cause disruptions on estates. Urgent work would be carried out as required.  

    v.         Took on board the Committee’s concerns regarding supply chain management and that the council needed to ensure the full supply chain was engaged.

  vi.         There were specific rules which governed a procurement process which must be followed. Existing contractors could not be excluded from submitting a bid for the new contract.

 

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.

Item deferred to 18 July 2024 Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

Item deferred to 18 July 2024 Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

Matter for Decision

The report presented for the Housing Revenue Account:

·      A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2023/24 (outturn position)

·      Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations

·      Specific requests to carry forward funding available from both revenue (confirmation of in principle decisions made in March 2024) and capital budget underspends into 2024/25.

·      A summary of housing debt which was written off during 2023/24.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved carry forward requests totalling £562,600 in revenue funding from 2023/24 into 2024/25, as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report.

    ii.         To recommend to council to approve carry forward requests of £12,507,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets and associated resources from 2023/24 into 2024/25 and beyond to fund re-phased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D and the associated notes to the appendix in the officer’s report.

   iii.         To recommend to council to approve a revised capital financing structure for 2023/24, utilising £8 million of capital reserves set-aside for either debt redemption or re-investment, in place of borrowing and direct revenue financing of capital. This recognises the current high interest rates for borrowing and the need to maintain a prudent level of revenue reserves following the requirement to allow for payment of rent refunds arising from the rent regulation error.

 

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 Finance and Business Manager.

 

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

      i.         Would feedback to officers the concerns raised about the underspend on smoke detectors; officers would need to consider how to resolve access issues into properties which prevented the smoke detector work being undertaken.

    ii.         Some of the rephased funding for the capital programme would be rephased into future years as it was recognised that continuing to rephase funding into the following year, could create difficulties for contactors if they did not have sufficient capacity to deliver potentially 2 years’ worth of work in 1 year.

   iii.         The 30-year investment programme would be revisited as part of the medium-term financial strategy which would be considered by the Committee in November.

  iv.         Confirmed that future gross and income charts would include the total expenditure and income within them.

    v.         The public loan rate was 5.5% but assumptions within the budget were made at approximately 4% so the loan rates were higher than had been planned for.

  vi.         Noted concerns raised about the underspend on disabled facilities grants (DFGs) and commented that this service was ‘demand-led’ and therefore dependent on people applying for the grant. Also noted comments about sign-posting people to appropriate resources. Processes were in place to sign-post / assist applicants and officers were currently making sure that Policies were published on the Council’s website. 

 vii.         Noted that DFGs were for people who did not live in council accommodation. Adaptations for council tenants had a separate process.

 

Post meeting note: In response to a question raised at the meeting about how long people stayed in temporary accommodation before they were able to move into permanent accommodation. The average stay in temporary accommodation was currently around 206 days. The number of households who were in temporary accommodation on the date of the committee meeting was 169 households.

 

The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendations:

-       i - by 10 votes to 0 against with 4 abstentions.

-       ii and iii by 6 votes in favour 0 against and 3 abstentions

 

 

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.