Decisions

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.          Would be happy to talk to Officers to arrange a briefing on the bus franchising consultation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

     ii.          Would investigate if the bus franchising consultation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough could be brought to the next Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee for Members comments.

   iii.          In response to the question if the CPCA had held further meetings with Government; there had several conversations amongst the constituent authorities and meetings which Cambridge City Council were involved with.

   iv.          Cambridge City Councillors who sat on the CPCA, such as Councillor A Smith and Cllr Davey consistently worked hard to make the case for Cambridge City on all projects and scrutiny.

    v.          Councillor Davey, as Leader of the Counci,l sat on the Cambridge 2050 Advisory Board. 

   vi.           UKREiiF (Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure) was an investment and infrastructure forum. The CPCA planned to attend the 2024 annual conference. Cambridge as a major contributor the UK economy would feature next year.

 vii.          The Infrastructure delivery framework was being worked on which would form part of the local growth plan.

viii.          At the National Infrastructure Round Table discussions had been held on water scarcity, Cambridge City Council  had been represented by Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, Stephen Kelly. Could not provide a date on when the information from that meeting would be published.

   ix.          Last year the Council had agreed to move funding for Dial-a-Ride to the CPCA, in addition to direct funding from the CPCA.

    x.          The City Council were aware that Dial-a-Ride required more support and would contribute an additional year’s funding to allow the organisation to put together a long-term viability plan.

   xi.          Papers from the last  CPCA Transport and Infrastructure meeting could be accessed online outlining where improvements had been made to the school transport bus services. This also listed a variety of routes that the CPCA were looking to improve and when.

 xii.          Work was also being done at combining certain school routes which should lead to a decrease in the cost of school taxis.

xiii.          The CPCA were  currently exploring issues around the capital cost of franchising and location of depots; to make it fair there should be several bus companies who run the depots rather than a single bus company. 

xiv.          Currently consulting on the concept of franchising; do we agree franchise.

xv.          A Business Growth and Social Impact Investment Fund of £9.5million spread over a few years had become available to support small and medium enterprises across the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough region, some of which was aimed at supporting the third sector.

xvi.          The orbital bus route around Cambridge should be starting in November.  

 

The Chair thanked Cllr A Smith for their update report.

 

Matter for Decision

Solid Fuel Burning was the largest single source of PM2.5 emissions in Cambridge. It accounted for 40% of emissions in Cambridge.

 

Legislation to control emissions from solid fuel burning was the Clean Air Act 1993 and the use of Smoke Control Areas (SCA); a designated area where the emission of smoke was not permitted. You could burn inside a SCA, but either smokeless fuel or a DEFRA approved appliance must be used. Three SCAs were introduced in Cambridge in the 1960s and 1970s. Most residential properties were outside existing SCAs.

 

Cambridge City Council commissioned an independent report to assess the effects of amending the SCA in Cambridge to cover the whole of the city. The report considered both the inclusion and exclusion of permanent moored vessels in terms of changes in pollution emissions, health & socio-economic impacts.

 

The report concluded that any changes to widen the scope of the SCA would provide a net benefit to society from health improvements due to reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, with these benefits outweighing the combined costs. Costs included cost to home and vessel owners of switching fuel or upgrading stoves; and cost to council for implementation and enforcement.

 

The impact on individuals was considered as part of the socio-economic study. Very few residents were solely dependent on solid fuel for heating and hot water, with changes impacting those that used wood burning stoves for pleasure or to subsidise other forms of central heating. However, this was not the case for moored vessel owners who were more dependent on solid fuel. Evidence suggested this group may have lower incomes and be more vulnerable.

 

The Officer’s report recommended the expansion of the SCA to cover the whole city including moored vessels, and recommended further engagement with vessel owners given the increased potential vulnerability of this group. Should changes to the SCA be implemented, it should be accompanied by a robust awareness raising campaign.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

Approved the consultation to the public on expanding the SCA to cover the whole of the district including to extend the scope of the SCA to include permanent moored vessels.

 

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 Environmental Quality & Growth Manager.

 

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

      i.          Referred to the 2023 report regarding how enforcement action could be undertaken. The intention would be to investigate complaints from members of the public, issue warnings if required, then act if people did not desist from burning inappropriate fuels etc. There had been no prosecutions under the SCAs in twenty-seven years.

     ii.          Residents in some wards complained when others burnt solid fuel as they were concerned about harm from smoke.

 

The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Officer’s report recommended the expansion of the SCA to cover the whole city including moored vessels, and recommended further engagement/consultation with vessel owners given the increased potential vulnerability of this group.

     ii.          People could still burn approved fuels or any fuel in an approved appliance.

   iii.          Retailers could only supply smokeless fuels. ‘Approved’ stoves were available and more expensive than ‘standard’ stoves. The report set out options the City Council could implement to avoid penalising boat owners.

 

The Air Quality Consultant said the difference between ‘standard’ and ‘approved’ stoves was hard to quantify. Possibly a reduction in up to 70% of some particulates. Undertook to liaise with Councillor Glasberg after committee.

 

   iv.          There would always be some harm from burning combustible fuels, so reducing emissions would lead to some benefits.

 

The Scientific Officer reiterated:

      i.          Officers had plans to engage with residents and raise awareness of issues if SCA were expanded.

     ii.          People could use appropriate fuel/stoves.

   iii.          There was a need to improve fuel issues such as traffic emissions to improve air quality.

 

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 Officer’s report provided an update on progress on the 2023/24 actions of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26. As part of this, the report included an update on progress in implementing projects to reduce direct carbon emissions from corporate buildings, fleet vehicles and business travel as detailed in the Council’s Carbon Management Plan 2021-26.

 

The report also provided an update on the Council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2023/24 and a new Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (CR&VA) and Adaptation Plan, which prioritised the climate change risks for the Council and the city, plus details on actions the Council was taking to adapt and improve resilience.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

      i.          Noted the progress achieved in implementing the actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan (Appendix B of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Approved the updated Climate Change Strategy Action Plan presented in Appendix A.

   iii.          Noted the risks identified and actions being taken in the Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (CR&VA) and Adaptation 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 Assistant Chief Executive.

 

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

      i.          Undertook to provide briefing details to Committee Members after the meeting on:

a.    Civic Quarter project and biodiversity net gain.

b.    Community Action Days.

c.    Green investments from General Fund.

d.    Support for businesses to tackle climate change.

e.    Procurement and Climate Change.

f.      Carbon Neutral Cambridge’s commentary on the Climate Change Strategy annual update report.

     ii.          Targets referenced in the Officer’s report were direct emissions from the City Council. The hope was to get the city to net zero, but this was an aspiration.

   iii.          The Council was taking a wide range of direct actions, set out in the Climate Change Strategy Action Plan. For example seeking to reduce emissions from its housing and leisure sites. Officers were looking at how to take more actions in future.

   iv.          The Guildhall was used for a number of purposes by different organisations. There were currently no plans to host a Decarbonisation Officer in the Guildhall. Other officers could be signposted to people making enquiries.

    v.          The City Council was putting in electric vehicle charging points in carparks on land it owned. The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager was liaising with the County Council to encourage people to put charging points on home owners’ properties in residential areas.

 

The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said:

a.    A pilot project was run with Cambridgeshire County Council to install forty-two charging points in residential areas. A larger project was expected to be rolled out in the next twelve months, led by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, to install more charging points around the county (not just in the city).

b.    The City Council had installed rapid chargers around Cambridge for taxi and public use.

c.    The on-street charging tariff could be expensive. It was cheaper to use private charging points. The tariff for public ones included maintenance costs. The contract for residential on-street chargers was managed by the County Council. Rates across the city were competitive with national ones.

 

   vi.          A social value framework was currently being developed. This looked at how City Council money could be used to nudge contractors to take more action. The Director of Communities was writing a new strategy to take over from the existing one in eighteen months.

 vii.          Referenced objective 4 in the report. The City Council convened the  City Leaders Climate Change Group to share good practice plus encourage residents and businesses to reduce emissions.

viii.          It was difficult to engage with some residents if they did not want to respond.

   ix.          The City Council was working with partners to decarbonise the food supply chain, working with partners such as Cambridge Sustainable Food.

 

The Director of Communities said officers were looking at how to use community venues as food hubs. Actions could be reported back in future such as work with Coe Farm.

 

    x.          The Waterbeach Renewable Energy Network (WREN) solar project was scheduled to start construction in 2025.

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment said the Council had taken delivery of a fourth electric vehicle for waste collection. More could not be procured until WREN came online. Some waste oil powered vehicles were used mean time.

 

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.

 

Comment by Committee

The Committee thanked Assistant Chief Executive Andrew Limb for his exceptional work in supporting Cambridge City Council’s climate change strategy.

 

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the MTFS was to project the General Fund’s financial position over the medium term, and set out the high level strategic approach to ensuring financial sustainability over this period.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

i.                To approve the Council’s General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2025/26-2034/35, as attached at Appendix A.

ii.               To approve the 2024/25 capital bid of an additional £487,000 for essential repairs of the riverbank at Jesus Green, as set out at page 19 of the attached MTFS.

iii.             To note the other changes to the capital plan approved under delegated powers since approval of the Budget Setting Report, as set out in section 5 of the attached MTFS.

iv.             To set the General Fund reserve Prudent Minimum Balance at £6.541 million, and the target level at £7.849 million, as recommended by the Chief Finance Officer.

 

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 Financial Officer outlining the MTFS.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Financial Officer and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources commented:

 

i.                The target of £6 million of savings over two years was an ambitious one. As the Council had been financially prudent over the previous years it was now easier to make some of the savings that were required to balance the budget gap, rather than having to find £11.5 million of savings in the next two years.

ii.               In terms of being able to deliver some of the proposed savings the Group redesign would go into more detail the ways the Council was going to deliver services whilst recognising savings that needed to be made.

iii.             Looking further into the future officers were having to make assumptions with regards to some of the key financial indicators and this was harder to predict the further out the strategy looked.

iv.             Officers were already looking at ways of bridging the budget gap from £6 million to £11.5 million.

v.              It was essential to make services more efficient and effective wherever possible. There were circumstances that dictated that sometimes less was less when it came to delivering some services and those were decisions that Council had to think through. The key for the Council was to make sure the Council was financially sustainable for the future.

vi.             The Council still aimed to deliver excellent services to its residents, including carrying out its programme on housing development. It was essential to make the right level of savings that delivered the least harm to front line services.

vii.           The MTFS assumptions were based on the report produced by the Bank of England in August. The scenario’s in the report were based on this and fell within the Bank of England’s confidence range. Scenario one was the worst case scenario and reflected CPI going back up to 5.3%.

viii.         All businesses had an independent re-valuation of their business rates which was carried out by the government. The last re-valuation was effective from April 2023. There was a deadline for businesses to appeal against the previous re-valuation done in April 2017 and that was 31 March 2024. The Council was required to make a provision for any successful appeals that were made, although most of the appeals were speculative.

ix.             The Council were in talks with government over the impact of future growth on the city and the services that are provided. The Leader confirmed that they had raised the issue of poor data that had an impact on funding levels for the Council. It was about more than housing and growth but around finances for the Council as a whole. Part of the discussions with government was to show that the Council was prudent with its finances and well run.

x.              Officers were to check the A14 project earmarked reserves fund and provide any future updates. This earmarked fund could be reallocated to environmental improvements or transport mitigations.

 

The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations, a vote on each recommendation set out below.

 

i.Approve the Council’s General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2025/26-2034/35, as attached at Appendix A. (5 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

ii.Approve the 2024/25 capital bid of an additional £487,000 for essential repairs of the riverbank at Jesus Green, as set out at page 19 of the attached MTFS. (Unanimous)

iii.Note the other changes to the capital plan approved under delegated powers since approval of the Budget Setting Report, as set out in section 5 of the attached MTFS. (Unanimous)

iv.Set the General Fund reserve Prudent Minimum Balance at £6.541 million, and the target level at £7.849 million, as recommended by the Chief Finance Officer (Unanimous)

 

 

 

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 report referred to the recommendations on the future of the shared ICT service that serves Huntingdonshire District Council, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

      i.          Noted the final report submitted by Triple Value Impact (TVI) (Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report – confidential item).

     ii.          Agreed to the recommended option 1 (redesigned 3C ICT and Digital, Lead Authority remains Huntingdonshire District Council) and to delegate the responsibility for finalising the scope and detailed nature of the new agreement and associated activities to the Chief Executives and respective Portfolio Holders for each partnership council reporting on progress through the revised member board.

 

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 Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Operating Officer and Strategic Digital Lead Officer and External Consultant said the following:

      i.          The reference to legacy systems were systems that needed to be replaced.

     ii.          Originally the partnership agreement was a shared partnership agreement, but it had become more of a client, supplier relationship which would be renewed as part of the agreement.

   iii.          The data would be stored in a UK based data centre (which was a requirement of where any data would be moved to) with UK based staff who would be subjected to the living wage.

   iv.          With the move to the cloud there would be some risk, such as being impacted by Microsoft wide outages. These were very rare, .01% when these outages occurred and the resilience very good.

    v.          Some of the data would be stored in Microsoft data centres; Microsoft had a target to be carbon negative by 2030. Further information could be provided.

   vi.          The future of the ICT service was integral to the Our Cambridge programme and the work on the Council’s digital technology strategy.

 

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 report referred to draft proposals developed through the Our Cambridge programme, which would enable the Council to achieve £6million net savings and requested the necessary permissions and delegations to progress.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for the Leader of the Council

i.               Agreed design principles for Communities Group and the Economy and Place Group, and delegated authority to the relevant Director/CEO to develop and implement internal organisation in line with Council policy.

ii.               Recommended to the Executive the inclusion of proposals in the public consultation that would impact service delivery on the strategic outline budget. Following consultation final decisions would go through the budget setting process.

iii.               Noted the overall approach to achieving £6m savings over the 25/26 and 26/27 budget cycle as recommended in the MTFS.

 

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 Operating Officer.

 

The Chief Operating Officer, Director of  Communities, Chief Finance Officer and the Leader said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               A neighbourhood-based approach would allow services such as housing, environmental health, estates, sport and leisure and community development, as example, to be delivered collectively and collaboratively, which would look at services from a resident’s perspective in the different neighbourhoods throughout the city with inclusion from Ward Councillors.

ii.               There were also other key public services that worked on a neighbourhood-based approach, particularly in health.  Worked had been undertaken to determine how the Council was better aligned with external health colleagues and integrated neighbourhoods to improve the working relationship. 

iii.               The neighbourhood approach would also benefit the Council’s external organisations such as the Police and health groups.

iv.               Savings referenced would be made across all groups in the Council.

v.                The report had been set out to establish the principles that could be taken out to consultation with staff and the community. The details would come back for full scrutiny at a future meeting. It was important to highlight that Officers were working behind the scenes to look at that detail.    

vi.               The process was not just about savings, the transformation programme was also about making a Council fit for purpose for the future, working more effectively and efficiently and better for residents.

vii.               Was looking at the Council’s internal staffing structure to enhance resilience, reduce cost and become more effective.  The Council had in place traditional structures for a long time, it was right to question whether they were still the correct structures to meet the needs of how the Council would operate moving forward.

viii.                Part of the Our Cambridge programme was to look at performance, how well were officers carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

ix.               Disputed that the Our Cambridge programme was taking too long; already significant changes had taken place.

x.                The way the Our Cambridge programme had outlined the purpose, was to talk more about the impact and outcome of what was trying to be achieved as a Council and not necessarily focused on the individual services.

xi.               Looking across the work that Officers undertook, the Council was a fundamental partner to public safety; shared the community safety partnership, provided environmental health services across the city, employed antisocial behaviour teams and enforcement teams.

xii.               While the Council were not the primary / lead contributor to public safety had contributed £14 million of health and wellbeing services

xiii.                The Council was also a housing provider in the City which was probably the most fundamental role for providing a safety net for residents.

xiv.               The Council were investing £100million in Abbey Ward which would take some of the health inequalities that currently existed with the current housing properties.

xv.               The 2.5% inflation figure was a baseline assumption that was used to calculate the budget gap. The Council’s budget for 2024/25 included £23 million income from fees and charges, although this did not include income from commercial property, of which there was an additional £10 million of income. There was also an additional £3.5 million in income from other commercial sources.

xvi.               The public budget consultation would ask high level questions, however there would still be opportunity to scrutinise those fees and charges that are proposed to change through the budget setting process.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 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.

 

An update on the vacant possession strategy for Council Land at Hartree and approval to progress a CPO application as part of the strategic plan to meet programme timescales.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report referred to Hartree - Vacant Possession Strategy

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council. 

      i.          Approved Officer’s recommendations.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Leader.

 

Matter for Decision:

a.    To agree to submit the response to the open consultation on Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system as set out in Appendix 1.

Appendix 1 Response to NPPF Consultation
 

b.    To agree 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.

 

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

 

Background:

The purpose of this decision is to agree a response to the Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system consultation.

Consultation closes on 24 September 2024 and further information can be viewed on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government website for the consultation: Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The consultation seeks views on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and wider changes to the planning system, with a focus on enabling the delivery of 1.5m homes over the next 5 years. It proposed changes to the standard method of calculating housing requirements, changes to green belt policy including introducing the term ‘grey belt’ and ‘golden rules’ that would apply to green belt development, changes to the approach to affordable housing, and renewable energy. It also proposes changes to the

 

planning application process, seeking views on what should be covered by Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, and how planning fees should be set.

Feedback is requested via submission of written responses to the answered questions included within the document. The Councils’ response is set out in Appendix 1. Note that the response is proposed to be joint by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, but it will be subject to each council’s individual decision sign of process.

 

Response to the Consultation:

 

The draft response is supportive of a number of the changes proposed in the draft NPPF, although there are a number of cases where the proposed response is supportive of the general principle but concerned about omitted details or unintended consequences. The response has raised concerns about amendments to the presumption of sustainable development not doing enough to secure high quality development, the lack of transitionary arrangement associated with changes to the standard method for assessing housing needs and, and the proposed definition of Grey Belt Land and expansion of the PDL definition. In response to wide changes to the planning system, the proposed response supports proposals to increase planning fees to enable cost recovery.

 

Alternative Options:

 

An alternative option would be to not respond to the consultation. However, if no response is made by Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils, MHCLG would not be made aware of the Councils’ views on the proposed changes to national planning policy.

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision: That the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure agrees:

a.    to submit the response to the open consultation on Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system as set out in Appendix 1.

Appendix 1 Response to NPPF Consultation

b.    that 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.

 

Reason for the decision: To provide feedback on the consultation reflecting issues relevant to Greater Cambridge.

 

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

 

Conflict of interest: None.

 

Comments: Councillor Porrer (Liberal Democrat Opposition Spokes) made comments which were addressed by the Planning Policy Manager and the draft response reviewed and updated.