Matter for Decision

i.                The purpose of this report is to seek approval relating to Council Tax premiums - as provided within the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act – which received Royal assent on 26th October 2023, and is due to become effective from 1st April 2024.

ii.                The Act provides additional discretionary powers for Council Tax premium options in respect of Long-Term Empty property and Second Homes. Those options enable the Council to impose additional Council Tax premiums on Long Term Empty property and Second Homes with effect from 1 April 2025.

iii.             Government has confirmed that billing authorities that wish to adopt any changes are required to make a resolution confirming their requirements at least 12 months prior to the financial year in which the changes come into effect; meaning the earliest these changes can be adopted is the 1 April 2024 with new premiums being applied from 1 April 2025. This ‘notice’ period provides that a minimum of 12 months notice must be given before the financial year from which the changes to a premium can be applied.

Decision of the Executive Councillor

i.                Support in principle that the following additional Council Tax premiums be applied from 1 April 2025 or as soon as possible thereafter, subject to the required legislation or further guidance being in place:

· 100% premium for properties which have been empty and unfurnished for a period of between 1 (previously 2) and 5 years. This brings forward the charging of an Empty Homes premium so that it would be charged after 1 year of being empty instead of the current 2 years, and

· A premium of up to 100% for second homes subject to any exception being applicable.

ii.                Delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer (s151 officer) to implement the introduction of these additional premiums taking into consideration any future guidance and best practice issued by Government.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

Scrutiny Considerations

The Local Taxation Manager said the following in response to Members questions:

 

i.                Expect to be able to manage the project with current resources within the Council Tax team.

ii.               Premiums would not come into effect until 2025.

iii.             There would be an element of data cleansing to get the correct information.

iv.             There could be challenges and appeals. There was an appeals process though the valuation tribunal.

v.              Were proposing a 100% charge, not up to 100%.

vi.             Only applies to people with a second home within Cambridge.

vii.           Only allowable exemption was if you were required to live elsewhere for work.

viii.         There was an inspection process in place for empty properties.

ix.             Normal rental properties were excluded, as were student accommodation.

Members proposed amendment to wording of Recommendation 2.1 to: Up to 100% or maximum allowable in regulation.

 

The Committee unanimously approved the amendment.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

This report presents details of any anticipated variances from budgets, where resources are requested to be carried forward into the 2024/25 financial year in order to undertake or complete activities which were originally intended to take place in 2023/24.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

The Executive Councillor, is recommended, following scrutiny and debate at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee:

a) To agree the provisional carry forward requests, totalling £220,700 as detailed in Appendix A, subject to the final outturn position.

b) To agree the principle of the learning and development proposal including the creation of a permanent post as detailed in paragraph 3.4, and delegate the detailed budget adjustments to vire up to £100k of budget from services to the training and development budget to the Chief Finance Officer or Acting Chief Finance Officer in the 2024/5 financial year.

c) To agree the virement of £60,000 across portfolios for the creation of the one-year fixed term post within Procurement outlined in paragraph 3.5 and delegate the detailed budget adjustments to the Chief Finance Officer or Acting Chief Finance Officer in the 2024/5 financial year.

d) To agree to use the budget headroom resulting from the review of cost apportionment of the shared 3CICT service for the establishment of the permanent post of Strategic Digital Lead as outlined in paragraph 3.6.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

i.                Regarding empty property, and how long it had been vacant, and if realistic prospect to be be re-let, stated did not have information at hand. Would investigate and report back to Committee.

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

 

1. Approve the request of South Cambridgeshire District Council to continue the working arrangements for SCDC staff delivering shared services with Cambridge City Council.

 

2. To note the decision taken by SCDC to present an update report to S&R scrutiny committee, no later than the end of July 2024.

Matter for Decision

This is a short paper setting out next steps and recommendations in relation to the four-day working week trial at South Cambridgeshire District Council. It is presented at this scrutiny committee because SCDC operate two shared services on behalf of Cambridge City Council, the Shared Waste Service and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service.

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council and Executive Councillor for Transformation

 

      i.          Approve the request of South Cambridgeshire District Council to continue the working arrangements for SCDC staff delivering shared services with Cambridge City Council (shared waste and Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, in line with the decision taken by SCDC Cabinet, as follows: a. To continue the four day week working arrangement for both desk based and waste service operational SCDC colleagues until:

1)             information is provided by the Government regarding potential future financial levers they might impose on Councils using this working practice, as announced in their Local Government Financial Settlement consultation in December 2023, and

2)             a subsequent consultation is carried out by the Council, analysed, and all trial data is presented to SCDC Full Council for a final decision. b. for all SCDC colleagues working a four-day week (desk-based and waste operations), the hours are harmonised at 32 hours per week (pro rata for part time colleagues) at 86.5% of contracted hours from 1 April 2024.

     ii.          To note the decision taken by SCDC to present an update report to this scrutiny committee, no later than the end of July 2024, providing data on the trial periods (desk-based and waste), up to the end of March 2024, including information about the ongoing effectiveness, including recruitment and retention, costs and savings of a four-day week working model

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Chief Operating Officer (Cambridge City Council), Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire County Council, Head of Climate, Environment and Waste, Head of Transformation, HR and Corporate Services (South Cambridgeshire) and Chief Operating Officer (South Cambridgeshire) said the following in response to Members questions:

i.                Agency savings had been significant, There were several posts that previously could not be filled. The majority of savings from Planning Services.

ii.               Were seeing better staff retention. Less vacancies for posts. Less recruitment costs.

iii.             Had seen a reduction in sickness, however still need to analyse data regarding that.

iv.             Recruitment had been more successful.

v.              Have data regarding the trial, would not analyse from May-July.

vi.             If other Councils started apapting a 4 Day Week (4DW), that could cause a challenge regarding recruitment.

vii.           The year long trial allowed for the newness to wear off and for work to normalise and stabilise.

viii.         If the 4DW was stopped now, there would be morale issues.

ix.             Currently there were less meetings taking place on Monday’s and Friday’s.

x.              Staff have the ability to drop out of the trial if they so wished.

xi.             SCDC had staff drop in sessions with HR.

xii.           Had regular meetings with unions.

xiii.         Issues included study time for apprentices.

xiv.         The review of waste services was for growth and the 4DW. The growth review had already taken place.

xv.          The new refuse collection rounds that had been put in place will be in place for at least 3 years, unless there was further growth.

xvi.         SCDC would be doing a residents survey and a consultation.

xvii.       Would provide update at a future meeting of this Committee.

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Cambridge City Council

Record of Officer Urgent Decision

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority- Appointment of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee reserve (substitute) member

Decision taken: To appoint the reserve member for the City Council on the CPCA Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

Decision of: Chief Executive

Reference: 24/OfficerUrgent/SR/01

Date of decision: 1 February 2024

Matter for Decision: To appoint Councillor Cameron Holloway as the City Council’s reserve (substitute) member on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Any alternative options considered and rejected: None

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: Normally an appointment by Full Council (which next meets on 15 February 2024), an urgent decision under Section 9 paragraph 2, Council Procedure Rules was necessary to enable the reserve (substitute) member to attend a CPCA meeting before the next Full Council meeting.

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: None.

Comments: None

Contact for further information: Robert Pollock, Chief Executive. Robert.Pollock@cambridge.gov.uk

 

To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Matter for Decision

This is a regular report to the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee each cycle providing an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board since the meeting of this Scrutiny Committee on 29 January October 2024.

 

Decision of the Leader

To invite the Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board, Councillor Anna Smith, to provide an update on the Board and issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority Board held on 31 January 2024 and 20 March 2024.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board Councillor A. Smith provided a verbal report.

 

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.                Disappointed by changes made by Stagecoach. Bus reform was needed.

ii.               UKREiiF was an investment conference. Was trying to get investment into the region by marketing Cambridgshire and Peterborough.

iii.             Could provide further details about UKREiiF.

iv.             There was not currently a wider plan for more affordable homes.

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

This report contains exempt information during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting subject to determination by the Scrutiny Committee following consideration of a public interest test. This exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Committee voted 4-3-1 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 Committee voted 5-1-2 to endore the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Matter for Decision:

a.    To agree to submit the response to the open consultation on strengthening planning policy for brownfield development as set out in Appendix 1 which can be viewed at the link below:

Appendix 1 :Response to Government Consultation: Strengthening planning policy for brownfield development - Cambridge Council
 

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):

 

To provide feedback on the consultation reflecting issues relevant to Greater Cambridge.

 

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, DLUHC 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 strengthening planning policy for brownfield development as set out in Appendix 1.

Appendix 1 :Response to Government Consultation: Strengthening planning policy for brownfield development - Cambridge Council

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.

 

Report: BFL Consultation 2024 is attached as Appendix 1

Appendix 1 :Response to Government Consultation: Strengthening planning policy for brownfield development - Cambridge Council

Conflict of interest: None.

 

Comments: The following comments were received from Cllr Porrer, Liberal Democrats, Opposition Spokes:

I'd note that the importance of having active frontages at ground floor levels (ie shop fronts and not just flats) is so important to place making and designing out crime and making things feel safer for residents.  I wonder if officers and the Exec Cllr might consider adding this in.

 

I also wanted to ask if officers and the Exec Cllr might consider adding a little more under the last question about the equalities impact.  As is already mentioned in some responses, the likely outcome of lower quality/small/cheaper housing being clustered on brownfields sites with few or no amenities nearby is definitely going to impact on the quality of life for residents in lower income brackets who would be more likely to live there, and there is clear evidence that these lower income brackets are often disproportionately represented by residents with protected characteristics as you note.  This would lead to a much more divided city (or county) and is the opposite of what we currently aim to do in terms of pepperpotting different housing types and tenures across developments and limiting numbers of affordable flats to a maximum per block and which we have been very successful in achieving across many recent brownfield developments with a mix of larger and smaller homes, but all meeting space standards. 

 

I appreciate that this is already alluded to in various parts of the response, but as the Equalities audit is something that the government needs to have regard to, I think it might be useful to reiterate these points here too.

 

Councillor Tong, Green Party Opposition Spokes, made the following comments:

 Although I broadly agree with the points being made, here, particularly the arguments made in relation to how we need to do all that we can to protect the quality of our housing and ensure that amenities for local residents are made available, I do think this response puts too much of an emphasis on the importance of expanding Cambridge's STEM industries - the focus should be on the provision of facilities for local people.

I also think that if we're going to discuss heritage assets, our response should go into a bit more detail about our stance on them. Personally, I put the value of views of heritage assets from specific places lower than the value of residents having the opportunity to enjoy looking around a heritage asset on-site, something that facilities need to be provided to allow for.

Officers addressed the comments with both Councillors

 

 

Briefing Paper

 

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) is seeking views on how it might strengthen national planning policy to support brownfield development. It also seeks views on reviewing the threshold for referral of applications to the Mayor of London. The 3 consultation proposals are:

·       Changes to national planning policy to give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible and to take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to the internal layout of development.

·       Changes to the way the Housing Delivery Test operates in the 20 towns and cities subject to the uplift in the standard method. This would introduce an additional presumption in favour of sustainable development on brownfield land where the Housing Delivery Test score falls below 95%.

·       Reviewing the threshold for referral of applications to the Mayor of London.

Consultation closes on 26 March 2024 and further information can be viewed on the DLUHC webpage for the consultation: Strengthening planning policy for brownfield development - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

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. Given that the proposal relating to the threshold for referral of applications to the Mayor of London does not relate to Greater Cambridge, no response is proposed to the questions related to this.

Within the councils’ response, many of the key responses relate to the:

·      change to national planning policy to make clear local planning authorities should give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible

·      change to national planning policy to make clear local planning authorities should take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to the internal layout of development.

·      other planning barriers in relation to developing on brownfield land

·      how national planning policy better support development on brownfield land

·      how national planning policy better support brownfield development on small sites

The Councils response states that although we are supportive of development of brownfield sites, which reflects the existing NPPF, we express multiple concerns that strengthening planning policy around such areas through the options proposed will lower the quality of homes and lead to ‘quantity over quality’ on brownfield sites. All options proposed reduce standards of development and placemaking. This would lead to the erosion of development quality, sustainability, affordability, energy efficiency, and homes with sufficient space for families / working at home, for the provision of quantity. It also states that through the Local Plan as a comprehensive strategy, rather than piecemeal change, is the appropriate approach to allocating the best and most appropriate sites for residential uses, and this includes the re-use of brownfield sites.

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