Decisions

The Executive will be considering the Budget Setting Report which is published at Agenda Item 11 of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee which is meeting immediately prior to the Executive meeting.  Please use the link below to access the report.

 

Agenda for Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on Monday, 7th February, 2022, 5.00 pm - Cambridge Council

Minutes:

The Executive met immediately following the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee which had considered and scrutinised the Budget Setting Report and Executive Amendment and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources had recommended it to the Executive.

 

Members of the Executive present, who had been present throughout the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee had no further comments.

 

Accordingly, Council is recommended to:

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets: [Section 5, page 26 refers]

 

a)  Approve

 

·  Revenue Pressures and Bids shown in Appendix B(b) and Savings shown in Appendix B(c).

 

·  Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix B(d).

 

·  Bids to be funded from External Funding sources as shown in Appendix B(e).

 

 

b)  Delegate to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which is set out in Appendix A(a).

 

c)  Approve the level of Council Tax for 2022/23 as set out in Appendix A (b) and Section 4 [page 17 refers].

 

 

Other Revenue:

 

d)  Delegate to the Head of Finance authority to finalise changes relating to any further corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

 

Capital: [Section 6, page 29 refers]

 

Capital Plan:

 

e)  Agree the proposals outlined in Appendix C(a) for inclusion in the Capital Plan.

 

f)  Delete from the Capital Plan of the Cambridge Junction capital scheme, as set out in Section 6 [page 29 refers]

 

g)  Subject to (e) above, approve the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix C(c) and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page 29.

 

 

General Fund Reserves:

 

h)  Note the impact of revenue budget approvals and the resulting contribution from reserves to support service delivery [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

i)  Approve the allocation of funding on a contingency basis to the collaborative ‘Changing Futures’ programme project [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

j)  Note the resulting level of reserves [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

Section 25 Report:

 

k)  Note the Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Report included in Section 10 of the BSR [page 65 refers].

 

Review of Charges

 

l)  Note the schedule of proposed fees and charges for 2022/23 in Appendix F.

Matter for Decision

This was the annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations.

 

The report also provided updates for 2021-22 and outlines key areas of work going forward.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2022-23, as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2022 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

     ii.          Approved £30,000 to Cambridge Council for the Voluntary Sector (CCVS) for a building community power and resilience project following on from the remarkable support undertaken by communities during the pandemic and linking to the Council’s ‘Our Cambridge’ transformation programme, as detailed in section 4 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors asked for the Committee’s thanks to the Community Funding and Development Manager and her Team to be recorded for their hard work.

 

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

      i.          A funding statement to mitigate the impact of Covid had been put out in March 2020. Details set out in the agreement said the City Council would support groups if applicants contacted officers to request assistance.

     ii.          There had been no applications from voluntary groups to support the Gypsy and Traveller community. Applications had been received from other communities. Officers were working with the Equalities Officer to understand how to approach groups who did not apply to encourage them to do so.

   iii.          Different amounts of funding were allocated around the city wards based on population size. The calculation had been in place for ten years.

   iv.          A budget of £1,000,000 was available for Community Grants 2022-23 subject to approval of the Council’s budget in February 2022. £70,000 of the Community Grants budget was allocated to Area Committee Community Grants as in previous years. The amount had been the same for years. Inflation was taken into consideration.

    v.          Applicants had to meet criteria to receive funding. Funding was awarded according to what was considered acceptable under project criteria.

 

The Executive Councillor said the City Council was one of the few District Councils in the country who maintained a community funding pot. If some sections were increased, the impact on the overall budget would have to be reviewed.

 

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.

Public Questions

Members of the public asked several questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Raised the following points:

      i.          Welcomed the recommendations made in the Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP). Suggested some amendments at 2.1 a) 'The Executive Councillor is recommended to approve the Herbicide Reduction Plan Project as set out in Appendix A.'

     ii.          Reasons for suggesting amendments to g) and h) were:

1.    Dates and preparations for the 12 wards outside the herbicide free trial are not mentioned in the HRP.  The start date for herbicide spraying is not given, nor the need for website content updating or publicity for their treatments.  The date for Consultation and Communication preparations for the trial wards to be ready is 25th February with a start date of 1st March. See point 5 of the report.

2.    Resources need to be allocated so residents can look up planned herbicide treatment dates by ward on the council’s website and see in situ signage so they can keep pets, children and themselves away from treated areas. This is for public health reasons, to reduce their exposure to herbicides.           

3.    Herbicides are probably carcinogenic (WHO) and are neurotoxic to humans.

4.    After herbicide treatment plants do not die off for 5 to 10 days so are invisible for that time.

5.    Glyphosate, the most common herbicide, has a half-life of 3 days to 19 weeks depending on the weather so can stay toxic for a long time. Herbicides pollute the air, the ground and ground water. You cannot see, taste or smell it in water.

   iii.          Appendix A

g) 'Explore the most effective methods of communicating with residents...about any necessary herbicide applications, which may will include the following commitments; publishing the planned dates of herbicide treatments by road/ward for the whole city for the remainder of 2022 and thereafter on the council website, allowing residents to find out when a treatment is planned. After 2022 herbicide treatments will end.’

and

h) 'Consider the commitment Commit to displaying signage in situ on the relevant roads and pavements with dates of any herbicide treatments from for the remainder of 2022 onwards after which herbicide treatments will end.'

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing responded:

      i.          Sections G and H were part of a council motion so could not be amended unless details went back to a Full Council meeting. The above ideas could be noted for future reference to avoid delay.

     ii.          The project initiation document contained strategic data, not operational data such as dates. It set tasks to be completed by 25 February. Officers would work with the project board on the tasks.

   iii.          Officers would communicate with residents about pesticides to be used. They were looking at ways to do this in conjunction with the project board.

   iv.          Residents would be advised when work was to be undertaken and any issues to be aware of.

 

Supplementary question:

      i.          Requested pesticide work be listed on the council website, so residents could see action taken at a road or ward level.

     ii.          Queried if herbicide work would end in 2022.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.          Pesticide work could be listed on the council website.

     ii.          Results from the end of the trial could not be predicted in advance. It was hoped pesticide use would end after 2022.

 

2.    Pesticide-Free Cambridge raised the following points:

      i.          Reiterated their firm commitment to working with the City Council to make Cambridge pesticide-free, starting with a complete end to herbicide use on land owned or managed by the City Council. Remained committed to working with communities, groups and residents to make this happen as quickly and as effectively as possible. Welcomed the Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP) and the Herbicide-Free Streets proposal. Was disappointed to note that they had no response to questions to the ECSC meeting on 7th October 2021 or to their follow up email to councillors on 10 December 2021.

     ii.          Raised the following questions for the ECSC meeting on 27 January 2022:

1.    Although the pesticide free motion of 22 July stated that the council would work directly with Pesticide-Free Cambridge over the planned herbicide free trials, to date we have only had informal talks with the Biodiversity Team, and we have not been included in any formal discussion with the council. When will Pesticide-Free Cambridge be invited to join a working group to monitor the progress of the ward trials and herbicide-free streets, and to have input into related information campaigns and websites?

2.    When will the city council start to post notices of when herbicide spraying is due to take place across those wards and streets that are NOT being included in the HRP and to erect information signage in areas that are undergoing herbicide-free trials?

3.    Will the city council operatives wear full PPE, as is legally required, when spraying herbicides?

4.    Will steps be taken to include specific reference to the human health impacts of pesticide exposure in the HRP? We are concerned that the only health impacts mentioned in the current document are those connected with trip hazards posed by urban plants. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing responded:

      i.          (Q1) For this to succeed the City Council would need to work with other organisations as set out in the Stakeholder & Comms Plan. A project board would lead on the plan.

     ii.          (Q2) Ideas were being developed on how to communicate with residents. The Stakeholder & Comms Plan would set out details.

   iii.          (Q3) City council operatives would wear full PPE and undertake a risk assessment.

   iv.          (Q4) The EQiA set out potential negative impacts which would be reviewed. The positive impact of ending pesticide use was also set out.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council has considered, debated, and shares the concerns from residents about the use of herbicides in the city.

 

On the 18th July 2019, the Council unanimously voted in favour of declaring a Biodiversity Emergency. In response, the Council has stopped the use of herbicides in playgrounds, parks and commons. This declaration also included a commitment to reducing and removing the need to use herbicides on highway footpaths and verges, and to find viable and effective alternatives.

 

On 22nd July 2021, the Council passed a Herbicide (Free) Motion (ref. 21/32/CNlc), which sets out a range of tasks and actions to reduce the reliance on herbicides as a means of managing unwanted vegetation on public property assets within the city.

 

The Officer’s report and its accompanying proposed Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP) Project Initiation Document (as set out in Appendix A) responds to the Council declared Biodiversity Emergency and approved Herbicide Motion.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

      i.          Approved the Herbicide Reduction Plan Project Initiation Documentation as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Approved Newnham and Arbury as the two trial Wards to be completely herbicide free for 2022.

   iii.          Approved the introduction of up to 12 herbicide free streets in addition to and outside of the two trial herbicide free wards.

 

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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

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

      i.          Noted that members of the public and committee had suggested putting information about pesticide usage on physical signs (to be displayed in areas when work undertaken) as well as on websites. Signage was a significant resource. It was only accurate on the day it was written whereas webpage details could be updated faster. Would investigate the suggestion of using stickers as an alternative to signs as they could be easier to produce. Also QR codes.

     ii.          Undertook to produce a stakeholder communication plan to manage expectations and set out what people could expect from the trial.

   iii.          The trial was modelled on herbicide reduction action undertaken in Lambeth. People could opt into the trial. A consensus from residents was needed to show if people in a street wished to participate or not.

   iv.          Noted the suggestion to include details in Cambridge Matters.

    v.          Newnham and Arbury were chosen for the trial as they had different streetscapes that could be contrasted to review how the trial worked.

   vi.          Hazards would be noted and reacted to during the trial.

 vii.          Noted councillors’ concerns about strimming and mowing around trees as this could cause damage.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Porrer proposed to add the following recommendations to those in the Officer’s report:

·       New recommendation d - publishing the planned dates online of herbicide treatments for the whole city for 2022, with information available by both ward and road.

·       New recommendation e - committing to mark streets treated with herbicides with simple signs such as stickers on lamp posts.

·       New recommendation f - committing to end herbicide treatments on streets and open spaces in the city in 2022, subject to a successful trial.

 

The Chair decided that the proposed new recommendations should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee rejected recommendation d by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee rejected recommendation e by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee rejected recommendation f by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the (unamended) substantive recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

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.

To review the Council’s use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Matter for Decision

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommends that Councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety and Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 28 January 2021.

 

The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory powers regulated by RIPA since February 2010.

 

The Officer’s report sets out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

      i.          Reviewed the Council’s use of RIPA set out in paragraph 3.5 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Noted and endorsed the steps described in paragraph 3.7 and in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

   iii.          Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 to the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny and the committee made no comments in response to the report from the Head of Legal Practice.

 

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 Council has a legal duty to investigate statutory nuisance within its area under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the law does not specify how to exercise this duty, it is therefore the responsibility of each Local Authority to establish its own procedures for investigating complaints of noise that may amount to statutory nuisance.

 

The Councils Out of Hours Noise Service operated for the last 25 years, which, until October 2019, operated 7pm – 7am Monday – Friday; and 9am – 5pm, and 7pm – 7am, respectively on weekends and Bank Holidays. This approach required significant staffing levels and tied up staff time in reactive, rather than targeted pro-active service work.

 

The primary purpose of the previous Out of Hours Noise Service was to allow residents to log initial noise complaints and for officers to contact complainants to gather information and evidence to determine the existence of a statutory noise nuisance. Referrals would then be made to the daytime team to take appropriate enforcement action in relation to applicable cases of ongoing noise disturbance persistently detrimentally affecting the quiet enjoyment of someone’s home.

 

Following a review of Council Out of Hours services, including noise, combined with a difficulty recruiting to Out of Hours Noise Service posts, and the availability of new ‘self-help’ evidence gathering technologies and equipment, the Council committed to trial a new Out of Hours Noise Service approach.

 

This trial moved away from residents having access to officers to discuss their complaint and / or request a visit out of hours, to all noise complaints being passed to daytime officers within Environmental Health to discuss their complaint and / or arrange a proactive, pre-arranged visit(s). The trial adopted a proactive planned approach, supported by evidence gathering technologies and equipment, for witnessing of noise disturbances out of hours. This new approach enabled complaints to be triaged more effectively and for staff resources to be deployed in a more efficient way.

 

The trial of this new approach has been evaluated and the results fully support its adoption on a permanent basis, in place of the previous reactive and inefficient Out of Hours Service model.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre

      i.          Noted the results of the pro-active and planned Out of Hours Noise Service trial

     ii.          Approved (based on the trial evaluation results) the adoption of the pro-active and planned Service approach on a permanent basis, supported use of evidence gathering technologies and equipment, in place of the reactive and inefficient Service model.

 

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 Environmental Health Manager.

 

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

      i.          An evidenced based action was a better way forward based on kit loaned out by the council, rather than a visit by a council officer to witness anti-social behaviour.

     ii.          People could report issues in the same way as the 24/7 service by ringing the Customer Access Centre during office hours. An officer would contact them within three working days (usually less). The officer would discuss options with the concerned resident. The council would triage options based on evidence submitted and manage expectations on options available as some issues were civil matters outside of the council’s control. The process was the same as before except for having someone at the end of a phone 24/7.

   iii.          Customer Access Centre call handlers had been trained on how to give information in response to reported issues. Case Officers would follow up the next working day after a call had been logged.

   iv.          A councillor briefing session was planned to give information on how members could offer support to residents.

    v.          Only a small minority of councils provided a 24/7 answer service so moving away from this put Cambridge City in line with the majority. The service was not stopped, just refocussed. Some councils provided less.

   vi.          The Customer Access Centre provided a single point of contact for residents and made it easier for the council to triage noise complaints so officers could effectively manage expectations on what the council could do to respond.

 vii.          The Officer’s report set out the number of reported noise complaint cases. Most were during the day.

viii.          The amount of noise monitoring kit had increased from one item to two. These could be loaned out for up to a week. Officers never refused to loan out items, but there may sometimes be a delay until kit became available.

   ix.          Residents would be contacted about the service through various channels such as Open Door. Feedback was welcome on how effective this was.

    x.          The Enforcement Team gave feedback on planning applications to advise on relevant conditions to mitigate noise issues e.g., during construction. Officers monitored the situation and acted where required.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Payne proposed to add the following recommendations to those in the Officer’s report:

1.    Note the results of the pro-active and planned Out of Hours Noise Service trial; and

2.    Based on the trial evaluation results, to approve the adoption of the pro-active and planned Service approach for a further 12 months, pending a further review and report to Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee when a full year's data is available. on a permanent basis, supported use of evidence gathering technologies and equipment, in place of the reactive and inefficient Service model.  

 

The Committee rejected the recommendation by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Environmental Health Manager offered to bring a report back to committee in October on how the service was progressing.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the (unamended) substantive recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

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.

(a) To propose revenue and capital budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years 2022/23, (estimate), 2023/24, 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 (forecast).
(b) To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2022/23.

Matter for decision

The Budget Setting Report and the Executive Amendment (the latter published on 1 February) reflected what would be proposed to the Executive and if approved to Council.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

To recommend the Executive to:

General Fund Revenue Budgets: [Section 5, page 26 refers]

Agree any recommendations for submission to the Executive in respect of:

• Revenue Pressures and Bids shown in Appendix B(b) and Savings shown in Appendix B(c).

• Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix B(d).

• Bids to be funded from External Funding sources as shown in Appendix B(e).

 

Capital: [Section 6, page 29 refers]

 

Capital Plan:

Agree any recommendations for submission to the Executive in respect of the proposals outlined in Appendix C(a) for inclusion in the Capital Plan.

 

To recommend to the Council:

Formally confirming delegation to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which is set out in Appendix A(a).

 

The level of Council Tax for 2022/23 as set out in Appendix A (b) (to follow for Council) and Section 4 [page 17 refers].

 

Other Revenue:

 

Delegation to the Head of Finance authority to finalise changes relating to any further corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

 

Capital:

 

Deletion from the Capital Plan of the Cambridge Junction capital scheme, as set out in Section 6 [page 29 refers].

 

Subject to any Executive decision above, recommend to Council the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix C(c) and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page 29.

 

General Fund Reserves:

 

Note the impact of revenue budget approvals and the resulting contribution from reserves to support service delivery [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

Approve the allocation of funding on a contingency basis to the collaborative ‘Changing Futures’ programme project [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

Note the resulting level of reserves [Section 8, page 44 refers].

Section 25 Report.

 

Note the Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Report included in Section 10 of the BSR [page 65 refers].

 

Review of Charges:

 

Note the schedule of proposed fees and charges for 2022/23 in Appendix F.

 

Reason for the decision

As detailed in the officer report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected

None.

 

Scrutiny considerations

Committee asked the following:

Why was there no provision for inflation?

How can Members scrutinise Transformation proposals?

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources replied that:

A full council review of the effect of inflationary pressure would be undertaken prior to adopting the Medium Term Financial Strategy in October 2022, but at present the approach first taken at MTFS 2021 of not inflation proofing because of both the current inflation rate uncertainty, and additional savings burden, was the recommended approach.  Regarding Transformation, a new Director of Transformation has been in post for 6 weeks and there will be a clear programme and further all Member briefings.

 

The Chair took questions on the BSR portfolio by portfolio.  Members of the Executive were present to answer questions from the Committee and spokespersons.

 

Finance and Resources:

It was confirmed the head leaseholders of Lion Yard did not want the Council to invest in any proposed developments.  The Council’s Officers meet the head leaseholders every quarter.

 

The Council’s property assets are under review and the Executive has given no direction regarding the future use of the Guildhall.

 

On Clay Farm s106, if it was required that a dispute resolution was required to arbitrate between the Council and Developer it would take between 3-6 months although it was hoped that would not be required.  If an income stream becomes a reality following the dispute resolution, it would be incorporated into the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

 

General Fund Housing:

Regarding the retrofitting grant, although it could not be used for HRA Council Properties and is for households with income less thank £30k, the Council is looking at ways to pick up eligible customers in the areas where the work is being planned on council housing.

 

Planning Policy and Transport:

Cllrs Bick and Porrer expressed concerns that the financial and usage data in relation to the decision taken on bus subsidy at Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee on 11 January were only made known in the Executive Amendment.

 

The Director confirmed that the usage data had been previously submitted to committee but should ideally have been repeated in the most recent report. In regards to the financial data, the Director confirmed that a decision to stop the payment had been deferred owing to both the expectation, initially, that the pandemic impact would be of a shorter duration, and a request from Government, but that subject to the outcome of further queries, a refund on unused subsidy was being sought. Future provision of the service will be associated with the emerging Local Transport Plan.

 

Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

With reference to the out of hours service it was confirmed that the matter would come back to members of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee in October 2022 with a full years data so that the decision taken last month can be confirmed or if needed, budget provision considered in time for future years.

 

With reference to public toilet provision, the income loss needed to be reflected and related to Park Street and Arbury Court toilets closing.

 

The scrutiny committee supported the recommendations 4-2 on the Executive Amendment and 4-0 on the original recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensation granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for decision

The Council is required to receive and approve, as a minimum, three main treasury management reports each year.

 

The first and most important is the Treasury Management Strategy (this report), which covers:

 

·      capital plans (including prudential indicators);

·      a Minimum Revenue Provision policy which explains how unfinanced capital expenditure will be charged to revenue over time;

·      the Treasury Management Strategy (how investments and borrowings are to be organised) including treasury indicators; and

·      a Treasury Management Investment Strategy (the parameters on how investments are to be managed).

 

The statutory framework for the prudential system under which local government operates is set out in the Local Government Act 2003 and Capital Financing and Accounting Statutory Instruments. The framework incorporates four statutory codes. These are:

 

·      the Prudential Code (2021 edition) prepared by CIPFA;

·      the Treasury Management Code (2021 edition) prepared by CIPFA;

·      the Statutory Guidance on Local Government Investments prepared by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) (effective 1 April 2018); and

·      the Statutory Guidance on Minimum Revenue Provision prepared by DLUHC (effective 1 April 2019).

 

 

The Council’s S151 Officer has considered the deliverability, affordability and risk associated with the Council’s capital expenditure plans and treasury management activities.  The plans are affordable. Where there are risks such as the slippage of capital expenditure, or reductions in investment values or income, these have been reviewed and mitigated at an acceptable level. The Council has access to specialist advice where appropriate.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Recommend to Council to: Approve the report, including the estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2022/23 to 2025/26 (inclusive) as set out in Appendix C.

 

Approve the renewal of the £7.5 million loan to Cambridge City Housing Company Ltd (CCHC) for a further term of 5 years from 1 April 2022, at an interest rate of 2.02% per annum.

 

Introduce an authorised limit for other long-term liabilities of £2 million, in response to technical accounting changes brought about by the adoption of IFRS 16 (see 7.3 of the report).

 

Reason for the decision

As detailed in the officer report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected

None.

 

Scrutiny considerations

Regarding the third recommendation in the report, the Head of Finance advised the committee that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy had delayed the introduction of IFRS 16 but it was still prudent for the Council to increase the limit for long term liabilities now.

 

In response to a question, the Head of Finance updated the committee that work was being undertaken with the Council’s treasury advisors so the Council could more closely monitor the ESG credentials of its investments and this will be included in future reports.

 

The scrutiny committee supported the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensation granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To note the draft Corporate Plan, and to recommend it to Council for adoption.

Matter for decision

 

The council’s Corporate Plan sets out the key priority themes and strategic objectives that the council is working to achieve.  The new Corporate Plan contains four priority themes and covers the five years 2022-27.

 

Detailed objectives and activities are set out in service Operational Plans and team and personal objectives, as well as in council strategies and policies.

 

Decision of the Leader/Executive Councillor for Strategy

 

To recommend the Corporate Plan to Council for adoption.

 

Reason for the decision

 

As detailed in the officer report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected

 

None.

 

Scrutiny considerations

 

In response to a question, the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources undertook to discuss with the Head of Corporate Strategy and Cllr Dalzell how KPIs will be developed to cover the Transformation Programme.

 

The scrutiny committee supported the recommendations 4-0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensation granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for decision

To consider the annual update on the council’s intermediate housing company, Cambridge City Housing Company Limited (CCHC) and updated business plan for CCHC for the period 2021/22 – 2030/31.

CCHC performed well over the past year in terms of letting with low void levels, minimal arrears, and low levels of antisocial behaviour. The Annual General Meeting will be held on 16 March 2022.

Since Covid-19, CCHC leased 5 properties from the council to re-let to rough sleepers to help meet their needs, providing accommodation to help keep them safe and provide support. Having operated this model for just over 12 months, it is evident that the shared accommodation model is not suitable for a number of the residents who have been placed in these units. The company is seeking to bring the existing tenancies to an end through the court process and will enter into discussions with the council about the future use of the homes. At the request of the council, one of these leases for a vacant dwelling has been collapsed prematurely to meet a greater housing need.

 

Financially in 2020/21, CCHC generated a small surplus in direct trading activity of £86,824 (2019/20, £73,882) with a decrease in the value of the investment property by approximately £30,000 or 0.4%, to just under £7.9m.

 

Decision of the Leader/Executive Councillor for Strategy

Noted the comments of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on the draft business plan; and

To inform the Board of Directors of Cambridge City Housing Company of the comments of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee/Council for consideration in finalising the business plan

As the company’s sole shareholder, confirmed continuing support for the company and recommend refinancing of the company for a further five years at 2.02% p.a., subject to review on the occurrence of any of the conditions set out in paragraph 4.9 of the accompanied report.

Reason for the decision

As detailed in the officer report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected

None.

 

Scrutiny considerations

The committee noted that the company was currently investigating a further 250 properties but it was dependent on a number of factors.  If wishing to proceed a further report would be expected to come to Members in July.

 

The scrutiny committee supported the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensation granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for decision

This report presents the capital strategy of the council together with a summary capital programme for the General Fund (GF) and Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The previous capital strategy was approved by Council on 25 February 2021. The strategy is focused on providing a framework for delivery of capital expenditure plans over a 10-30 year period. These plans cover spending on operational assets to support service delivery and on investments which provide an income for the council alongside meeting the council’s objectives in relation to economic development and place-making, regeneration and climate change mitigation. Governance arrangements are also outlined in order to ensure the capital programme continues to deliver value for money.

 

The council has a substantial capital programme which is mainly guided by and supports the strategic aims of the council as outlined in the One Cambridge – Fair for All vision and defined in the Annual Statement as published on the council website.

 

The strategy has been updated to reflect:

 

·      Changes to the CIPFA Prudential Code (throughout, but particularly the definitions set out in paras 3.2 and 3.7 and the prudential indicators referred to in paras 5.14, 5.15 and 6.2)

·      The Our Cambridge programme (paras 4.3 and 4.13)

·      the ongoing development of a programme to build 1,000 new council homes in the 10 years from 2022 (para 4.12) and the study to improve the energy performance of council homes (para 4.15)

 

The council’s Section 151 officer is required to report explicitly on the affordability and risk associated with the capital strategy.

 

As highlighted in the strategy the council ensures that capital projects and schemes are accompanied by detailed funding proposals. Where projects are to be funded from borrowing, either internally from cash balances or externally, a prudent Minimum Revenue Provision charge is made. The council has not borrowed externally to fund capital expenditure in the recent past, the current external borrowing representing debt incurred on the transition from the old housing subsidy system to HRA self-financing.

 

Where the council has expanded its commercial activities by purchasing additional commercial properties or by making loans to subsidiaries and joint ventures to facilitate the provision of intermediate housing or the development of sites for market and affordable housing, it ensures that the risks taken are proportionate to the size and scale of the authority. Legal advice is taken alongside the completion of appropriate due diligence and any loans are secured where appropriate. On projects undertaken by joint ventures the council monitors the expected repayment of loans and expected future surpluses carefully. The council has not borrowed externally to fund the increase in commercial activity.

 

External debt will be used to fund the redevelopment of the Park Street multi-storey car park and future housing developments within the HRA. The council is aware of the risks associated with borrowing for these purposes and will seek appropriate external advice.

 

External borrowing may also be used to fund the remainder of the capital programme where capital receipts and cash balances are insufficient. The level of capital spending will be reviewed annually for affordability in the Medium Term Finance Strategy (MTFS), before proposals are brought forward through the budget setting process.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Agreed to recommend to Council the capital strategy as set out in the report and to note the summary capital programme

 

 

Reason for the decision

As detailed in the officer report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected

None.

 

Scrutiny considerations

The scrutiny committee noted that there will be a further review of the capital plan this year.

 

The scrutiny committee supported the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensation granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve the procurement and award of contract for replacement corporate security contract(s). The contract will be for 4 years +1,+1,+1 commencing in April 2023.

Matter for decision

The current Security contracts for static and mobile guarding of City Centre locations, assets and events expires on 31 March 2023.

 

In order to continue benefitting from the services supplied to a number of different Council departments there is a requirement for a procurement exercise to be undertaken and to allow award for security services to continue to be delivered.

 

A new tender is proposed, designed as a framework, which allows the flexibility for other Cambridge City Council departments and external partners to join during the term of the contract

 

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

To approve the procurement for the corporate security contracts

 

To delegate authority to the Strategic Director to award compliant corporate security contract

 

The new Corporate security contracts will have a term of 4 years with option to extend in annual increments for a further 3 years making the total contract term 7 years. Contract value, up to £4,000,000

 

Subject to: If the tender sum exceeds the estimated contract value by more than 10% then permission to proceed will be sought from the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Reason for the decision

As set out in the officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny considerations

In response to a question on the types of work and services this procurement covers, the officer confirmed that the Council’s corporate equalities requirements and expectations would be part of the procurement exercise (and contract).

 

The scrutiny committee supported the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensation granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

The Executive Councillor for External Partnerships updated the Scrutiny Committee on the issues considered at the last three meetings of the Combined Authority (27 October, 24 November and 26 January).  It was noted that the Chief Executive at the CA was looking to re-structure and the Mayor has put forward a Sustainable Growth Strategy.  Members asked questions concerning a bus strategy and the continuing e-scooter trial.

 

The update was noted.