Matter for Decision

The report sought to delegate authority for providing the City Councils position on specific elements of the statutory process to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development at specific stages of the consultation process on administrative and procedural matters, as well as commenting on technical elements and providing a view on the impacts/merits on specific and significant new national and regional infrastructure projects.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

i.               Delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic

  Development, authority for providing responses on behalf of the City Council to the stages of the statutory process listed in Para 4.20 and 4.21 for the infrastructure proposals listed in Paras 4.4. and 4.12 of the Officers report which are as follows:

 4.20 Proposed Delegations for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) process

·      Registration of the Council as “interested party."

·      Responding to any consultation on EIA screening/scoping on behalf of Cambridge City Council

·      Attendance at pre-examination preliminary meeting and agreement of procedures and timetable for examination on behalf of Cambridge City Council.

·      Instruction of witnesses and legal advisors and approval of all representations and agreements (e.g. Statement of Common Ground, conditions etc) through the Examination Process on behalf of Cambridge City Council.

4.21 TWA process

·      Agreement of response to EIA consultation on behalf of Cambridge City Council.

·      Agreement at pre-examination process of procedures for examination, timetable etc on behalf of Cambridge City Council.

·      Instruction of Witnesses and legal advisor and approval of all submissions including proofs of evidence, statement of common ground on behalf of Cambridge City Council.

·      Agreement on conditions and scope of post decision submissions/controls subject to LPA control on behalf of Cambridge City Council.

 

 

4.4 The following projects are known/believed to be planned to follow the NSIP route:

·      Cambridge Water Treatment Works relocation (to be submitted 2022/3)

·      E-W Rail (Submission due TBC)

4.12 The Following infrastructure projects currently expected to progress via the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) route:

·      Cambourne to Cambridge Rapid Transport Route (C2C) Public transport corridor project

·      Cambridge Southeast Transport Route (CSET) Public transport corridor project

·      Cambridge Eastern Access public transport corridor

·      Waterbeach to Cambridge – public transport corridor

·      Greater Greenways Project (various routes)

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development introduced the report.

 

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development and Chair of the Committee said the following:

      i.         The recommendation was for officer delegation of specific projects only.

    ii.         The focus of the delegation was on the bureaucratic nature; the timelines of the consultation process was important to note. 

   iii.         The request was before the Committee not because of staff resource but to ensure an effective representation of the Council at all stages of the process.

  iv.         As highlighted in the report, a framework would be set up to allow members to provide officers with their assessment on the schemes that were to be considered.

    v.         Confirmed there would be briefing on the NSIP processes and procedures and the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations.

  vi.         At the next meeting of the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee there would be a briefing on the overview of the projects identified for delegations so members could express their views to officers.

 vii.         Officers would then be able to take into consideration Members views when making representations specially referencing mitigation, impact, potential planning obligations and conditions.

viii.         The Shared Planning Service was committed to an update on the Statement of Community Involvement which would help refresh the expectations of the consultation, providing a framework for the officers to work within.

  ix.         At each critical stage the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure would be consulted, who in turn, would consult with Chair and Spokes. 

    x.         Recognised that there could be different of opinions from both South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council and confirmed these would be reported individually where that occurred (as the response of the local authority). 

  xi.         The legal position is to ensure that the views of each council were before the examining body. Such views would not be softened or artificially aligned. On Cambridge South Station the Councils had a different response.

 xii.         Provided the example of Cambridge South Station of collaborative working with officers and members that increased biodiversity net gain through a narrow time frame and with delegated authority.

xiii.         Several the projects listed were already widely debated.

xiv.         Once the Council had formed its view on the proposal, the proposal would not dramatically change. 

xv.         It would not be appropriate for officers to seek to diminish members opinions on a proposal – and there was no intention to do so.

xvi.         In response to a request for a debate on the merits of each project, it was cautioned that the incomplete and emerging information /details on each scheme meant that a definitive position could and should not be reached at this stage. Stating the Council view at this stage could lead to predetermination of the Council position without all of the information.

xvii.         Reiterated that a briefing would be provided in Committee to take away members opinions and a timetable would be provided.

xviii.         Dependent on the project and its location, the Councils legislative standing and entitlement to automatically be treated as an interested party may be different to SCDC. each

 

The Committee

Unanimously endorsed the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

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 Executive Decision

Network Rail (Cambridge Re-Signalling) Order Consultation Response

Decision of: Councillor Katie Thornburrow, Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure.

Reference: 22/URGENCY/P&T/14

Date of decision: 14/09/22   Date 22/09/22

Decision Type: Non-Key

Matter for Decision: Response to the Network Rail (Cambridge Re-signalling) Order

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

An application has been submitted by Network Rail under Section 6 of the Transport and Works Act Order 1992.  The application has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport to determine.  South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council (the Councils) are statutory consultees and have been invited to submit representations to the Secretary of State by 23 September 2022. 

The stated aim the Cambridge Re-signalling Relock & Recontrol Project (‘the project’) is to upgrade the re-signalling system to a 35-year life and improve the reliability and performance of the signalling system in the Cambridge interlocking area, and thereby improve the performance and reliability of the network.  The project includes the re-signalling of the Cambridge station interlocking area and the upgrade of the relevant level crossings, and any other works and operations incidental or ancillary to such works.  It covers sites in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.  The sites in the Councils’ administrative areas are as follows:

• South Cambridgeshire – Level crossings at Shepreth, Little Shelford, Six Mile Bottom, Milton and Waterbeach.

• Cambridge City – Land to the south of Long Road bridge.

 

Copies of the location plans showing the areas covered by the draft Order can be found here: https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/cambridge-resignalling-twao/NR10 Deposited Land Plans C3R.pdf

The current application for the draft Order would confer powers for Network Rail to compulsorily acquire land and rights in land and take temporary possession in connection with the works required for project and stop up the public highway.  The application does not include detailed plans for the works.  These works would be done under the applicant’s permitted development rights, prior approval or following the granting of express planning permission.  As stated in the application, the applicant would submit further applications for prior approval or the granting of express planning permission for works at Six Mile Bottom, Shepreth and Little Shelford.  The current application is not to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.

The Councils previously commented on Network Rail’s public consultation in April 2021 and to the consultation on the Environmental Impact Assessment screening request in July 2021.  In these representations, the Councils supported comments made by Cambridgeshire County Council in respect of transport matters, and raised further matters summarised as follows:

1.  Strongly support the proposed signalling upgrades and the safety improvements to the level crossings.

2.  Further assessment of impact of barrier down time on traffic within the locality and the wider highway network including avoiding unforeseen impacts, and the resulting potential reduction in air quality and carbon emissions is required.

3.  Further assessment of barrier down time and behavioural responses is required including additional risk taking, to ensure that improvements in rail safety should not result in a reduction in road safety.

4.  Consider accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians as well as those with reduced mobility affected by the proposed level crossing changes.

5.  Further assessment of the impact of the conversion at Shepreth from half barrier to a full barrier on vehicles queuing in the village is required, including the combined impact with the existing full barrier within 500m on traffic.

6. Consider future upgrades to ensure passive provision is provided, including at Six Mile Bottom level crossing.

7. Diversion of the Definitive Line of the Public Footpath Waterbeach 21 should be regularised. 

8. Consultation with Natural England is required on the potential impact of the works at Shepreth on the L-Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and at Dimmock’s Close (East Cambridgeshire) on Cam Washes SSSI. 

9. Consultation with Historic England is required on the potential impact of works at Milton, Waterbeach and Little Shelford on Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

10. The effect of the proposed development on protected species, listed buildings, Air Quality Management Zones, works within Flood Zones 2 and 3 should be assessed through information submitted with the appropriate consent applications.

 

Officers have consulted internal consultees within the Environmental Health / Quality and Growth teams, Ecology and Trees teams, Conservation officers and Policy Teams, as well as externally with the transport team at Cambridgeshire County Council to review the applicant’s response on these matters.  Views of local members in Wards where there are proposals were also consulted.  A summary of the consultation responses received is provided in Appendix 2 of this report viewed at the link below:

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplayClassic.aspx?NAME=Associated%20Documents&ID=1626&RPID=77239364&sch=doc&cat=13458&path=13020%2c13021%2c13458%2c13458

 

Further information about the proposals can be obtained from https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/improving-the-railway-in-anglia/cambridge-resignalling/ and https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/

Response to the consultation

It is proposed that the response is joint with South Cambridgeshire District Council, which will separately be considering the response.

The proposed response can be found in Appendix 1 of this report which can be viewed at the link below:

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplayClassic.aspx?NAME=Associated%20Documents&ID=1626&RPID=77239364&sch=doc&cat=13458&path=13020%2c13021%2c13458%2c13458

 

The proposed response places a holding objection and seeks further information, assessment, or response from Network Rail on transport, access and safety, air quality and carbon emissions, and other environmental matters.  The response seeks confirmation that the transport team at the County Council support the modelling and assessment of impacts.  It highlights site-specific concerns raised by Ward Councillors and Parish Councils and seeks a response from Network Rail.  The representations received Ward Councillors and Parish Councils will be enclosed with the letter which can be viewed at the link below:

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplayClassic.aspx?NAME=Associated%20Documents&ID=1626&RPID=77239364&sch=doc&cat=13458&path=13020%2c13021%2c13458%2c13458

 

The proposed response invites further engagement with Network Rail to resolve these matters in order to overcome the holding objection.

Alternative options

The options available to members are:

• Agree to submit the response in Appendix 1, with possible minor amendments

• Agree an alternative response.

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision:

      i.         To confirm that the consultation response set out in Appendix 1 of this decision should be made to the TWA application.

    ii.         To confirm delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to submit further representations on the application relating to these matters.

Reason for the decision: The proposed response addresses issues of importance to the Council.

Report: Appendix 1 – Draft Response to the Network Rail (Cambridge Re-signalling) Order

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplayClassic.aspx?NAME=Associated%20Documents&ID=1626&RPID=77239364&sch=doc&cat=13458&path=13020%2c13021%2c13458%2c13458

 

Conflict of interest: [None].

Scrutiny Consideration: The Chair of the Planning and Transport Committee and Opposition Spokes were consulted on this matter.

Comments:  No comments were made.

 

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 was therefore the responsibility of each Local Authority to establish its own procedures for investigating complaints of noise that may amount to statutory nuisance.

 

At this committee on 27th January 2022, the Executive Councillor noted the results of the pro-active and planned Out of Hours Noise Service trial that was conducted between 1st October – 31st December 2021 and approved the adoption of this proactive and planned service approach on a permanent basis supported by use of evidence gathering technologies and equipment.

 

It was also agreed by the Executive Councillor that a further report on progress of Environmental Services new approach to investigating noise complaints would be brought to committee detailing further evaluation of the impact of the Council’s move from a reactive Out of Hours Noise Service to one which uses a combination of technology and planned use of officer time.

 

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

Noted the update report on the Councils new approach on investigating noise complaints.

 

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 Team Manager - Residential, Environmental Services.

 

The Team Manager - Residential, Environmental Services said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          No formal or informal complaints had been received about the new approach to investigating noise complaints.

     ii.          Officers provided support to complainants when they logged issues. Section 3.10 of the Officer’s report listed outcomes of noise complaints received.

   iii.          A customer satisfaction survey was launched on-line from 1 October 2022.

   iv.          The old system was a reactive approach to out of hours noise complaints. Now the City Council could be proactive on a case-by-case basis. Technology allowed the City Council to quickly intervene for repeated issues. Officers could plan what visits were required, and when, so they could witness issues as they occurred.

    v.          The number of officer visits had decreased as they could be targeted to where/when needed.

   vi.          The City Council could not investigate one-off issues, only repeated ones. Visiting on a reactive basis (old system) was not a good use of City Council resources as some issues were outside the Council’s remit. Resources could be better directed and callers directed to appropriate sources of help under the new system (if the City Council was unable to help).

 

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.

Noting from the recent annual report on corporate performance that blue bin recycling rates have decreased over the past year and the proportion of black bin waste has increased, council requests a report to the next Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee enabling focused scrutiny of this situation and examination of potential emphases to reverse these trends and get back on track.

Matter for Decision

The Council meeting on 21 July 2022 noted details about waste and recycling.

 

Council requested a report to the next Environment & Community Scrutiny committee to consider how this trend in residual waste reduction can be maintained and increased over the coming years.

 

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

Noted the analysis of the recycling and waste data recorded during the pandemic period and the actions being taken to conduct targeted behavioral change campaigns and increase opportunities for reuse, repair and recycling.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service.

 

The Head of Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Waste Policy Team was designing behavioural change campaigns that could link with retrofitting training (referenced in earlier minute item).

     ii.          The campaigns would focus on the waste hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle) then offer initiatives to address these such as repair cafes or ‘library of things’ to share ownership and increase usage. Feedback would allow officers to improve the program.

 

The Executive Councillor said that Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service were looking at what people threw away to target campaigns at areas that threw away food waste etc more than others.

 

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 2021/22 actions of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26.

 

The report also provided an update on the council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2021/22.

 

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

      i.          Noted the progress achieved in 2021/22 in implementing the actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.

     ii.          Approved the updated Climate Change Strategy action plan presented in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

   iii.          Approved the updated Environmental Policy Statement presented in Appendix C 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors asked if projects were under threat from tighter budgets in future?

 

The Executive Councillor said:

      i.          These were difficult times. The City Council needed to manage its finances carefully. Some of the measures to reduce carbon emissions could lead to long term cost savings after the initial financial outlay. Reducing carbon emissions was a council policy commitment.

     ii.          The City Council hoped to reach its target of net zero emissions by 2030. It was unclear if the City of Cambridge could become net zero by 2030 too.

 

The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          A budget of up to £20,000 was available for resident training on sustainability etc. The provider offered sessions for up to one hundred  residents, plus wider engagement through other method such as a communications campaign.

     ii.          The City Council had taken action over several years to reduce carbon emissions. There had also been investment at a national level to decarbonise the energy grid and move from fossil fuels to green energy. The City Council’s emissions should therefore continue to decline based on these actions.

   iii.          The City Council was still using gas as a fuel source to heat some buildings, so was looking at alternative heat sources to decarbonise the authority in future.

   iv.          An Asset Management Plan had been created. Site surveys had been undertaken and the Plan would be updated by March 2023. The intention was to look at ways to reduce City Council buildings’ carbon footprint through measures such as air source heat pumps. The Strategy and Partnerships Manager undertook to send Councillors details after committee.

 

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.

Approve a contribution towards the funding of a project to develop an integrated renewable energy and storage solution to serve the electric Refuse Collection Vehicles (eRCVs) within the overall fleet at Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service (GCSWS) Depot at Waterbeach.

Matter for Decision

The Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service (GCSWS) for Cambridge City Council (CCC) and South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) has firm policy commitments to decarbonise the fleet of refuse collection vehicles by 2030 and CCC has set a target to reduce its direct carbon emissions from corporate buildings, fleet vehicles and business travel to net zero carbon emissions by 2030.

 

A key part of the decarbonisation programme was to replace the fleet of existing diesel refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) as the current stock accounts for 1,800 tonnes of CO2 per year.

 

The local electricity network at Waterbeach Depot had insufficient capacity to meet the charging requirements of an electric fleet as the maximum grid capacity would be reached now the two electric RCVs (eRCV) were operational.

 

In order to continue the fleet decarbonisation programme to meet the Council’s 2030 net zero target, there was an urgent need for an on-site renewable energy solution to enable charging of eRCVs. The Waterbeach Renewable Energy Network (WREN) Solar Project was how this need would be met.

 

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

      i.          Approved the council’s participation in the WREN Solar Project to develop an integrated renewable energy and storage solution including a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic array and battery storage on land adjacent to the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service Depot at Waterbeach depot.

     ii.          Supported the inclusion of a capital proposal within the council’s General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy for a contribution of £1.3m towards the capital delivery cost, funded by a £0.1m contribution from the council’s Climate Change Fund and £1.2m from General Fund reserves.

   iii.          Noted that the contribution of £0.1m from the Council’s Climate Change Fund was match-funding to the contribution being made from the existing GCSWS budget towards the project.

   iv.          Delegated authority to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Head of Legal Practice and Head of Property Services to approve necessary contracts and leases to enable the implementation of the WREN project.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Property Services.

 

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

      i.          Officers were working with a local contractor to supply electric vehicles. They were confident there would be no supply issues.

     ii.          Combustion engine vehicles were timetabled to be replaced at the end of their working life.

   iii.          Land required for vehicle replacement would be rented from a site next to the shared wate depot. Planning permission was in place for this.

   iv.          Thirty five vehicles out of fifty from the waste fleet could become eRCVs or ultra low emission vehicles through this project. The intention was to use a mix of vehicles to replace diesel ones in future such as hybrid and electric. Thirty to thirty five vehicles would be replaced through this project, possibly more later.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

She said the Council had started a trial of hydrotreated vegetable oil fuels to lower vehicle emissions.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.