Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
(a) To propose Revenue
and Capital Budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years 2020/21,
(Estimate), 2021/22, 2021/22 and 2022/23 (Forecast).
(b) To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2020/21.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/04/2020
Effective from: 03/02/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) included the detailed
revenue bids and savings and capital proposals and sets out the key parameters
for the detailed recommendations and budget finalisation being considered at
this meeting. The report reflects recommendations that will be made to The
Executive on 3 February 2020 and then to Council, for consideration at its
meeting on 13 February 2020.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
To recommend the Executive to:
i. Approve Revenue Pressures
shown in Appendix C (b) and Savings shown in Appendix C (c) of the officer’s
report.
i.
Approve Non-Cash Limit items as shown
in Appendix C (d) of the officer’s report.
ii.
Agree there are no bids to be funded
from External or Earmarked Funds (which would be included as Appendix C (e) of
the officer’s report.
iii. Agree
any recommendation in respect of the proposals outlined in Appendix D(a) of the
officer’s report for inclusion in the Capital Plan including any additional use
of revenue resources required.
To recommended Council to
i.
Approve 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 will be set out in
Appendix A (a) of the officer’s report.
ii.
Approve the level of Council Tax for
2020/21 as set out in Appendix A (b) of the officer’s report (to follow for
Council) and Section 4 [page 17 refers of the BSR].
Note that
the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel will meet by 6 February 2020 to
consider the precept proposed by the Police and Crime Commissioner,
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority will meet on 5 February 2020
and Cambridgeshire County Council will meet on 11 or 14 February 2020 to
consider the amounts in precepts to be issued to the City Council for the year
2020/21.
iii.
Approve delegation to the Head of
Finance to finalise changes relating to any 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).
iv. Approve
the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix D (c) of
the officer’s report, and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page 25
of the BSR.
v.
Approve the updated Corporate Plan 2019-2022
attached as Appendix B to the officer’s report.
vi.
Note the impact of revenue and capital
budget approvals and approved the resulting level of reserves to be used to
support the budget proposals as set out in the table in section 8, page 46 of
the BSR.
vii.
Approve the creation of an earmarked
reserves to be called the Transformation Fund and its associated remit on page
19 of the BSR.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative
Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Head of Finance, she
also referred members to replacement page 92 of the agenda which had been
corrected because of errors in the subtotals in the table.
Members of the
Executive and Spokes Councillors who did not ordinarily attend the Strategy and
Resources Scrutiny Committee joined the Committee for discussion on the budget.
Fair Funding
review
In response to
members’ questions the Head of Finance confirmed:
i.
The Council took advice on the fair funding review
from a consulting firm called Pixal.
They gave advice on future funding projections. The New Homes Bonus
balances and growth from business rates were removed as she expected the
baseline to be re-set as part of the funding review. These figures were only estimates and could
be better or worse in the future.
URP4500 Impact of
overhead recharge for shared services
In response to
members’ questions the Head of Finance and the Chief Executive confirmed:
i.
It was originally
intended that shared services would be cost neutral between the councils. We were now in the situation where
considerably more services had been transferred to South Cambridgeshire
District Council as lead authority so the neutrality between the councils had
not come to pass. It made more sense to
look at marginal costs as there were certain parts of services which could not
be reduced even where services were shared.
For example with financial services, both councils would still need to
prepare a statement of accounts and the same Government returns, one set could
not have been done for both councils.
ii.
Savings had been made to support services in
previous years which offset some of this cost for example moving out of Mill
Road Depot which had enabled the redevelopment of the site.
In response to Member’s questions the Councillor Robertson responded:
i.
As far as he was aware the County Council would be
moving on to considering the next batch of residents parking zones.
URP4573 Proposal to balance partner contributions to 3C ICT Digital Team
In response to
members questions the Strategy Director (FB) confirmed:
i.
When the digital team was set up, specific
additional contributions were made by CCC to gain additional resource from the
Head of the Team. The additional contributions being made should ensure that
the team is resourced and able to meet customer demand. Whilst the demands on
the team are increasing, the shared service directors and Intelligent Clients
are agreeing prioritised work packages for the team, to ensure fit with
resources and efficient progress. South Cambridgeshire District Council would
be making a higher financial contribution as the City Council had previously
made additional financial contributions.
B4663 Selective landlord licensing and II4671 Fees receivable for
selective landlord licensing scheme.
In response to members questions Councillor Johnson confirmed:
i.
Increasing numbers of local authorities were
introducing a selective landlord licensing scheme.
ii.
A feasibility survey was being undertaken to see
whether the scheme was required.
iii.
It was anticipated that the scheme would apply to
the private rented sector particularly in the Romsey and Petersfield
wards.
iv.
Discussions had taken place with Nottingham City
Council who had introduced a similar scheme and had a similar demographic to
Cambridge. Feedback was that the scheme was successful. He was also aware that
similar schemes had been introduced by London authorities.
v.
He did not want to pre-judge any consultation exercise
however he had met with tenants who had complained about the standards /
suitability of their homes which were private rented homes. This scheme would enable the council to
intervene if private rented accommodation was not being maintained to a suitable
standard.
vi.
If following a consultation the evidence suggested
a scheme would be viable then a scheme should be considered.
vii.
There needed to be an evidence based (feasibility)
exercise to support the introduction of a selective landlord licensing scheme
and a consultation exercise would be carried out after this. Depending on the
scale of the scheme the council may need to seek approval from the Secretary of
State before introducing a scheme.
viii.
It was often the case that provision would be made
in the budget for policy led schemes that the administration wanted to
introduce but at the time that the budget was being considered exact
details/costings were not known. Once
the feasibility survey had been completed there would be due officer diligence
carried out to make sure that the scheme was sound.
ix.
For the scheme to be locally approved and adopted,
it must not seek to apply designation to more than 20% of the local authority's
geographical area (i.e. not more than 20% of the area of the city, many local
authorities have adopted schemes only for specific estates in which they have a
problem), and it must not affect more than 20% of privately rented homes in the
area (some authorities have chosen to license only particular types of home).
x.
This budget item had been included within the s151
officer’s s25 report because there was work still to be done. The two lines of
the budget income and expenditure were effectively cancelling each other out
and the impact on the budget was very small.
CAP4564 Vehicle fleet replacements 2020/2021
In response to
members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:
i.
A review of the fleet service was being carried out
and the impacts of moving over to an electric fleet would be considered as part
of the review. She believed that savings would be made but this may depend
where the electric energy came from.
B4630 Consultant to lead and implement installation of EV charging in our
car parks [linked to CAP4631]
In response to members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:
i.
External consultants were procured to carry out the
implementation of the EV charging in car parks so that the project could be
progressed as soon as possible.
S4544 Dog Warden Service – service review
In response to members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:
i.
Currently there was one member of staff who just
focussed on dog warden work and others who focussed on general enforcement, the
intention was to upskill the officers so that they could cover all enforcement
work. The costs for training would be met from existing training budgets.
URP4506 Rebasing of Shared Planning Service expenditure budgets
In response to members questions the Director of Planning and Economic
Development confirmed:
i.
A completed shared services agreement had been
signed between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District
Council. The likely service costs were estimated. The planning service was a
net budget but a view was taken based on assumptions. It was difficult to
predict development activity in the context of changes to the planning system
and the economic buoyancy of the area.
B4665 Chalk stream project
In response to members questions Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:
i.
The bid had been put forward by the Ecological
Officer. She had been in contact with
various local nature partnerships looking at water resources in the area to
consider practical projects to improve chalk streams. The bid was an ecological proposal that could
be run in this area.
S4541 Restructure cycling and walking promotion grant in line with
demand
In response to members questions Councillor Massey
confirmed:
i.
That the Pedestrian and Cycling Steering Group had
not met for some time and this was why the service had been looked at.
ii.
The Council had considered a walking event in the
city but also wanted to encourage many different sustainable forms of travel.
iii.
It was being considered whether to combine the
grants process so that the pedestrian and cycling grants would be included in a
single city council grants pot.
S4543 Transfer ‘Green Fingers’ domestic gardening service to the Housing
Revenue Account
In response to members questions Councillor Johnson
confirmed:
i.
The vast majority of people who had taken up the
scheme had been council tenants. It was
reasonable to assume that the housing revenue account should fund this to keep
the service going for the vast majority of people who were council tenants.
B4609 2 seas – nature Smart Cities – partnership project to enhance
green infrastructure.
In response to members questions Councillor
Thornburrow confirmed:
i.
If every property in Cambridge planted one tree in
their garden then Cambridge would increase its tree coverage by 5%.
ii.
Confirmed that the funding had been fully secured
from the EU (post Brexit) and that it was part of a programme of working with
other partners who had similar programmes.
iii.
The council retained a record of the number of
trees which had been removed from the city versus those that had been
planted. Reference to tree coverage was
not to the number of trees but to the amount of tree cover. If young trees were planted then the tree
cover may take 10-20 years to develop.
S4531 Reduction of non-essential training and overtime budgets within
Community Services
In response to members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:
i.
The reduction in training was looking at whether
training could be delivered in a different way for example training being
delivered in-house rather than using external consultants.
ii.
The reference to reduction in overtime was to try
and plan staff resource better so that staff did not unnecessarily work
overtime.
CAP4571 Replacement structure for pool plantroom at Jesus Green Outdoor
Pool
In response to members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:
i.
The Environment and Community Services Committee
had agreed the replacement structure for the plant room at Jesus Green outdoor
pool as this was essential works which if were not carried out would mean that
the outdoor pool would need to be closed.
ii.
Confirmed that if a bat survey was needed before
works were undertaken then the council would ensure that a survey was
undertaken.
RI4504 Bereavement Services projected reduction in income and S4537
Bereavement Services – service review
In response to members questions Councillor Smith
confirmed:
i.
The service review was not designed to balance out
the bereavement service, officers felt that they could deliver the service
better. The loss in income should improve once the A14 was back in operation.
In response to members questions Strategic
Director (FB) confirmed:
ii.
All teams had a specific training budget so if
there were training requirements these should be met from existing budgets.
B4618 Celebration of Women 2020
In response to members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:
i.
The reason that this funding was not being aimed at
university women was in order promote women in the civic sphere that not many
people knew about. For example Clara Rackham who was a campaigner for workers’
rights, and a Councillor and magistrate in Cambridge.
ii.
Confirmed she would work with Councillor Payne to
see how residents and ward councillors could be involved with this project.
URP4660 Increase in service charge for Grand Arcade car park
In response to members questions the Head of Finance confirmed:
i.
When the budget setting report was completed
inflation would be added to the majority of contracts. Cost centre managers from the car parks
department were aware of the issue for future years.
RI4505 Reduction in car parking income for all parking revenue
In response to members questions Councillor Massey confirmed:
i.
The only data on footfall the council had was from
the Lion Yard. When the Grand Arcade had
the Midsummer Chronophage clock a spike in footfall was noted.
B4619 Youth Liaison Officer – supporting partnership work on child
criminal exploitation and serious violent crime
In response to members questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:
i.
Discussions were currently taking place regarding
external support for funding.
Councillor Robertson made the following comments:
i. There was even more uncertainty this year as to funding. The effects
of the Fair Funding review were as yet unknown and it was uncertain whether
anything would replace the New Homes Bonus, and this was why decisions on
investments were being delayed. Income from business rates was an unknown
quantity and this had amounted to a substantial figure. Reserves were higher
than expected but there were proposals in the budget to spend some of this
money.
The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 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.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 02/04/2020
Effective from: 03/02/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report
provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 7 October meeting of Strategy &
Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships
i.
Noted the update on
issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 30 October 2019,
27 November 2019 and 29 January 2020.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative
Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Chief Executive and noted the decision notice of the
Combined Authority Board meeting held on the 29 January 2020, which was
circulated at the meeting.
The Committee made
the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked why the lead members and chairs of
committees in the Combined Authority
structure did not have a representative from Cambridge City or South
Cambridgeshire District Council.
ii.
Questioned the £100,000 homes business case.
iii.
Asked if the Local Transport Plan which had been
approved at the most recent Combined Authority Board meeting had retained
reference to the role about demand management and highway congestion.
iv.
Questioned what the impending Cam Metro
consultation would be about as there seemed to be little or no information
about it.
Councillor Herbert said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The Combined Authority Mayor appointed the Deputy
Mayor and the lead members. Neither he
nor the leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council had been appointed to
chair any of the committees.
ii.
The committee model had improved representation on
the Combined Authority and he noted that there had been a number of changes to
various local authority leaders since the inception of the Combined Authority.
iii.
The homes business case was about trialling
different types of development within the different Combined Authority areas.
He hoped to see trials in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire but this would
depend on how the funding could be brought together.
iv.
He would follow up the Local Transport Plan query.
v.
He could not add anything further to the query
regarding the Cam Metro consultation. He hoped as the authority most affected
that the City Council would have had the opportunity to see the consultation
before it went public however, he anticipated that the City Council would see
the consultation at the same time as everyone else.
The Committee noted the report.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Antoinette Jackson
Recommend to Council this
report, including the estimated Prudential &
Treasury Indicators for 2020/21 to 2022/23.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/04/2020
Effective from: 03/02/2020
Decision:
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, 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)
A mid-year treasury
management report is produced to update Members on the progress of the capital
position, amending prudential indicators as necessary and advise if any
policies require revision.
The Outturn or
Annual Report compares actual performance to the estimates in the Strategy.
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 (2017 edition) prepared by CIPFA;
·
the
Treasury Management Code (2017 edition) prepared by CIPFA;
·
the
Statutory Guidance on Local Authority Investments prepared by Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (effective 1 April 2018); and
·
the
Statutory Guidance on Minimum Revenue Provision prepared by MHCLG (effective 1
April 2019).
It should be noted
that the estimated Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2019/20 to 2023/24
(inclusive), as set out in Appendix C to the officers report, include amounts
for other long-term liabilities arising from the implementation of
International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 16 in April 2020. In previous
years there were no long-term liabilities to be disclosed within these
indicators.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
To recommend Council to
i.
Approve this report, including the estimated
Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2019/20 to 2023/24 (inclusive) as set
out 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 Head of Finance. She referred
members to page 72 of the agenda pack and asked members to note that the amount
for treasury indicators for long term liabilities was extended at the last
Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in relation to borrowing for the Park
Street development.
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.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
a) To propose Revenue and Capital Budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years 2020/21, (Estimate), 2021/22 and 2022/23 (Forecast).
b) To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2020/21.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/04/2020
Effective from: 03/02/2020
Decision:
Recommendations of the Executive, which met on 3 February 2020, are set
out in the Budget Setting Report which went to Strategy & Resources
Scrutiny Committee on 3 February 2020 (version 1).
Unless otherwise specified, all references in the
recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to the Budget-Setting
Report found via the Council agenda page:
https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=3602&Ver=4
Accordingly, Council is recommended to:
i.
Approve
Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix C (b) and Savings shown in Appendix C (c)
of the officer’s report.
ii.
Approve Non-Cash
Limit items as shown in Appendix C (d) of officer’s
report.
iii.
Agree there
are no bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds (which would be
included as Appendix C (e) of the officer’s report).
iv.
Approve
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 will be set out in Appendix A (a) of the
officer’s report.
v.
Approve the
level of Council Tax for 2020/21 as set out in Appendix A (b) and
Section 4 [page 16-17] of the BSR refers.
Note that
the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel will meet by 6 February 2020 to
consider the precept proposed by the Police and Crime Commissioner,
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority will meet on 5 February 2020
and Cambridgeshire County Council will meet on 11 or 14 February 2020 to
consider the amounts in precepts to be issued to the City Council for the year
2020/21.
vi.
Approve
delegation to the Head of Finance to finalise changes relating to any 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).
vii.
Agree any recommendation in respect of
the proposals outlined in Appendix D(a) of officer’s report for inclusion in
the Capital Plan including any additional use of revenue resources required.
viii.
Approve
the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix D (c) of
the officer’s report, and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page 25 of the
BSR.
ix.
Note the impact of revenue and capital
budget approvals and approved the resulting level of reserves to be used to
support the budget proposals as set out in the table in section 8, page 46 of
the BSR.
x.
Approve the creation of an earmarked
reserves to be called the Transformation Fund and its associated remit on page
19 of the BSR.
xi.
Approve
the updated Corporate Plan 2019-2022 attached as Appendix B to the officer’s
report.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
(i)
An Opposition proposal to amend and update proposals for the Budget 2020/21 in
respect of General Fund Revenue and Capital Budgets, Earmarked Reserves and an updated
Section 25 report.
(ii) To provide an updated Equality Impact Assessment in respect of any
budget proposals.
(iii) To propose, where necessary, an alternative level of Council Tax to facilitate
delivery of any amendment subject to limits set out by the Government.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/04/2020
Effective from: 03/02/2020
Decision:
The purpose of the discussion was to ask questions of the
Liberal Democrat Members on their group’s budget amendment.
The Labour Members of the Committee and Executive
Councillors asked the following questions.
The answers provided by Liberal Democrat Members immediately follow.
i.
Reserves were proposed to be reduced – asked by
how much and what the purpose was for.
The amendment proposes using a specified amount from
reserves for investment in housing, rather than the illustrative amount set
aside in the budget setting report. It shows that the council has the ability
to generate income from an alternative housing model.
ii.
Asked what assurances there were that the
amendment had taken account of risks with the economy and Brexit.
The amendment proposed would still meet with reserve
requirements, the strategy could be phased if required.
iii.
Referred to the proposal to buy 40 houses and
produce an income of £237,000 and questioned how long it would take to acquire
the properties as this would need to be in place by 1 April.
Would look to phase the proposal over a period of time and
would not want to disturb the Cambridge housing market.
iv.
Questioned if thought had been given to the
requirement to upgrade the properties.
Had taken into account capital expenditure on the
properties, this proposal had been presented in the past.
B0006 Air Quality - Engine Idling Education Campaign
v.
Engine idling had been discussed previously by
the committee; her recollection was that the enforcement would cost more than
the revenue raised.
vi.
Asked if there was any evidence that an engine
idling campaign had been proven to make a difference.
The engine idling budget amendment was not a revenue raising
item, it was an educational health campaign.
Councils who had run engine idling campaigns had noticed improvements to
air quality.
B0014 Civic Beekeeper (grant to local group)
vii.
She was aware of bee hives in Cambridge but
questioned whether this budget amendment may be delivered better by the private
sector. Honey production was a great business.
In relation to the Civic Beekeeper budget amendment, the
Council had taken on the biodiversity challenge by declaring a Biodiversity
Emergency at Full Council. The wildflower meadows which had been created were
welcomed, but this amendment was a further action that the council could take
to protect pollinators
B0020 Youth Liaison Officer – remit to include knife
crime
viii.
Violent crime included knife crime
County Lines was a critical area which needed to be looked
at more. County lines did lead into violent crime. Proposed to extend the scope
of the role to 3 years and knife crime was a component part.
B0021 Support for lone parents in / at risk of poverty
ix.
Asked if there was a specific project identified
and if any discussions with lone parents had taken place.
No specific project had been identified. Discussions with
lone parents had taken place and free access to childcare was highlighted as an
issue.
B0013 Enhanced leaf clearance
x.
Leaf clearance on public footpaths was the
responsibility of the County Council why should the City Council pick this
issue up.
The public safety aspect of the amendment was clear; was
keen for the City Council to take the lead because it was seen by the public as
something which had degraded over the years.
Could be replaced with funding from fixed penalty notices.
B0016 Reverse cuts to cycle and walking grants (B4541)
xi.
Commented that this issue had been picked up
earlier in the Budget Setting report discussion and that this grant could
possibly be included with other grants so that there was a ‘one stop shop’ for
people to contact the council about grants.
Expressed concerns that walking / cycling groups could find
that the grant funding had already been spent if the grant funding was
amalgamated within other grant funding.
II0002 Trade Waste Surplus
xii Questioned how the increased surplus from
trade waste could be achieved.
Wanted businesses to produce less waste, but where they do for
the Council’s service to be as commercial as it can. Thought that the target
was very achievable as there is already work underway in the service to deliver
more.
CAP0003 Housing company capital [linked with II0005,
RI0004]
xii.
Referred to discussions which had taken place on
a similar amendment suggested last year. Asked how ‘key workers’ would be
defined and asked if affordable housing should be promoted for everyone (and
not just key workers).
The amendment was proposed as it was felt that key workers
were an important segment of society, and which they felt had been neglected by
the current administration.
xiii.
Referred to a report which had been undertaken
by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) in 2018 which stated that the skills
demand in the Cambridge area was for a greater proportion of lower skilled
workers.
The current MP had referred to a current shortage of
teachers. Without teachers children
could not be educated. A report had been undertaken specifically in Cambridge
about key workers.
xiv.
Referred to housing for single homeless people
on town hall lettings and questioned whether there was a ‘need’ to be met for
single homeless people.
Questioned if the level of need was understood by the
Executive Councillor, single people who were homeless could not get private
rented accommodation. He was aware of this issue last Friday, the ‘need’ did
exist.
CAP0012 Succession Tree Planting on Parkers Piece
xv.
Noted that this budget amendment proposed tree
planting but expressed concern that this was a knee jerk reaction to plant
further trees on Parker’s Piece. The
quality of the area was open and flat.
The history of the area should be considered, this was where the rules
of football were developed and Parkside School used the area for sports
lessons. Believed the area was in or close to a Conservation Area. Planting
further trees may damage the character of the area.
The description of the amendment was clear that the proposal
was only to replace and maintain trees along the perimeter of the area so that
it did not impinge on the use of the open space for sports and events.
The Conservation Area Plan for Parkers Piece was agreed in
2001 and called for the provision of succession planting.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
The Executive Councillor will recommend the Strategy to Council. (Item to be considered by Council on 13 February 2020.)
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/04/2020
Effective from: 03/02/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The
report outlined the capital strategy of the Council together with a summary
capital programme for the General Fund (GF) and the Housing Revenue Account
(HRA). The previous capital strategy was approved by Council on 21 February
2019 and the report update focused on providing a framework for delivery of the
capital expenditure plans over a 10 – 30 year period.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
To recommend Council to
i. Approve the capital
strategy as set out in this report.
ii. Note the summary
Capital programme.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative
Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received
a report from the Head of Finance.
The Committee made
the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Referred to paragraph 5.26 of the officer’s report
and asked what the implications would be regarding the removal of the debt cap.
ii.
Referred to paragraph 7.23 of the officer’s report
and asked whether the council worked to target parameters regarding the use of
investment property income to support the costs of services.
iii.
Referred to section 7 of the officer’s report and
expressed concern regarding the liquidity of the council’s assets as it
invested in commercial property.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Setting
Report began to consider how the HRA might use debt in the future to fund
development. At the moment the debt cap would not be exceeded.
ii.
The use of investment property income to support
the council’s activities had been established over many years, the council
considered 50% to be the prudent maximum level of this indicator. This figure
was likely to increase rather than reduce as a result of the council’s plans
for redevelopment.
iii.
The council had £170 million in commercial
investments and over £100 million in cash so the council had significant
liquidity. There were plans for
investment and the Finance Team kept an eye on the liquidity of council assets
daily.
The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 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.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
To review the Council’s use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
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 Leader and Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships and
Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the
17 January 2019.
The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory powers
regulated by RIPA since February 2010.
This report sets out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present
surveillance policy.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
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 to ensure that surveillance is
only authorised in accordance with RIPA.
iii.
Approved the general surveillance
policy in Appendix 1 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 Head of Legal Practice.
The Head of Legal Practice
said
the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
It was good practice (for transparency reasons) for
a report to come to committee even if RIPA powers were not used.
ii.
There were no cost implications to the City Council
from having RIPA powers. It was something to keep in the locker in case powers
were needed.
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.
Lead officer: Tom Lewis
To approve in principle the proposal to review, extend and vary the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for dog control across the city and authorise officers to carry out consultation as required.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Public Spaces Protection Order (Dog Control) 2017
(“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2020. At any point before expiry
of the Order, the Council can vary or extend it by up to three years if they
consider it is necessary to prevent the original behaviour from occurring or
recurring.
The Officer’s report revisited the terms of the sealed Order
(Appendix A), and asked the Executive Councillor to approve, in principle, the
proposal to extend and vary the Order in respect of dog control (including dog
fouling, dog exclusion, dogs on leads and restriction on number of dogs
requirements) within Cambridge, in the form set out at Appendix B and the
locations set out in Appendix C; and to authorise officers to publicise the
proposed orders and to consult, as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime
and Policing Act 2014 (“The Act”).
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
i.
Approved in principle, the
proposal to extend and vary the Order for dog control within Cambridge in the
form set out at Appendix B [of the Officer’s report] and the locations set out
in Appendix C;
ii.
Authorised officers to publicise the proposed
orders and to carry out consultation as required by the Act.
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 Engagement and Enforcement Manager who corrected a
typographical error in paragraph 1.1:
The Public Spaces Protection Order
(Dog Control) 2017 (“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2019 2020.
In response to the report Councillors sought clarification on the
community survey. The Community Engagement
and Enforcement Manager said that the previous consultation survey had been
sent to stakeholders in electronic format (Survey Monkey) and was available in
hard copy format. It was sent to resident groups, charities and voluntary
groups who used or were involved with dogs. The survey was also distributed via
community centres, the City Council website and social media. It was proposed
that this consultation would also do use the same methods.
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.
Lead officer: Wendy Johnston
To consider the recommendations on walking tours in terms of frequency and scale.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Public Question
A member of the public made
the following points:
i. The report showed that the council was listening to
residents’ concerns about walking tours.
ii. Expressed interest
in how the City Council planned to manage the tour coaches, parking locations
and reduce visitor groups to a maximum of 20 people.
iii.
Requested a pilot study at Madingley P&R and
Cambridge North rail station for range of coach-users: language school pupils,
conference groups, tourists, school parties.
iv.
Recommendations to Executive Councillor:
a.
Point 2: Alongside the ongoing monitoring of the situation,
would the council include a pilot study with the County using, eg Madingley
P&R site for coach parking?
b.
Point 4: It seems a little vague and
non-committal to recommend a continued dialogue with the County when this
has already commenced. Will alternative parking locations to Queens Road
as drop-off points be explored?
The Executive Councillor said a pilot study
would be welcome. The County Council were responsible so the City Council would
try to influence them.
The Safer Communities Manager said she had
looked at the issue of walking tours from a community safety point of view.
There was no evidence of safety issues, so this was more of a city centre management
issue than a nuisance enforcement one.
The member of the public
made the following supplementary points
i. Sought a way to limit group numbers to 20,
particularly groups from coach tours.
ii. Facilities in the city centre would not be able to
match those at a P&R site eg a ticket booth and timed visit slots.
iii. The City Council
could work with the County Council, but the City Council should take urgent
action now for reasons of air quality and public safety.
iv. Queried if points
could be reported to the Head of Environmental Services to incorporate into the
Tourism Strategy.
Matter for
Decision
At the Environment and
Communities Scrutiny Committee of 27 June 2019, the Executive Councillor
approved a recommendation to monitor the situation with regards to how walking
tours were sold. Also to monitor the frequency of excessively large tour groups
in the city centre, including on King’s Parade during the summer, by:
i.
Advising coach companies and tour
groups and other organisations hosting large visitor groups that the City
Council supports a maximum of 20 people in any single group, and
ii.
Reviewing the issue of walking
tour groups and reporting to
Committee in January 2020 if the problem of large walking tour groups persists,
including considering the option of consulting on a Public Spaces Protection
Order and other options to set a maximum tour group size if there is assessed
to be a serious problem.
Following the approval of
the recommendation, a Working Group was set up to look at possible solutions to
the issues raised in relation to walking tours.
The Group included representation from the City Council’s Community
Safety Team, Corporate Marketing, Streets and Open Spaces, Property Services,
Legal Practice and (externally) Visit Cambridge and Beyond and Cambridge BID.
The Officer’s report
detailed the actions considered by the Working Group and recommendations for
the future.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
Agreed to:
i.
Officially request Visit Cambridge
and Beyond to include the management of walking tours in the development of
their Destination Management Plan (DMP).
ii.
Approve the continuation of the
monitoring of the sale and size of walking tours during the 2020 season in
order to inform the development of the DMP.
iii.
Continue the dialogue with the
County Council to examine the possibilities of coach permit parking in the city
to include conditions to limit the numbers in any tour group.
iv.
Start a dialogue with the County
Council to consider making park and ride sites more attractive to coach tours
and to include incentives to direct groups from the sites to official walking
tours of limited numbers.
v.
Use the outcomes from the negotiations to inform the
development of the DMP.
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 Safer Communities Manager.
The Safer Communities Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The issue of group size had been reviewed from a
community safety point of view. There was no evidence of anti-social behaviour.
The Working Group discussed the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order
(PSPO) but considered this to be an inappropriate way to manage walking tours
as the issues raised (such as the size and inconvenience caused by the tours)
were unlikely to fit the criteria for the introduction of a PSPO. Also the
Working Group believed it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to
enforce.
ii.
There was disagreement on the effectiveness of
parking permits to control coach parking. The County Council said that permits
were not respected. The Working Group said parking control would be respected.
Officers would follow this up.
iii.
Cambridge Ambassadors were asked to monitor walking
tour group sizes during the tourist season, but this ceased when tourist
numbers dropped out of season. Monitoring could resume in the new tourist
season.
iv.
A limit of 20 people in a group was set in-line
with Blue Badge tour group size guidance.
The Head of Community Services said points from this discussion would be
recorded in the meeting minutes and forwarded to the Head of Environmental
Services (City Council) and Head of Tourism and City Centre Management (Tourist
Information).
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.
Lead officer: Lynda Kilkelly
Approve Community Grants for 2020-21.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 07/02/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
Councillor Hadley took part in the debate on this item, but
did not vote due to her declaration of interest.
Matter
for Decision
This is the annual report for the Community
Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It
provides an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Communities
Approved the
Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2020-21, as set
out in Appendix 1 of this report, subject to the budget approval in February
2020 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant
organisations.
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.
The Community
Funding and Development Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
People were supported and guided
through the application process.
ii.
Workshops were held before the current
funding application cycle started. Information and advice was given on funding
available, plus signposts to alternative funding streams if these appeared more
appropriate for applicants.
iii.
Officers continued to offer support to
people after they submitted applications. Officers involved in the process came
from the Communities Team, as well as others, who could provide expert advice
to check if projects were pertinent for funding.
iv.
Officers did not just say “no” to
applications, they tried to ascertain if community funding or another fund was
more appropriate.
v.
Applicants could reapply several times
in the same funding cycle if they were unsuccessful on the first attempt.
vi.
There were several projects to help people
get into volunteering. A fund was available to provide help/training to do
this. Training/supervision of volunteers could be issues that affected
recruitment/retention. The City Council was working with the Council for
Voluntary Services to address this.
vii.
The same application process applied to
new Applicants and those who had previously made applications. New Applicants
were encouraged to liaise with Officers who could then support them through the
application process.
viii.
Different levels of information were
sought from Applicants depending on the level of funding applied for.
ix.
Funding was not allocated to projects
where:
a.
They were not appropriate for the
funding stream.
b.
They were duplicates of an existing
project.
c.
There was insufficient information on
the application form.
The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 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.
Lead officer: Jackie Hanson