Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
To award a grant total of £16,994 to various community groups in the East Area ward.
Decision Maker: East Area Committee
Decision published: 26/08/2020
Effective from: 08/04/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision: |
To
agree funding for the grant applications received and proposed awards as
outlined in the table below which are in line with the Area Committee
Community Grants.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any alternative options considered and
rejected: |
Councillor Baigent
enquired if any remaining money be allocated to the prototype flower bed
project to be constructed on a one way street
connected to Mill Road as proposed as part of the EIP projects. As this project fell
under the EIP projects this did not come under the allocation of grants for
community funding. It was suggested by
Councillor Robertson that as some of the funding recommended was at slightly
lower levels than the net figures required for the projects; the total funds
available comfortably exceeded the total proposed to award and would do so
even if the full requests were agreed, that on this occasion, allow the full
requests in all cases. Officers considered this
request in consultation with the Chair and summarised in general the amounts
proposed were what was either needed or a reasonable level as some project
had unrealistic supervision and overhead costs. Any remaining funds
should be used towards new initiatives and needs coming forwards due to
COVID- 19, or later in the year rather than top up projects just because the
funding was available. In discussions with organisations about the
awards things may have changed with them in the current climate of COVID-19
and therefore was necessary to be flexible under these exceptional
circumstances and make the awards as recommended in the table above and
increase only if there was a realistic need when further discussion had taken
place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reason(s) for the decision including any
background papers considered: |
An urgent decision under paragraph 2 of section
9, Council Procedure Rules was necessary.
The East Area Chair and Committee Members were consulted. As previously stated it
is necessary to be flexible with the awards and make the awards as
recommended in the table above and increase only if there was a realistic
need when further discussion had taken place. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conflicts of interest and dispensations
granted by the Chief Executive: |
None |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other Comments: |
None
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reference: |
2020/OfficerUrgent/EAC/10 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contact for further information: |
Community Funding & Development Manager 01223
457867 Jackie.hanson@cambridge.gov.uk |
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Jackie Hanson
To agree some temporary arrangements for car parking in response to the COVID-19 situation.
Decision Maker: Programme Director – Major Regeneration
Decision published: 12/05/2020
Effective from: 27/03/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL
Officer Urgent Decision -
Record
Changes to car parking
arrangements
Decision(s) taken: |
To change the arrangements for car parking in the
city as set out in option 5 of the briefing paper. |
||
Decision of: |
Strategic Director 1 (Fiona Bryant) |
||
Date of decision: |
27 March 2020 |
|
|
Matter for Decision: |
To agree some temporary arrangements for car parking
in response to the current situation as described in the briefing paper. |
||
Any alternative options considered and
rejected: |
Other options rejected are included in the
briefing paper. |
||
Reason(s) for the decision including any
background papers considered: |
An urgent decision under paragraph 2 of section
9, Council Procedure Rules was necessary as there are no meetings of the
Council, Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee or Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee within a reasonable timeframe and taking into account the
current national situation it is unclear when this could be possible. It was important to respond to the
Government requirement on car parking and in response to key worker and
resident need. |
||
Conflicts of interest and dispensations
granted by the Chief Executive: |
None. |
||
Other Comments: |
The Chief Executive and Leader of the Council
were consulted prior to the decisions taken.
In addition, the Executive Councillors for (i) Finance and Resources
(ii) Transport and Community Safety were consulted. The spokes for Strategy and External
Partnerships was advised. There will be budgetary implications of these
decisions which will fall outside of the current budgetary framework. Some budget implications are given in the
broadest terms in the officer briefing paper.
When officers are in a position to report further on these, they will
be reported to city councillors for decision at the earliest opportunity. Link to briefing paper: http://mgappmh-01/documents/s49649/CarParkingbriefingpaper.docx.pdf?$LO$=1
. |
||
Reference: |
2020/OfficerUrgent/SR/06 |
||
Contact for further information: |
Fiona Bryant, Strategic Director 01223 457325 fiona.bryant@cambridge.gov.uk |
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
To award a grant of £20,000 to the Cambridge Community Foundation Coronavirus Fund. The funds are to be taken from the Anti-Poverty Fund.
Decision Maker: Strategic Director (SH)
Decision published: 22/04/2020
Effective from: 30/03/2020
Decision:
Decision(s)
taken: |
To
award a grant of £20,000 to the Cambridge Community Foundation Coronavirus
Fund. The funds are to be taken from
the Anti-Poverty Fund. |
||
Decision
of: |
Strategic
Director 2 |
||
Date
of decision: |
30
March 2020 |
|
|
Matter
for Decision: |
To
agree a donation to Cambridgeshire Community Foundation so that small grants
can be made to support local groups working to alleviate hardship issues
linked to the Covid-19 pandemic. A
Cambridge Resilience group has been established, to connect, advise and
support fourteen ward-based organisations. Each ward has an organisation
identified able to receive funds, and there may also be city-wide calls on
the funding, to support work relating to coronavirus. This
money was set aside in the Anti-Poverty Strategy for emergencies, but has not
been allocated to any projects in 2019/20. Its intended use was the
prevention and alleviation of poverty. There is now an urgent need to
alleviate risks to people. Making the
fund available as grants through CCF will be an effective way of targeting
people in crisis in the city. Allocations
of the anti-poverty grants are normally made by the Executive Councillor for
Communities (with committee scrutiny) but these exceptional circumstances
require an immediate response. Allocating funding to CCF means that funds can
be made available quickly to groups to run mutual aid efforts across the
city. |
||
Any
alternative options considered and rejected: |
Officers
considered the alternative option of running the grants programme ourselves,
but decided that to combine funds with CCF allows more resource to be
deployed and more quickly. Officers
considered whether this was an appropriate use of the anti- poverty fund
reserve. I decided that in these
exceptional circumstances this is an appropriate response to immediate
need. |
||
Reason(s)
for the decision including any background papers considered: |
An
urgent decision under paragraph 2 of section 9, Council Procedure Rules was
necessary. The Executive Councillor
for Communities was consulted and the Communities spokes was advised. |
||
Conflicts
of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive: |
None. |
||
Other
Comments: |
None |
||
Reference:
|
2020/OfficerUrgent/EnC/07 |
||
Contact
for further information: |
Suzanne
Hemingway, Strategic Director 01223 457461 suzanne.hemingway@cambridge.gov.uk |
Lead officer: Suzanne Hemingway
To take various actions, as detailed in appendix 1 below, to support market and street traders during the Covid-19 outbreak.
Decision Maker: Programme Director – Major Regeneration
Decision published: 22/04/2020
Effective from: 31/03/2020
Decision:
Decision(s)
taken: |
To take various
actions, as detailed in appendix 1 below, to support market and street
traders during the Covid-19 outbreak. |
||
Decision of: |
Strategic Director 1 |
||
Date
of decision: |
31
March 2020 |
|
|
Matter for Decision: |
To revise previously agreed wording around interim
support measures for market traders; and agree interim support measures for
street traders, in response to changes in Government Covid-19 measures and to
ensure consistency in our policy approach to traders. |
||
Any alternative options considered and
rejected:
|
The decisions are based on an earlier decision taken
to support market traders and in the light of the subsequent Government
announcement to: ·
close non-essential retail and other defined services; and ·
launch the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme, which
will not be available until June 2020, even where market and street trader
businesses are eligible to apply. |
||
|
|
||
Reason(s)
for the decision including any background papers considered: |
An urgent decision under paragraph 2 of section 9, Council Procedure
Rules was necessary to enable street traders to be advised urgently of the
Council’s position regarding rent and fees.
All decisions were based on the latest guidance and information resulting
from the Covid-19 situation. |
||
Conflicts of
interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive: |
None. |
||
Other
Comments: |
The Chief Executive and
Executive Councillor Climate change, Environment and City Centre, were
consulted the spokes was advised. There will be budgetary
implications of these decisions which will fall outside of the current
budgetary framework. Estimated budget impacts are outlined in the ‘Financial
Impacts’ section of the paper at appendix 1 below. |
||
Reference: |
2020/OfficerURGENCY/Council/03 |
||
Contact
for further information: |
Fiona Bryant,
01223 457325 fiona.bryant@cambridge.gov.uk |
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
To approve the 3C ICT 2020/21 Business Plan, 3C Legal 2020/2021 Business Plan & Shared Internal Audit 2020/21 Business Plan
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 07/04/2020
Effective from: 06/04/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE CITY
COUNCIL
Record of Executive Decision
3C ICT Business Plan, 3C Legal Business Plan
& Shared Internal Audit Business Plan 2020/21 |
Decision of: |
Councillor
Richardson, Executive
Councillor for Finance & Resources |
||
Reference: |
20/URGENCY/S&R/6 |
||
Date of
decision: |
6 April 2020 |
Recorded on: |
7 April 2020 |
Decision Type: |
Non Key |
||
Matter for
Decision: |
To approve the 3C ICT 2020/21 Business Plan, 3C Legal 2020/2021
Business Plan & Shared Internal Audit 2020/21 Business Plan |
||
Why the decision had to be made (and any
alternative options): |
In response to the Government’s
announcement on limiting social contact due to the COVID-19 virus the
decision was taken to cancel the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee
meeting on 30 March 2020. |
||
The
Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
The Executive
Councillor for Finance & Resources agrees to:
|
||
Reasons for the decision: |
An out of cycle decision is required to
approve the plans for the start of the new financial year |
||
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Strategy &
Resources were consulted prior
to the action being authorised. |
||
Report: |
The 3C ICT 2020/21 Business Plan, 3C Legal
2020/2021 Business Plan & Shared Internal Audit 2020/21 Business Plan can
be accessed via the following link: https://mgappmh-01.ccc.local/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1504&ID=1504&RPID=65346913
|
||
Conflicts
of interest: |
None known. |
||
Comments: |
Not applicable |
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
The Executive Member for Planning Policy & Open Spaces is asked to consider the main issues raised in consultation, agree responses to the representations received and any consequential amendments to the SPD, and to approve adoption of the SPD as amended.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 06/04/2020
Effective from: 14/01/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report provided responses to the
representations received along with recommendations for amendments to the Supplementary
Planning Document ahead of adoption with several consequential proposed changes.
Decision of Executive Councilor for Planning
Policy and Open Spaces and the Executive Councilor for Transport and Community
Safety
i.
Considered the main issues raised in the public
consultation; agree responses to the representations received and agreed
consequential proposed changes to the SPD as set out in the Consultation
Statement and tracked changed version of the SPD for adoption (See Appendices A
and B of the Officer’s report);
ii.
Subject to i), agreed to adopt the Greater
Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD; and
iii.
Approved the Joint Director of Planning and
Economic Development is granted delegated authority, in liaison with the
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces, and the Chair and
Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any
editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.
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 Principal Sustainability Consultant which referred to the Greater
Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD having been developed with
input from officers from across both Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council.
The document provides technical
guidance for developers on the information that needs to be submitted with planning
applications to demonstrate compliance with adopted planning policies related
to climate change and sustainable design and construction.
In response to Members’ questions
and comments the Principal Sustainability Consultant said the following:
i.
Did consider moving the reference to gas
combined heat and power; but where it had been referenced it had been correctly
specified (as stated in paragraph 3.2.2.9 & 3.2.3.2). If used in the right
sort of development this was considered a good low carbon option.
ii.
Gas combined heat and power could enable the
delivery of community scale energy schemes; was cost effective and low risk
compared to a bio-mass fuel system. Therefore, considered a useful system as
the technology could be changed in the future when more zero carbon options
available
iii.
Project work was being undertaken to explore
injecting hydrogen into the gas grid to reduce carbon admissions. This could
also be a future option for consideration.
iv.
The guidance in the document made it clear that
where the technology was being proposed, it was being proposed in the right
situation and following industry code of practice.
v.
Have asked developers to think about what they could
implement now which would benefit residents’ long term; such topics were
heating which could operate at lower temperatures.
vi.
From the 2025 no gas boilers would be permitted
in new residential developments and would have to look at alternatives such as
electric heating; by installing a system which could operate at a lower
temperature this would allow residents to change their boiler at a future date
without installing a new heating system.
vii.
Reference to the installation of the correct
pipework to rainwater harvesting tanks had been made so residents would not
have to pull up the floors and new pipework in the future.
viii.
New building regulations would be issued later
in the year so there would be an opportunity to add technical notes to the
document when those changes to the regulations were published.
ix.
Section 4 of the document referenced food
growing and aimed to encourage developers to go further than the current
policy; encouraging integrating food growing into developments in a less formal
way.
x.
Had aimed to make the document as simple as
possible, however a certain level of detail was necessary based on the current
Local Plan; some of the topics in the SPD were complex, particularly the
environmental health issues which had been streamed lined as much as possible.
xi.
Many consultants were aware of the detail that
the City Council had referenced in the document as they had been working with
Officers since the current Local Plan had been adopted.
xii.
Noted the Committee’s frustration of wanting to
achieve net zero carbon.
xiii.
Procurement had begun on the evidence base for
net zero carbon in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan; already seven
consultancies had expressed an interest since Friday 10 January.
xiv.
Had seen developers start to respond to net zero
carbon in the absence of policy.
xv.
The sustainability checklists had been developed
to provide a simple process for developers to give to applicants at
pre-application stage. Different checklists had been produced for the City
Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council as their policies were
different. The Greater Cambridge Local Plan would look to bring the polices
together for both authorities.
The Executive Councillor for
Planning Policy and Open Spaces thanked the Principal Sustainability Consultant
and the planning team for their work on such a comprehensive document. Taking
the Council forward from the adopted Local Plan to the next Local Plan while
thinking of the environmental and climate predicament.
The Committee unanimously
endorsed the Officer recommendations.
The Executive Councillor for
Planning Policy and Open Spaces 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: Emma Davies
(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
(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
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
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
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
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
The Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre agrees to:
i. Approve the Greater Cambridge Waste Business Plan 2020/21 attached as an Appendix hereto; and
ii. Authorise the Shared Services Management Board to approve final amendments to the Business Plan in line with comments received from the partner councils.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 01/04/2020
Effective from: 23/03/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL
Record of Executive
Decision
SHARED WASTE
SERVICE BUSINESS Plan 2020/21 |
Decision of: |
Councillor Moore, Executive
Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre. |
||
Reference: |
20/URGENCY/E&C/4 |
||
Date of decision: |
23 March 2020 |
Published on: 31
March 2020 |
|
Decision Type: |
Non Key |
||
Matter for Decision: |
To approve the Shared Waste Service Business Plan 2020/21 |
||
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):
|
In response to the Government’s announcement on limiting social contact due to the COVID-19 virus the decision was taken to cancel the Environment and Community meeting on 26 March. |
||
The Executive
Councillor’s decision(s): |
The Executive
Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre agrees to:
i.
Approve the Greater Cambridge Waste Business Plan
2020/21 attached as an Appendix hereto; and
ii.
Authorise the Shared Services Management Board to
approve final amendments to the Business Plan in line with comments received
from the partner councils. |
||
Reasons for the decision: |
An out of cycle
decision is required to approve the plans for the start of the new financial
year |
||
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Environment and Community Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised. |
||
Report: |
The Greater Cambridge Waste Business Plan 2020/21 and covering report are attached. |
||
Conflicts of
interest: |
None known. |
||
Comments: |
No comments were made. |
Lead officer: Trevor Nicoll
To approve the Business Plans 20/21 for Greater Cambridge Planning Service and Building Control Shared Services
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 31/03/2020
Effective from: 31/03/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision: |
To approve the Business Plans 20/21 for Greater Cambridge Planning
Service and Building Control Shared Services |
Why the decision had to be made (and any
alternative options): |
In response to the Government’s
announcement on limiting social contact due to the COVID-19 virus the
decision was taken to cancel the Planning and Transport meeting on 24 March. |
The
Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
The Executive Councillor
for Planning Policy and Open Spaces agrees to:
|
Reasons for the decision: |
An out of cycle decision is required to
approve the plans for the start of the new financial year |
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport
Scrutiny Committee were consulted
prior to the action being authorised. |
Report: |
The Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business
Plan and Building Control Shared Services Business Plans (private) for 20/21
are attached and the covering report. Public documents can be viewed at the link below:
https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1500&ID=1500&RPID=65332404 |
Conflicts
of interest: |
None known. |
Comments: |
No adverse comments were made. |
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
1. To agree the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply document (see Appendix 1) to be published on the Councils’ websites. The Greater Cambridge housing trajectory and five year housing land supply calculations have been prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council, consistent with the adopted Local Plans.
2. To delegate any further minor editing changes to the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply document to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they are technical matters.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 31/03/2020
Effective from: 31/03/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision: |
1. To
agree the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five
Year Housing Land Supply document (see Appendix 1) to be published on the
Councils’ websites. The Greater Cambridge housing trajectory and five year housing land supply calculations have been
prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council, consistent with the adopted
Local Plans. 2. To
delegate any further minor editing changes to the Greater Cambridge Housing
Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply
document to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where
they are technical matters. |
Why the decision had to be made (and any
alternative options): |
In January 2019, the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces agreed
that the Greater Cambridge housing trajectory and five-year supply
calculations would be agreed by the Executive Member for Planning Policy at
Cambridge City Council via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the
Cabinet Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire Council). |
The
Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
That the Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces agreed:
|
Reasons for the decision: |
The Greater Cambridge housing trajectory is
used by the Councils to calculate their five-year housing land supply and to
demonstrate that anticipated housing delivery will meet or exceed the housing
requirements set out in their Local Plans. National planning policy and guidance requires that a local planning
authority should identify and update annually at least a five
year supply of specific deliverable housing sites. A new housing
trajectory is required to establish the Greater Cambridge five-year housing
land supply for the purposes of making planning decisions. In addition, South
Cambridgeshire District Council has two planning appeals for developments at:
Mill Lane, Sawston and Parcel Com4 Orchard Park where the appellants are
challenging the Council’s five year housing land
supply. The assumptions made by the Councils on the deliverability of sites
will be challenged through these appeals and therefore by publishing the
updated Greater Cambridge housing trajectory and five-year supply
calculations, the Councils will be able to use the most up-to-date
information for these appeals. |
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and
Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted
prior to the action being authorised. |
Report: |
The Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply can be viewed at the link
below: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1502&ID=1502&RPID=65347867 |
Conflicts
of interest: |
None known. |
Comments: |
No adverse comments made. |
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Caroline Hunt
To offer Kings Hedges Family Support Group a grant of £20,000.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 27/03/2020
Effective from: 06/03/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE CITY
COUNCIL
Record of Executive Decision
KINGS HEDGES
FAMILY SUPPORT GROUP |
Decision of: |
Councillor
Smith, Executive Councillor for Communities |
||
Reference: |
20/URGENCY/E&C/5 |
||
Date of
decision: |
06/03/20 |
Recorded on: |
26/03/20 |
Decision Type: |
Non
Key Decision |
||
Matter for Decision: |
To offer Kings Hedges Family Support Group a 2019-20 grant of £20,000 |
||
Why the decision had to be made
(and any alternative options):
|
The Kings Hedges Family Support Group 5 year lottery funding comes to an end at the end of March 2020 and they are considering a range of options as they do not have funding to carry on with the current level of activity that the lottery funding as enabled them to develop. They currently run 5 separate groups in Abbey, Arbury and East Chesterton and compliment the work undertaken by the meadows Children & family Project. They work in high need areas and support families with complex needs. Officers have undertaken an in-depth financial assessment and liaised with Kings Hedges Family Support Group. The proposal is to offer them a grant of £20k this year so that they do not need to start redundancy planning and can focus on fundraising for 2020-21. This £20k gives them security to undertake projects in the new financial year and will give prospective funders assurances they have a viable organisation. Officers to support Kings Hedges Family Support Group to look at what their longer-term planning needs to consider. |
||
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
The Executive Councillor for Communities agreed to offer Kings Hedges Family Support Group a 2019-20 grant of £20,000. |
||
Reasons for the decision: |
The Kings Hedges Family Support Group raised concerns in their £2020-21 grant application about the viability of the organisation going forward without a reduction in the much needed services they currently offer.
The funding will enable the Group to better plan services into 2020-21 without cutting immediately in April (not caused through poor management). It will also help them lever in alternative funding with Council monies being offered as match funding. |
||
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised. |
||
Report: |
Not applicable. |
||
Conflicts of interest: |
None known. |
||
Comments: |
Not applicable. |
Lead officer: James Goddard