Decisions

Matter for Decision

The Council owns six blocks of flats at Bermuda Terrace, Histon Road. A programme of structural repairs and associated works is required to ensure the buildings are maintained in a good state of repair.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the award of a contract to Chas Berger Limited, subject to the completion of the required consultation with leaseholders. Chas Berger Ltd achieved the highest score following the tender evaluation process.

 

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 Asset Manager.

 

It was noted that this agenda item had not been included on the Forward Plan for the whole 28-day requirement before the meeting. This was because pre-tender estimates predicted a contract value below £1 million. Following tender clarifications, the contract value would exceed £1 million which changed the category of decision so that it was now a key decision. With the permission of the Chair of Housing Scrutiny Committee the urgency procedure was invoked to suspend the 28-day requirement so that the item could be considered at Committee, so it was open to scrutiny and debate rather than a decision being made through the out of cycle process.

 

The Asset Manager and Assistant Director for Housing and Health said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Noted concerns about some leaseholder’s ability to be able to pay for the repairs undertaken and advised that the works were not expected to be completed until April 2026 and therefore bills were not anticipated to be sent until September 2026. Meetings would take place with leaseholders to discuss the payment timetable and options for repayment. Agreements could be made with leaseholders if they were struggling financially. Repayment would be discussed on an individual basis. Noted that a high proportion of the Council’s leaseholders rented their properties out.

    ii.         Advised that reference to a ‘threshold’ was in relation to who could make the decision to award the contract. As the contract value had exceeded £1million this meant that the decision could not be made by an officer under delegated authority and instead the decision needed to be brought through Housing Scrutiny Committee and made by the Executive Councillor.

   iii.         Noted that balcony resurfacing had been undertaken about 10 years previously but there had been some movement in the buildings since. Repairs wouldn’t be required to all buildings and surveys would be carried out to see which buildings needed to be repaired.

  iv.         The contract was for structural repairs and not energy efficiency works, however if during the surveys it was found that there were gaps in cavity wall insulation / loft insulation then the gaps would be addressed.

    v.         Noted concerns regarding the removal and replacement of trees on the site and advised that a consultation would be undertaken with residents to ensure suitable trees were provided and a robust maintenance programme was in place.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report is to provide an update on city centre sites: Stanton House, East Road and Hanover and Princess Court. The report also sought approval to proceed with the demolition of Stanton House and redevelopment of the site through the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) to provide 29 new highly sustainable affordable homes.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved that the Stanton House scheme be brought forward as an affordable housing development and included in the Housing Capital Programme, with an indicative capital budget of £9,808,469 for the construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees.

    ii.         Authorised the Director of Economy & Place in consultation with the Executive Councillor to deliver 100% affordable housing (29 units), with It is proposed that the affordable homes will be let in line with the Councils Housing Strategy, i.e. inclusive of a mix of social rent, 60% market rent and 80% market rent.

   iii.         Authorised the Director of Economy & Place in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units and mix of property types, sizes, tenure, rent and the nature and level of the provision of special needs as outlined in this report.

  iv.         Approved that delegated authority be given to the Executive Councillor for Housing conjunction with the Director of Economy & Place to enable the site to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council.

    v.         Delegated authority to the Director of Economy & Place to instruct the demolition of the existing building at Stanton House.

 

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 Assistant Director (Development).

 

The Assistant Director (Development) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Planning Officers had been very clear that a community room would need to be provided as part of the redevelopment of Hanover and Princess Court. The Housing Development Team would work closely with the Communities Team to agree how this would be delivered. 

    ii.         Noted concerns raised about the loss of specialist housing with regards to the redevelopment of Stanton House but advised that the Housing Development Team had to respond to the current housing need, which was for general housing stock. There was specialist housing within the existing housing stock and unfortunately due to the nature of the occupants although there was a waiting list for the accommodation, people were able to access the specialist housing relatively quickly. Officers would reflect upon comments made at previous meetings about housing provision for older persons accommodation.

   iii.         Advised that a higher proportion of the residents within Stanton House were older homeless people as the accommodation wasn’t generally desirable as the studio flats were quite small. As part of the redevelopment relocation process, residents who continued to need sheltered accommodation were accommodated in other sheltered housing schemes and other residents had been relocated to ‘Long Drift Place’.  

  iv.         With the decant process, Officers worked with residents to find alternative accommodation which fitted their individual needs. Some residents had moved into general housing stock and other resident’s needs had increased and therefore some were accommodated in Ditchburn Place. If residents wanted to stay in a city centre location, Officers would try to accommodate this where possible.

    v.         Acknowledged the proposed Stanton House redevelopment scheme would provide less units than was there previously but advised that the units would be much larger. A consultation would take place with Housing Officers to determine the appropriate level of rent for the area. If the Council was awarded Homes England grant funding this may also dictate housing tenure / rent levels.   

  vi.         With reference to the Hanover and Princess Court redevelopment, paragraph 4.1 of the officer’s report summarised the starting point for redevelopment which included a percentage range of affordable housing provision of 40-60% of 138 properties. Officers were hopeful that the total number of homes that may be able to be delivered will be higher, but it may be towards the lower range of the affordable housing provision. If viability suggested that total numbers were lower than 138 or that a lower percentage (below 40%) of affordable housing would be delivered, then a further Executive Councillor decision would be required. 

 vii.         Biodiversity would be improved as part of the Hanover and Princess Court redevelopment and the community would be involved in developing ideas for this.

viii.         There was currently no date for the demolition of Hanover and Princess Court but once the planning application had been submitted Officers would meet with residents to advise them about the redevelopment timeline. 

  ix.         Officers would check the information contained within paragraph 5.9.1 ‘Physical Disability’. Post meeting note responding to the query raised. The needs analysis was carried out by the County Council. The County Council analysis seeks to identify the need for specialist accommodation; it is not identifying all people who have the specialist needs in question. Some people may have their needs met in other ways - for example by adaptations to their present homes or because in addition to their physical disability they have other needs which are a priority. The Committee Report is correct that the County Council analysis data does project that demand for supported living will reduce to 0 by 2026. As noted in the Committee Report the County Council analysis does also state that this may reflect a weakness in the available source data which may be unduly affected by an anomalous fluctuation in demand for the period 2020-2022.  There will be further discussions with the County Council about the best way to address specialist housing needs in the new development at Stanton House.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The draft policy contained within Appendix A of the Officer’s report aims to replace the existing Cambridgeshire Adaptations & Repairs Policy adopted in 2019. It proposes a continuation of the same types of financial assistance for eligible applicants on low incomes for adaptations, repairs and improvement to their homes, but with some improvements to help support positive health and wellbeing outcomes.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the Cambridgeshire Housing Adaptations, Repairs and Renewals Policy 2025-2030 at Appendix A of the Officer’s report, as it related to Cambridge City Council, to replace the existing Cambridgeshire Adaptations & Repairs Policy 2019.

    ii.         Delegated authority to the Assistant Director of Housing & Health to agree, subject to sufficient funding being available from the council’s ring-fenced capital allocation, and in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, Chair & Vice-Chair of Housing Scrutiny Committee and Opposition Spokes (or their successors):

a.    any future changes to the maximum amounts of financial assistance payable which may be needed during the life of the policy;

b.    capital funding of any additional partnership work or other projects which may be appropriate to meet the objectives of the policy; and

c.    any other minor changes which may be required during the life of the policy.

 

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 Housing Strategy Manager.

 

The Housing Strategy Manager and the Home Improvement Agency Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         A Project Officer had been employed specifically to increase awareness of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFGs) within the Council’s administrative area and to network with communities as there had been an underspend in the DFGs over recent years. Other work to promote DFGs included reaching out to over 1000 residents through 15 public facing events, 30 professional organisations across health and social care, and targeted leaflet drops to 1400 properties.

    ii.         In the past additional DFG funding had been allocated to all local authorities. Due to Cambridge City Council’s underspend, the Council passed their additional allocation to  Huntingdonshire District Council as part of the shared Home Improvement Agency service as their demand for DFG funding was higher and it served to support the Cambridgeshire areas social care needs as a whole.

   iii.         Approximately 80 DFG adaptations were undertaken in Cambridge per annum at a cost of around £540,000 against a budget of £827,000. Agreed to provide data and demography about the grant recipients outside of the meeting.

  iv.         In terms of forecasting DFG need year on year it wasn’t just about demographic need but also the life of adaptations and potential need for replacement which needed to be taken into account. 

    v.         Cambridge City tended to have a younger population compared with neighbouring authorities and there are also some affluent areas within the City which means some applicants are not eligible for the means tested grants.

  vi.         Noted reference to a ‘savings cap’; £6000 savings would be disregarded as part of the means test for grant funding.

 vii.         The ‘means test’ is outdated; many people are not eligible for the grant funding due to their income / occupational pensions which are all considered as part of the application process.

viii.         The increased DFG top up grant funding will particularly help with children’s cases where disabled needs could not be met, as construction costs have increased. Five years ago an extension would have cost in the region of £40,000, which now costs £60,000; without top up funding the works could not be funded.

  ix.         A team of Caseworkers are employed to help applicants complete their application forms. They also support applicants through the planning and building regulation process and liaise with builders.

    x.         Officers had explored whether the application process could be digitalised but this tended to make the process more complicated.

  xi.         The law requires consultation with social services and most referrals to the Cambridgeshire Home Improvement Agency (CHIA) came in following occupational therapy assessments.

 xii.         CHIA offers a self-funding service to people who are not eligible for a grant.

xiii.         In response to a query about whether CHIA explored why people didn’t use the service following an expression of interest - advised that if people weren’t eligible for grant funding, they would either fund the adaptations themselves, they may move or they may choose not to have the adaptations done which could put them at risk.

xiv.         Noted that Huntingdonshire District Council did not have their own council housing stock. Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council spent approximately £1.6 million in addition to the DFG budget on adapting council homes.

xv.         Partners of applicants are also means tested for DFGs as this is a legislative requirement. Officers do identify and challenge situations where financial / coercive control is suspected.

xvi.         DFG funding cannot be used to fund mobility scooters, officers are not aware if other grant funding is available.

xvii.         Where a contractor delayed the delivery of adaptations there would be flexibility with regards to the requirement for the works to be delivered within 12 months of the grant approval. 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

In 2020 the Council made a pledge to resettle 200 refugees over 5 years. A major part of the resettlement programme is the provision of housing. In 2021, the Council agreed to provide 4 council properties per annum, outside of the current Lettings Policy, for the next five years, to help deliver the pledge. To continue the Council’s resettlement work, the resettlement pledge needed to be renewed including the allocation of housing outside of the current Lettings Policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Agreed the pledge to:

a.    Welcome refugees and asylum seekers to rebuild their lives in Cambridge and the surrounding areas through wraparound support under our resettlement programme.

b.    Allocate a minimum of 4 City Council properties per annum, outside of the current Lettings Policy, for the next five years to help deliver the pledge to resettle refugees. With a proportion of these properties provided to refugees that require secure accommodation as prescribed by central Government refugee schemes.

c.    Engage with the East of England Strategic Migration Partnership to identify suitable accommodation for refugees based on household needs.

d.    Provide advice to refugees who are homeless to explore their housing options, including the Private Rented Sector.

e.    Work alongside local communities, agencies, and charities to provide services that support welcoming, cohesion, and the removal of any barriers to resettlement.

 

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 Strategic Resettlement and Community Equity Lead.

 

The Strategic Resettlement and Community Equity Lead said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         It was difficult to comment how the Council compared to other local authorities as the needs of people seeking sanctuary varied. Some local authorities would have a higher number of people seeking asylum, whereas in Cambridge there were a higher number of people with refugee status and the challenges people faced because of their status was different. A needs assessment with refugees had been undertaken and the data from this would inform work moving forwards. There were national challenges that people faced for example access to health care, dentistry and school places. Benchmarking against other local authorities had been undertaken in relation to grant funding. The Council had been recognised as demonstrating good practice in the region and Central Government officials had visited the Council and met with refugees the Council supported.     

    ii.         Advised that the Council provided Central Government with data regarding the resettlement work the Council undertook for example the number of people who had been able to access English classes, the number of people who had been supported into employment and the number of people assisted with the health care system.

   iii.         The holistic support for the resettlement work was fully funded through Central Government grant funding and was based on the number of people the Council resettled in the city. With reference to the Local Authority Housing Fund, the Council had agreed to pursue this as the grant offered by Central Government through the Local Authority Housing Fund was at a better rate than the grant offered through Homes England, so it was believed to be a better decision to invest in these properties using the Local Authority Housing Fund.  

 

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.

Regular update on the delivery of new council homes under the 500 and 10 year new homes programmes.

Matter for Decision

This was a regular quarterly report showing progress on the City Council’s new housing delivery and development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the approved housing programme as outlined in Appendix 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.         Noted the issues encountered with Heating Systems at a number of new build schemes as identified in Para 4.11, and the Council adoption of an (MEP) Guardian/Consultancy route toward full system health checks, ensuring readiness for 2025 Heat Network Regulation implementation.

   iii.         Noted that Funding of £4,577,000 has now been allocated to the council for the first phase of development at East Barnwell through Homes England’s 21-26 AHP.

 

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 Assistant Director (Development).

 

The Assistant Director (Development) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Noted concerns raised regarding the Ekin Road redevelopment. The Council had an excellent record of finding the right home for people according to their needs. The letter which had recently been sent to residents was a technical letter and was something the Council had to do as part of the legal process. This was the period as part of a redevelopment process where officers could spend more time working with vulnerable residents. A meeting with residents would be organised in the summer so tenants could talk through their concerns and officers could advise them about choices available to them.

    ii.         In response to a question about Ekin Road, referred to paragraph 4.6.4 of the officer’s report which stated that ‘1 out of 3 freehold properties had been purchased, 3 out of 9 leasehold properties had started the legal process of selling and 47 out of 82 tenanted households had moved’.

   iii.         The East Barnwell redevelopment was proposed to start on the 17 March 2025. It was a 2-year development programme, and it was hoped that the first apartments would be handed over in 2 years’ time.

  iv.         Confidential discussions were taking place with shop keepers at East Barnwell. One retail unit would be delivered in phase one of the development.

    v.         Advised that the local housing allowance rent was set by Central Government; it wasn’t set by the Council.

  vi.         Noted reference to ‘commonhold housing’; the Council would comply with any new legislative requirements as part of its redevelopment programme. It wasn’t clear at the moment whether this legislation would apply retrospectively or not.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions 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.

The report referred to the Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit which had been updated to cover neighbourhood planning across Greater Cambridge.

 

The toolkit reflected national and local changes and requirements and provided up to date guidance that was effective in supporting neighbourhood forums and parish councils. It had been amended to be more user friendly, with the Toolkit now all being in one document with accompanying appendices.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the updated version of the Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit (2024) (attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for use in supporting communities producing neighbourhood plans, and for publication on the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning website.

     ii.          Agreed that any future minor amendments required to the Toolkit to keep it up to date, such as updates to links, legislation and other guidance, be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, and agreed that any material amendments that are required to keep the Toolkit up to date be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, the Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

 

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 Planning Policy Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following:

      i.          Welcomed Members comments that the updated toolkit was a positive and sensible approach in the development of supporting those who wished to produce neighbourhood plans. 

 

The Committee endorsed the recommendations by 6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Greater Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) drafted to provide planning guidance to inform development at the existing Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC).

 

The draft SPD did not create policy but set out principles that should be considered in early stages of the planning process to deliver high quality development across the Campus.

 

The guidance provided in the SPD supported existing policies set out in the Cambridge City Council Local Plan (2018) and South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan (2018) for the Campus and would form an integral part of the development management process, setting out material considerations for determining planning applications.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the draft Greater Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD (attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) and accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) be subject to public consultation.

     ii.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. 

   iii.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

 

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 Planning Policy Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer and Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader said the following:

      i.          Cambridge South Station had been planned in terms of a four-platform station.

     ii.          Early engagement with local community groups had identified there were constraints and pinch points concerning movement and bus stop locations.

   iii.          There would be compromises made due to the size and location of the site. 

   iv.          Work had been done on entrance and exit points to the station as part of the movement strategy.

    v.          The station would be operational within the next six to twelve months. Officers would be evaluating how the station was being used, working with Network Rail, The Combined Authority and other external partners, looking at lessons learnt that could be built into emerging Local Plan Policy.

   vi.          Noted the comment that Members thanked Officers for their work on this as there was no Master Plan for this site. There had been so many planning applications on a piecemeal basis, considered by the Joint Development Control Committee, that the document was extremely useful. 

 vii.          Officers were aware that water was a considerable issue and agreed there should be a reduction of water usage for non-clinical usages. Conditions were used for those non-clinical applications regarding water usage through the planning committee process.

viii.          The SPD would supplement the existing adopted Local Plan while work on the emerging Local Plan would maximise delivery of accessibility.

   ix.          The SPD set out in principle the promotion of active travel, encouraging parking for a variety of cycles and other alternative travel alternatives to the car.

    x.          Developers were asked to look at strategies to prioritise the cycling and walking infrastructure and show how they had considered alternative car parking strategies on the campus as part of their planning application.

   xi.          Appreciated that car parking was a significant issue in the local area. Officers had and would continue to work with resident groups, businesses and the landowner group to determine what strategies were required to be put in place. More detailed worked on transport modelling would be undertaken.

 xii.          Officers were also working closely with the County Council as the Highway’s Authority and other external partners such as the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.

xiii.          There were currently adopted car parking standards for the city through the adopted Local Plan, the SPD could not introduce new policy.

xiv.          There would be individuals when visiting the hospital who had no other choice but to drive, such as those with limited mobility issues or who were sick, and parking needed to be provided.  

xv.          Had noted that some of the planning applications which had been considered by JDCC, had referenced temporary parking and included future use of car parking when no longer required.

xvi.          There were several schemes planned that could change the way that people went in and out of the campus including South Cambridge Station, Cambridge Southeast Transport Scheme (CSET) and the Sawston Greenway.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To agree to consult on the Draft Greater Cambridge Health Impact Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the purpose of the draft Health Impact Assessment (HIA) SPD which was to provide supplementary guidance on policies in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and Cambridge Local Plan that were related to an assessment of health impacts of development.

 

Publication of the draft SPD for comment would ensure the needs and aspirations of the communities and stakeholders were understood and considered when finalising the document.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the draft Health Impact Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) and the accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) subject to public consultation.

     ii.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

   iii.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Planning Policy Officer. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer, the Planning Policy Manager and Deputy Director of GCSP 3C Building Control said the following:

      i.          The SPD sets out the requirements for a full HIA at one hundred plus dwellings which would cover the larger planning applications such as urban extensions.

     ii.          If developers came in slightly under this dwelling threshold there is also a catch-all threshold which could be used if the development could have a significant impact on health.

   iii.          Would consider how and if the following comments could be referenced in the SPD:

·       The report referenced healthy homes having semi-private external spaces but believed the current Local Plan stated access to private external spaces was a requirement.

·       A comment to developers on mitigation of single aspect homes.

·       Advice on future proofing for dwellings (retro fitting) for air source heat pump.

   iv.          The flowchart (p307 of the agenda pack) outlined the general HIA process to the point of submitting a planning application. The difference in screening between South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) and Cambridge City Council (CCC) was down to the adopted Local Plans. SCDC’s Local Plan was very specific regarding the threshold and requirements (twenty to one hundred dwellings)

    v.          Had recommended a higher threshold for CCC of one hundred dwellings or more as the current SCDC Local Plan could not be changed, felt that one hundred dwellings was appropriate based on Officer’s experience and knowledge and the differences between the urban and rural areas.

   vi.          There was also an opportunity to look at the threshold differently with developments with potentially significant health impacts; this allowed the threshold to be lowered if considered appropriate.

 vii.          The best process would be taken forward in the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To agree to consult on the Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

The report referred to the purpose of the draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which was to provide guidance on how the Council sought to apply planning obligations, through the Section 106 process, to new development proposals.

 

The SPD would supplement Policy 85: Infrastructure delivery, planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and Policy TI/8: Infrastructure and New Developments of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, alongside other policies within the adopted development plans that sought to secure infrastructure necessary to support the needs generated by proposed developments.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (attached at Appendix 1) and accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2) subject to public consultation.

     ii.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

   iii.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Delivery Manager. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy Manager, the Delivery Manager and Deputy Director of GCSP 3C Building Control said the following:

        i.          The SPD had been in prepared in accordance with the latest Housing Strategy but would check that it was consistent with the guidance on shared ownership. 

       ii.          The introductory part of the S106 SPD dealt with viability robustly. There was a need to cross reference this within the SPD to ensure there was not an automatic assumption that the amount of affordable housing provided would reduce in percentage terms  if viability could not be meet.

     iii.          Officers were aware of problems with adopted roads, but the issue was not for this SPD but planning conditions which could deal with this area directly.

    iv.           There was a standard condition which could be implemented when dealing with private highways that outlined roads should be built to an adopted standard and charges to be fair and reasonable. This condition could be promoted with Officers.

      v.           Could look to strengthen the wording on Biodiversity Net Gain to outline the requirements and what were aspirational targets.

    vi.           The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement outlined how the Council engaged on planning matters including SPDs.

   vii.          This document was one of the more technical SPD’s, this was deliberate to try to speed up and clarify the process that was used for planning obligations.

 viii.          Officers feed into community led social media platforms through the communications strategy, both at Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, for consultation events.

    ix.           A face-to-face event was also being planned but this would be for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus as it was believed there would be more interest in that SPD.

      x.           When comments to the consultation had been received, Officers would collate the information and identify any changes. The consultation responses and the proposed changes would be shared with the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee at a later meeting.

    xi.           Would seek to clarify the percentages of s106 sites above 15 homes to be allocated for social rent (paragraph 4.23, p107 & p108 of the agenda pack).

   xii.          Safeguards in the Housing Strategy document and the SPD were in place, so affordable housing provision mirrored market housing provisions.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

   iv.          Agreed the draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (attached at Appendix 1) and accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2) subject to public consultation.

    v.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

   vi.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Delivery Manager. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy Manager, the Delivery Manager and Deputy Director of GCSP 3C Building Control said the following:

 xiii.          The SPD had been in prepared in accordance with the latest Housing Strategy but would check that it was consistent with the guidance on shared ownership. 

 xiv.          The introductory part of the S106 SPD dealt with viability robustly. There was a need to cross reference this within the SPD to ensure there was not an automatic assumption that the amount of affordable housing provided would reduce in percentage terms  if viability could not be meet.

  xv.          Officers were aware of problems with adopted roads, but the issue was not for this SPD but planning conditions which could deal with this area directly.

 xvi.          There was a standard condition which could be implemented when dealing with private highways that outlined roads should be built to an adopted standard and charges to be fair and reasonable. This condition could be promoted with Officers.

xvii.           Could look to strengthen the wording on Biodiversity Net Gain to outline the requirements and what were aspirational targets.

xviii.           The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement outlined how the Council engaged on planning matters including SPDs.

 xix.          This document was one of the more technical SPD’s, this was deliberate to try to speed up and clarify the process that was used for planning obligations.

  xx.          Officers feed into community led social media platforms through the communications strategy, both at Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, for consultation events.

 xxi.          A face-to-face event was also being planned but this would be for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus as it was believed there would be more interest in that SPD.

xxii.           When comments to the consultation had been received, Officers would collate the information and identify any changes. The consultation responses and the proposed changes would be shared with the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee at a later meeting.

xxiii.           Would seek to clarify the percentages of s106 sites above 15 homes to be allocated for social rent (paragraph 4.23, p107 & p108 of the agenda pack).

xxiv.          Safeguards in the Housing Strategy document and the SPD were in place, so affordable housing provision mirrored market housing provisions.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

mittee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To provide an update on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Timetable.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update regarding the Local Plan Timetable (previously called the Local Development Scheme (LDS)), which was a timetable for the production of new or revised development plan documents that set out the planning policy framework for Greater Cambridge. It was being prepared jointly between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council as the Plans in preparation were both joint Plans for the authorities’ combined area. The Councils were required to keep the Timetable up to date.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

                          i.          Agreed the Local Plan Timetable Update at Appendix 1 (of the Officer’s report) be added as a November 2024 Addendum to the Greater Cambridge Development Scheme 2022 (updating the current March 2024 Addendum) and published on the Greater Cambridge Planning website.

                         ii.          Agreed an updated formal Greater Cambridge Local Plan Timetable be brought to Members in spring 2025 once there is clarity on the transitional date for plans under the current plan-making system to be submitted, and also on the outcome of the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Consent Order.

 

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 Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader, Strategic Planning Manager and Deputy Director, Greater Cambridge Shared Planning and 3C Building Control said the following:

      i.          Officers agreed there was a level of risk and uncertainty regarding the impact of the Cambridge Development Group (CDG)’s work on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

     ii.          Engagement with the CDG had not yet been in depth, but the Government had announced a re-set of that relationship in the Summer.

With the October 2024 budget announcement of funding towards a growth in Cambridge it was hoped there would be further clarity and engagement between Officers and Government Ministers.     

   iii.          In the engagement that was taking place with Government, all opportunities were being taken to highlight the work on the emerging Local Plan and issues raised, through regular meetings with Ministers, through the CPCA and the Water Scarcity Group. Officers have been advocating in all meetings that the Local Plan should be the first step for any longer term growth ambitions; the evidence already produced should form the basis for any future planning.

   iv.          Officers suggested that the proposed approach of continuing work on the emerging Local Plan, whilst continuing to engage with the CDG, was a proactive and positive response to the current context, noting that Government’s wider ambitions were for local authorities to progress local plans as quickly as possible.

    v.          The proposed draft revised timetable aim was to submit the Greater Cambridge Local Plan by the end of December 2026, to meet the Government’s proposed cut-off date for submitting Local Plans for Examination under the current system. The timetable deadlines involved were tight. It was important that dialogue between Officers and the Committee was kept open and that Members were kept updated.

   vi.          Officers would engage with Government to ensure that work already done could be transferred to the new system if necessary, in case the December 2026 date could not be met.

 vii.          Officers were mindful of uncertainties in any Plan. The aim was to produce a flexible Plan, but also recognising the need to remain evidence based to be found sound at examination.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the Leader of the Council, Councillor Davey had met with Peter Freeman (Chair of the CDG), and it would be appropriate that certain questions were directed to Councillor Davey rather than Officers 

  

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority belief that the way local buses were run needed to change to improve the local bus system for communities that relied on it. The CPCA consultation document explained why the Combined Authority recommends bus franchising as the way to do this, based on its assessment of the Proposed Franchising Scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

      i.          Agreed Cambridge City Council’s response to the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority consultation on bus franchising.

 

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 Assistant Chief Executive, who then introduced the CPCA’s Executive Director of Place and Connectivity, Judith Barker. 

 

Councillor A Smith was also present as the City Council’s Transport Lead at the CPCA.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Director of Place and Connectivity, the Assistant Chief Executive and Councillor A Smith said the following:

      i.          The business case covered  a thirty-year period from 2023 to 2054 and highlighted funding made up for a medium level investment scenario, highlighting the  following:

a)   Under the franchising model the CPCA would receive the fare income (currently received by the bus operating companies) which would be a large part of the affordability.

b)   Assumed that Government grants would continue at current levels and not increase.

c)    Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council as the Highways Authorities paid a transport levy to the CPCA to undertake the role of the Strategic Transport Authority, which would continue.

d)   The forecast for the Mayoral precept would increase over the period.

     ii.           The business case assumed the mayoral precept of £12 in  the year 2023/24 rather than the £36 precept of 2024/25 due to the year the document was written. 

   iii.          Would highlight that some of the income discussed was less than certain, the Mayoral precept was set annually as part of the budget setting process, made in consideration of the spending requirements and the funding available.

   iv.          As part of the process of setting the business case a range of various funding options had been considered. However, had only included the options that offered the greatest income potential in the business plan.

    v.          If franchising were to go ahead, there would be a considerable amount of change to be made before the decision could be implemented. It had taken Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) three years from the Mayoral decision to the first phase of franchising to be applied.

   vi.          The CPCA would continue to work on the Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy alongside the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan; one of the issues to be addressed would be congestion.

 vii.          Several work streams had been identified before implementation such as the commercial and procurement strategy, customer service, ICT requirements, governance, staffing etc. All of which had to be resilient and the appropriate risk management in place.

viii.          It was important to ensure that the small and medium operators would be able to access the market.

   ix.          Believed that franchising offered greater control, with a possibility of cross subsidy from routes that had greater profit-making ability.

    x.          Needed to look at how the system worked as whole and the connectivity. With a better functional bus service, it could be assumed that more people would use public transport meaning fewer people would choose to use their cars.

   xi.          The CPCA Transport and Infrastructure Committee had met earlier today and discussed the Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy and the ongoing commitment to sustainable travel.

 xii.          The Council’s response had been drafted in a way that positively supported the proposals but given the complexity of the proposals it did not hold the Council accountable as there was a degree of risk and uncertainty.

xiii.          The CPCA was taking a slightly different approach to GMCA and to London Transport; London was governed by a different set of legislation but was following the 2017 Bus Services Act as GMCA had. However, the CPCA had a different business plan as GMCA had not only taken control of the bus routes but had purchased the buses and were contracting operators to deliver sections of their service splitting the area covered by the Combined Authority into three.

xiv.          The CPCA had a bus depot strategy which had identified the funding in the business case to run the depot but would contract the buses and the operations together.

xv.          The consultation would run to 20 November and would go through due process with the CPCA Board and then a Mayoral decision early 2025.

xvi.          Could not pre-determine the decision which was why implementation would take time as outlined there would be a large amount of work to be completed.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Recommendations of the Executive, which met on 10 February 2025, are set out in the Budget Setting Report which went to Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee also held on 10 February before the meeting of the Executive. The Executive noted the summary of changes on the General Fund revenue positions which had been highlighted at the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee. Unless otherwise specified, all references in the recommendations to appendices, pages and sections relating to the Budget-Setting Report which can be found via the Council agenda page: Agenda for Council on Monday, 24th February, 2025, 6.00 pm - Cambridge Council As the meeting immediately followed the meeting of the Strategy and Resources where the Budget-Setting Report had been scrutinised there was no further debate, and the Chair went straight to the vote. The Executive resolved unanimously to: General Fund Revenue Budgets: a) Recommend to Council for approval the revenue pressures and bids shown in Appendix D(a) and the revenue savings and increased income shown in Appendix D(b). b) Recommend that Council confirms delegation to the Chief Finance Officer of the calculation and determination of the council tax taxbase which is set out at Appendix A(a). c) Recommend that Council approves the increase to the city council share of council tax for 2025/26 at 2.99%, and the updated council tax levels as set out on page 17 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26. Note that the council’s preceptors (Cambridgeshire Police & Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority, 5 The Executive CmSrvc/6 Monday, 10 February 2025 Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority) will meet to confirm their precepts on or before 13 February 2025, following which the formal council tax calculation will be carried out for approval by Council. d) Recommend that Council delegates authority to the Chief Finance Officer to reallocate budgets between services in relation to 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). General Fund Capital Plan: e) Recommend that Council approves the capital proposals set out at Appendix E(a), the revised capital plan set out at Appendix E(c), and the revised capital funding approach set out on page 28 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26. f) Recommend that Council approves the Capital Strategy 2025/26 attached at Appendix H. General Fund Reserves: g) Recommend that Council note the impact of budget proposals upon General Fund unallocated reserves, as set out on page 34 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26. h) Recommend that Council note the key risks to the council’s financial sustainability highlighted in the table on pages 30-31 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26. i) Recommend that Council approve in principle a contribution to the Civic Quarter Development Reserve equivalent to the net underspend against budget for the 2024/25 financial year (currently forecast at £4.0 million). j) Recommend that Council approve the transfers to earmarked reserves totalling £6.602 million in 2025/26 as set out on pages 32-33 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26. Section 25 Report: k) Recommend that Council note the Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Report, covering the robustness of estimates and adequacy of reserves, included at section 7 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26. 6 The Executive CmSrvc/7 Monday, 10 February 2025 Treasury Management Strategy: l) Recommend that Council approves the Treasury Management Strategy 2025/26 attached at Appendix G, including the prudential and treasury management indicators set out at Annexe C. m) Recommends that Council approves a change to the maturity structure prudential indicator, such that all new borrowing will have a maturity of at least 5 years (rather than the previous 10 years), as explained at paragraph 3.8 of Appendix G. Other: n) Recommend that Full Council reconfirm that the incomes below will be disregarded (if above the £10 statutory disregard) when calculating entitlement to housing benefit and/or council tax reduction. These schemes are often called local or modified schemes: · War disablement pension · War widow, widower or surviving civil partner pension · Armed Forces Independence Payment Note that the estimated cost to the council for payments of housing benefit made under the local scheme is £1,777.50 and for council tax reduction less than £50. o) Recommend that Council note the Equality Impact Assessment in Appendix F covering all General Fund budget proposals. p) Recommend that Council note the schedule of proposed fees and charges for 2025/26 in Appendix I(i) and Confidential Appendix I(ii)

Matter for Decision

The information report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board. Therefore, there was no decision to be made by the relevant Executive Councillor.

 

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 Councillor A Smith. 

 

In response to Members’ questions Councillor A Smith said the following:

      i.          Would be happy to talk to Officers to arrange a briefing on the bus franchising consultation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

     ii.          Would investigate if the bus franchising consultation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough could be brought to the next Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee for Members comments.

   iii.          In response to the question if the CPCA had held further meetings with Government; there had several conversations amongst the constituent authorities and meetings which Cambridge City Council were involved with.

   iv.          Cambridge City Councillors who sat on the CPCA, such as Councillor A Smith and Cllr Davey consistently worked hard to make the case for Cambridge City on all projects and scrutiny.

    v.          Councillor Davey, as Leader of the Counci,l sat on the Cambridge 2050 Advisory Board. 

   vi.           UKREiiF (Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure) was an investment and infrastructure forum. The CPCA planned to attend the 2024 annual conference. Cambridge as a major contributor the UK economy would feature next year.

 vii.          The Infrastructure delivery framework was being worked on which would form part of the local growth plan.

viii.          At the National Infrastructure Round Table discussions had been held on water scarcity, Cambridge City Council  had been represented by Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, Stephen Kelly. Could not provide a date on when the information from that meeting would be published.

   ix.          Last year the Council had agreed to move funding for Dial-a-Ride to the CPCA, in addition to direct funding from the CPCA.

    x.          The City Council were aware that Dial-a-Ride required more support and would contribute an additional year’s funding to allow the organisation to put together a long-term viability plan.

   xi.          Papers from the last  CPCA Transport and Infrastructure meeting could be accessed online outlining where improvements had been made to the school transport bus services. This also listed a variety of routes that the CPCA were looking to improve and when.

 xii.          Work was also being done at combining certain school routes which should lead to a decrease in the cost of school taxis.

xiii.          The CPCA were  currently exploring issues around the capital cost of franchising and location of depots; to make it fair there should be several bus companies who run the depots rather than a single bus company. 

xiv.          Currently consulting on the concept of franchising; do we agree franchise.

xv.          A Business Growth and Social Impact Investment Fund of £9.5million spread over a few years had become available to support small and medium enterprises across the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough region, some of which was aimed at supporting the third sector.

xvi.          The orbital bus route around Cambridge should be starting in November.  

 

The Chair thanked Cllr A Smith for their update report.

 

Matter for Decision

Cambridgeshire Home Improvement Agency (Cambs HIA) was established as a shared service on behalf of City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council in 2012 and delivers adaptations and repairs work for elderly and disabled adults and children.

 

The proposed procurement and contracts will ensure that Cambs HIA is compliant with the Procurement Regulations. It will ensure that there is standardisation in specifications and access to pre-tendered fixed and variable price contractors / suppliers who will be able to deliver all work in much shorter timescales and at more competitive rates.

 

The simplified delivery model, made possible with the contracts in place, will enable grant applications to be processed and completed quicker and at lower overall cost.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved Cambridgeshire Home Improvement Board’s decision to proceed with a procurement exercise for up to four years for the provision of two contracts, the first being for adapted bathrooms and kitchens and the second for the provision and installation of disability equipment.

     ii.          Authorised Cambs Home Improvement Agency (on behalf of Cambridge City Council and its partners South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire district councils) to evaluate tenders and to award contracts to suitable bidders following a competitive tender evaluation process.

 

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 Cambs HIA Manager.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously 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.

 

To approve the award of homelessness prevention grants (HPGs) to agencies.

Matter for Decision

This report detailed the annual bid round for grants made to organisations providing homelessness prevention services. It provides an overview of the process, the grant eligibility criteria and the budget. Appendix 1 details the applications received with recommendations for 2025-26 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing

      i.          Approved the award of homelessness prevention grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2025-26, as set out 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 Housing Advice Service Manager.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing advised that the Council had received a higher ‘Homelessness Prevention Grant’ from Central Government compared to last year, which could be used to increase the Council’s (similarly called) Homelessness Prevention Grants, awarded to partner organisations, which was the subject of this report. 

 

The Housing Advice Service Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Noted that ‘the Haven’ was to provide support 2 nights and 1 afternoon a week.

     ii.          Homelessness applications needed to be determined in accordance with Homelessness legislation and each case was considered on its own merits. Not everyone who presented as homeless would be provided with interim accommodation whilst their homelessness application was determined. The Homelessness Relief Duty lasted for 56 days but not all applicants may be accommodated during that time. The applicant would need to fall within a ‘priority need’ during that time. Examples of ‘priority need’ included having dependent children, or a person being vulnerable due to their mental health needs. Applicants who did not qualify within the Homelessness Relief Duty would be provided advice on other accommodation options for example Jimmy’s Night Shelter and the Winter Provision for Rough Sleepers. 

   iii.          Applicants had to set outcomes within their Homelessness Prevention Grant applications to explain how their project / application would prevent / relieve homelessness. Organisations which were awarded grant funding had to provide monitoring data to the Council in relation to their outcomes every 6 and 12 months so the Council could assess the effectiveness of the homelessness prevention measures.   

 

The Committee resolved unanimously 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.

 

The Committee is asked to scrutinise the detailed HRA Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2025/26 and to consider

a) the proposed charges for HRA housing rents and service charges.

b) the revenue budget proposals.

c) the capital budget proposals

Their findings will be reported to The Executive when they meet to consider the HRA Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2025/26 on 10 February 2025.

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Setting Report (BSR) was presented to Housing Scrutiny Committee to allow scrutiny of proposals for the review of rents and service charges, revenue bids and savings, and the Housing Capital Investment Plan, which includes capital bids and all associated funding proposals.

 

Comments made by the Housing Scrutiny Committee will be reported to the Executive meeting taking place on 10 February 2025.

 

The Executive will then recommend the budget for Full Council approval at its meeting on 24 February 2024.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

To refer the recommendations below to the Executive to:

      i.          Recommend that full Council approve that council dwellings rents for all social rented and social shared ownership properties be increased in line with government guidelines, with an increase of 2.7%, being inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2024 of 1.7%, plus 1%. Rent increases will take effect from 1 April 2025. This equates to an average rent increase of £3.37 per week.

     ii.          Recommend that full Council approve that affordable housing rents, inclusive of service charge, are also increased by 2.7% in line with the increase for social rents. This equates to an average rent increase of £5.06 per week.

   iii.          Recommend that full Council approve that rents for affordable shared ownership properties are increased by RPI as at September 2024, 2.7% plus 0.5%, as allowed for in the lease requirements for these properties.

   iv.          Recommend that full Council approve that garage and parking space charges for 2025/26 are increased by inflation at 2.7%, in line with dwelling rents, and approve changes in charges for parking permits, as set out at table 10 on page 28 of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

    v.          Recommend that full Council approve the proposed service charges for Housing Revenue Account services and facilities, as shown in Appendix D of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

   vi.          Recommend that full Council approve the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2025/26, as detailed in Appendix D of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

 vii.          Recommend that full Council approve that service charges continue to be recovered at full estimated cost, as detailed in Appendix D of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September 2024 (1.7%) plus 1%, wherever possible.

viii.          Recommend that full Council approve (with any amendments) the revenue savings, pressures and bids set out at Appendix F of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

   ix.          Recommend that full Council approve the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised at table 5 on page 20 of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

    x.          Recommend that full Council approve the capital bid set out at Appendix F of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

   xi.          Recommend that full Council approve the updated Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown at Appendix E of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

 xii.          Recommend that full Council approve the proposed approach to financing the Housing Capital Investment Plan as set out at table 11 on page 31 of the attached Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update and Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

xiii.          Recommend that full Council approve the revised need to borrow over the life of the Business Plan, to sustain the proposed level of capital investment, which includes delivery of the 10 Year New Homes Programme.

xiv.          Recommend that full Council recognise that the constitution delegates Treasury Management to the Chief Finance Officer (Part 3, para 5.11), with Part 4F, C16 stating; ‘All executive decisions on borrowing, investment or financing shall be delegated to the Chief Finance Officer, who is required to act in accordance with CIPFA’s Code of Practice for Treasury Management in Local Authorities’.

xv.          Recommend that full Council recognise that the decision to borrow significantly to build new homes impacts the council’s ability to set-aside resource to redeem the HRA Self-Financing debt at the point at which the loan portfolio matures, resulting in a need to re-finance debt at the point of maturity.

xvi.          Recommend that full Council approve inclusion of a capital budget for Disabled Facilities Grant expenditure and associated grant income from 2025/26 onwards, based upon 2024/25 net grant awarded, with delegation to the Chief Finance Officer to approve an in year increase or decrease in this budget in any year, in direct relation to any increase or decrease in the capital grant funding available for this purpose, as received from Cambridgeshire County Council through the Better Care Fund.

xvii.          Recommend that full Council approval of delegation to the Chief Finance Officer, as Section 151 Officer, to determine the most appropriate use of any additional Disabled Facilities Grant funding, for the wider benefit of the Shared Home Improvement Agency.

xviii.          Recommend that full Council approve delegation to the Director of Communities to review and amend the level of fees charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for Disabled Facilities Grants and repair assistance grants, in line with any recommendations made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board.

xix.          Recommend that full Council approve delegation to the relevant Director, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, to draw down resource from the ear-marked revenue reserve or capital reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the purpose of open market land or property acquisition or new build housing development, should the need arise, in order to meet deadlines for the use of retained right to buy receipts or to facilitate future site redevelopment.

xx.          Recommend that full Council approve delegation to the Chief Finance Officer to make any necessary technical amendments to detailed budgets in respect of recharges between the General Fund and the HRA.

 

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 Finance Officer.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          Tenant and Leasehold Representatives expressed concern that they were not able to vote on Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget amendment recommendations, which they had been able to do so previously.

     ii.          Noted the budget savings figure which was expected to be delivered following the redesign of the Housing Service but understood further detail about this would be provided in the third week of February.

   iii.          Was disappointed to see the proposed removal of the under-occupation incentive scheme in the report. Believed there should be some incentive available for tenants in under-occupied properties. 

   iv.          Asked if there was other funding available to support tenants who wanted to move due to the under occupation of their property. Asked if funding was available, whether this could be publicised more.

    v.          Queried the reduced budget for ‘target hardening work’ for people suffering domestic violence.

   vi.          Noted within the Executive Councillor’s Foreword to the BSR that tenancy audits identified cases of domestic abuse and that further tenancy audits may identify further instances of domestic abuse so queried whether from a budget point of view, the Council may need to spend more in this particular area than it currently did. 

 vii.          Asked how the committee could be assured that adequate funding was within the HRA budget to deliver services.

viii.          Asked if Central Government would consult with councils about financing for retrofit schemes.

   ix.          Queried if ‘Right to Buy’ (RTB) funding could only be used for shared ownership schemes.

    x.          Asked what work had been undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed rent increases on residents. 

   xi.          The group design restructure for the service made it difficult to scrutinise the budget. It was not clear how the council’s restructure would impact the delivery of frontline services. More information and explanation should have been provided.

 xii.          Asked if there was sufficient officer capacity to deliver resident engagement taking into consideration the requirements required by the Housing Regulator. Queried if there was sufficient resource available to pay for communication with tenants and leaseholders.

xiii.          Referred to previous decisions discussed by the Committee in 2013 and 2019 which agreed that the Council would not process housing arrears action resulting from issues with Universal Credit and the Spare Room Subsidy payments. They would have liked to have proposed an amendment to the BSR to request that this approach be extended to include the two-child benefit cap and the benefit cap itself. Asked whether work had been undertaken to see whether a tenant in an affordable rented property may be disproportionately affected by the benefit cap than a tenant in a socially rented property. 

xiv.          Referred to concerns which had been raised about value for money / deterioration in standards for services charges in blocks of flats and sheltered housing schemes in relation to building cleaning / window cleaning and grounds maintenance charges (detailed in appendix D on page 75 of the BSR).

 

The Assistant Director for Housing and Homelessness, Director of Communities said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The decision for the Executive Councillor at this meeting was to recommend the HRA budget to the Executive. Comments from the Scrutiny Committee would be minuted and tabled at the Executive meeting. The main reason for the change in the HRA budget process was to reflect best practice within the Local Government sector so that revenue and capital budget was approved by Full Council. The HRA budget process was therefore being brought in-line with the General Fund budget process. Tenant and Leaseholders were able to submit public questions (in accordance with the requirements set out in the Public Speaking Scheme) to the Executive and Full Council meetings. 

     ii.          The figures regarding the group redesign proposals had only recently been collated. 

   iii.          The council needed to set a balanced budget, unfortunately this meant that difficult decisions had to be made regarding what services were provided. This was why the under-occupation incentive scheme was proposed to be removed.  

   iv.          Funding was available for tenants who wanted to move due to the under occupation of their property. If a tenant was actively looking to move and they were in receipt of benefits, discretionary housing payments were available to top up rent to assist with moving fees etc. Advised that tenants could seek support from the Council’s Financial Inclusion Officer to make sure that they were claiming all the funding that they were entitled to. Acknowledged that there could be a potential gap for tenants who wanted to move (due to under occupation of their property) but were not in receipt of some kind of benefit funding as they would not be able to access the discretionary housing payment to assist with moving fees.  

    v.          The ‘target hardening works’ domestic abuse funding was a specific budget set aside to fund works to a property where a victim of domestic abuse wished to stay in their property. Examples of target hardening works included new doors, fencing, or a ring doorbell. Often victims of domestic abuse did not want to stay in their property and were supported by the Council to move to alternative accommodation. This budget was therefore usually underspent so the reduction in the budget was to reflect this. There was alternative funding which could be used to support people if the revised budget was spent.

   vi.          The data from tenancy audits could be interrogated further; relevant referrals were made for victims of domestic abuse and support was provided. Additional security measures (provided through the target hardening funding) were only effective where the perpetrator was no longer in the household. As noted above, usually victims of domestic abuse did not want to stay in their property and were therefore supported to move to alternative accommodation, therefore did not expect the reduction in budget for target hardening works to impact residents as the budget was for very specific circumstances.

 vii.          Advised that the HRA BSR was prepared upon the budget approved within the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy. Revenue and capital budgets were agreed with relevant budget holders. A balanced budget needed to be prepared. There had been additional pressures from damp, condensation and mould (DCM) cases which had been built into the budget. Hard decisions had to be made about the services which were provided and those that weren’t.   

viii.          The Council had ambitious plans for both delivering new homes and retrofitting existing homes which the Council could not fund on its own. Officers would continue dialogue with Central Government regarding financial support. 

   ix.          Advised that Officers were trying to highlight that RTB funding could now be used to fund shared ownership housing as previously it was not possible to do so.

    x.          The Council was mindful of the impact on residents when rents were increased. An Equality Impact Assessment was undertaken as part of the HRA BSR drafting process. The Council was in a difficult economic position. Rent increases were capped on an annual basis. If rents were not increased there would be a lasting impact on the HRA, and this needed to be balanced against the ability of the Council to deliver services for tenants.

   xi.          Under the current staffing structure there was sufficient capacity within the Team to fulfil the resident engagement requirements of the Housing Regulator. The Resident Engagement Strategy would be reviewed as part of the transformation programme. Moving forward the proposals to bring together certain Teams as part of the restructure would strengthen resident involvement. 

 xii.          In response to the question regarding previous Housing Scrutiny Committee decisions and the process for rent arrears action, noted that the 2019 report and decision statement was in relation to Universal Credit Agenda for Housing Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday, 16th January, 2019, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council. This stated ‘In light of issues surrounding Universal Credit and payment arrangements for housing costs, approvals for eviction will not be progressed for a tenant in rent arrears which relate solely to Universal Credit delays and missed payments which are beyond their control. Any delays that are deemed to be the result of the tenant’s own delay in applying/supplying the correct information will be followed up through the usual processes.’

xiii.          The report referred to in October 2013 was a report on Welfare Reform and the impact on tenants Agenda for Housing Management Board on Tuesday, 1st October, 2013, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council. The decision stated that ‘Eviction will not be progressed for a tenant in rent arrears, which solely relate to the under occupation reduction in Housing Benefit, when all any of the following criteria are met:

a.    Where the tenant has applied for rehousing and is making active reasonable bids.

b.    Where the tenant has applied for DHP.

c.    Where other tenancy conditions (such as anti-social behaviour) have not been seriously breached.’

xiv.          The issues raised in relation to enforcement action for rent arrears would be better considered within the Council’s Rental Arrears and Income Collection Policy rather than as part of the BSR. The Rental Arrears and Income Collection Policy was due to be reviewed, and Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives would be involved with the review in due course. In response to the concerns raised regarding the two additional factors impacting rent arrears (two child benefit cap and benefit cap) it would not be prudent for the Council to pursue possession orders or eviction for rent arrears which occurred due to delays with payment of benefits.

xv.          Noted concerns raised about service charges and the standard/level of service provided. Noted that building cleaning was tricky as areas could be cleaned and shortly afterwards for example following inclement weather areas become dirty quickly, so it appeared as though cleaning had not been undertaken. Requested that issues were raised with Officers and noted that Tenants and Leaseholders could raise concerns via the Council’s complaint process. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing advised that the reduction in the budget for domestic abuse funding for ‘target hardening works’ appeared on the face of the document to be alarming however it was a budgetary measure and advised that anyone who needed help and support would receive it. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing noted that rents were increased by 5% in 2022/23, in 2023/24 rents were increased by 7.4%. The proposed rent increase for 2025/26 was 2.7% which was a lower percentage than in previous years. The impact of rent increases on tenants unfortunately had to be balanced against the delivery of a balanced budget.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 1 with 5 abstentions to endorse recommendations a to i.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions to endorse recommendations j to t.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

Solid Fuel Burning was the largest single source of PM2.5 emissions in Cambridge. It accounted for 40% of emissions in Cambridge.

 

Legislation to control emissions from solid fuel burning was the Clean Air Act 1993 and the use of Smoke Control Areas (SCA); a designated area where the emission of smoke was not permitted. You could burn inside a SCA, but either smokeless fuel or a DEFRA approved appliance must be used. Three SCAs were introduced in Cambridge in the 1960s and 1970s. Most residential properties were outside existing SCAs.

 

Cambridge City Council commissioned an independent report to assess the effects of amending the SCA in Cambridge to cover the whole of the city. The report considered both the inclusion and exclusion of permanent moored vessels in terms of changes in pollution emissions, health & socio-economic impacts.

 

The report concluded that any changes to widen the scope of the SCA would provide a net benefit to society from health improvements due to reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, with these benefits outweighing the combined costs. Costs included cost to home and vessel owners of switching fuel or upgrading stoves; and cost to council for implementation and enforcement.

 

The impact on individuals was considered as part of the socio-economic study. Very few residents were solely dependent on solid fuel for heating and hot water, with changes impacting those that used wood burning stoves for pleasure or to subsidise other forms of central heating. However, this was not the case for moored vessel owners who were more dependent on solid fuel. Evidence suggested this group may have lower incomes and be more vulnerable.

 

The Officer’s report recommended the expansion of the SCA to cover the whole city including moored vessels, and recommended further engagement with vessel owners given the increased potential vulnerability of this group. Should changes to the SCA be implemented, it should be accompanied by a robust awareness raising campaign.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

Approved the consultation to the public on expanding the SCA to cover the whole of the district including to extend the scope of the SCA to include permanent moored vessels.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Quality & Growth Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          Referred to the 2023 report regarding how enforcement action could be undertaken. The intention would be to investigate complaints from members of the public, issue warnings if required, then act if people did not desist from burning inappropriate fuels etc. There had been no prosecutions under the SCAs in twenty-seven years.

     ii.          Residents in some wards complained when others burnt solid fuel as they were concerned about harm from smoke.

 

The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Officer’s report recommended the expansion of the SCA to cover the whole city including moored vessels, and recommended further engagement/consultation with vessel owners given the increased potential vulnerability of this group.

     ii.          People could still burn approved fuels or any fuel in an approved appliance.

   iii.          Retailers could only supply smokeless fuels. ‘Approved’ stoves were available and more expensive than ‘standard’ stoves. The report set out options the City Council could implement to avoid penalising boat owners.

 

The Air Quality Consultant said the difference between ‘standard’ and ‘approved’ stoves was hard to quantify. Possibly a reduction in up to 70% of some particulates. Undertook to liaise with Councillor Glasberg after committee.

 

   iv.          There would always be some harm from burning combustible fuels, so reducing emissions would lead to some benefits.

 

The Scientific Officer reiterated:

      i.          Officers had plans to engage with residents and raise awareness of issues if SCA were expanded.

     ii.          People could use appropriate fuel/stoves.

   iii.          There was a need to improve fuel issues such as traffic emissions to improve air quality.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on progress on the 2023/24 actions of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26. As part of this, the report included an update on progress in implementing projects to reduce direct carbon emissions from corporate buildings, fleet vehicles and business travel as detailed in the Council’s Carbon Management Plan 2021-26.

 

The report also provided an update on the Council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2023/24 and a new Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (CR&VA) and Adaptation Plan, which prioritised the climate change risks for the Council and the city, plus details on actions the Council was taking to adapt and improve resilience.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

      i.          Noted the progress achieved in implementing the actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan (Appendix B of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Approved the updated Climate Change Strategy Action Plan presented in Appendix A.

   iii.          Noted the risks identified and actions being taken in the Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (CR&VA) and Adaptation Plan.

 

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 Assistant Chief Executive.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Undertook to provide briefing details to Committee Members after the meeting on:

a.    Civic Quarter project and biodiversity net gain.

b.    Community Action Days.

c.    Green investments from General Fund.

d.    Support for businesses to tackle climate change.

e.    Procurement and Climate Change.

f.      Carbon Neutral Cambridge’s commentary on the Climate Change Strategy annual update report.

     ii.          Targets referenced in the Officer’s report were direct emissions from the City Council. The hope was to get the city to net zero, but this was an aspiration.

   iii.          The Council was taking a wide range of direct actions, set out in the Climate Change Strategy Action Plan. For example seeking to reduce emissions from its housing and leisure sites. Officers were looking at how to take more actions in future.

   iv.          The Guildhall was used for a number of purposes by different organisations. There were currently no plans to host a Decarbonisation Officer in the Guildhall. Other officers could be signposted to people making enquiries.

    v.          The City Council was putting in electric vehicle charging points in carparks on land it owned. The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager was liaising with the County Council to encourage people to put charging points on home owners’ properties in residential areas.

 

The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said:

a.    A pilot project was run with Cambridgeshire County Council to install forty-two charging points in residential areas. A larger project was expected to be rolled out in the next twelve months, led by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, to install more charging points around the county (not just in the city).

b.    The City Council had installed rapid chargers around Cambridge for taxi and public use.

c.    The on-street charging tariff could be expensive. It was cheaper to use private charging points. The tariff for public ones included maintenance costs. The contract for residential on-street chargers was managed by the County Council. Rates across the city were competitive with national ones.

 

   vi.          A social value framework was currently being developed. This looked at how City Council money could be used to nudge contractors to take more action. The Director of Communities was writing a new strategy to take over from the existing one in eighteen months.

 vii.          Referenced objective 4 in the report. The City Council convened the  City Leaders Climate Change Group to share good practice plus encourage residents and businesses to reduce emissions.

viii.          It was difficult to engage with some residents if they did not want to respond.

   ix.          The City Council was working with partners to decarbonise the food supply chain, working with partners such as Cambridge Sustainable Food.

 

The Director of Communities said officers were looking at how to use community venues as food hubs. Actions could be reported back in future such as work with Coe Farm.

 

    x.          The Waterbeach Renewable Energy Network (WREN) solar project was scheduled to start construction in 2025.

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment said the Council had taken delivery of a fourth electric vehicle for waste collection. More could not be procured until WREN came online. Some waste oil powered vehicles were used mean time.

 

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.

 

Comment by Committee

The Committee thanked Assistant Chief Executive Andrew Limb for his exceptional work in supporting Cambridge City Council’s climate change strategy.

 

To note current performance across the Councils housing provision against 24/25 targets with updates on key activity.

Matter for Decision

The report provided:

·       An update Housing Scrutiny Committee on the progress towards meeting performance against indicator targets that support the delivery of the Council’s vision: ‘‘One Cambridge, Fair for All’ (Appendix A).

·       Briefed Members on the regular programme of statutory and regulatory returns currently being submitted by the Housing Service (Appendix B)

·       An update on damp, condensation and mould recorded in HRA stock (Appendix C)

·       An update on the rent review project (Appendix D)

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.                Noted the Housing Service’s results in operational delivery, health and safety and customer focus performance, plus the current pressures on service delivery and the impact this may have on reaching targets laid out in this report.

ii.               Noted the recent reports of damp, condensation and mould received by the service, and the measures being put in place to help combat DCM in tenant’s homes.

iii.             Noted the update on the rent regulation project

iv.             Considered any further measures of performance that would be beneficial to be included in these reports, going forward.

 

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 Communities Director.

 

The Communities Director, Assistant Director of Housing and Homelessness and Strategic Delivery Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Advised that Housing Officers were allocated particular parts of the city as their ‘patch’ and tenancy audits were undertaken on properties within their patch. Each Housing Officer was responsible for approximately 1200-1300 properties.

     ii.          Acknowledged that it was important for tenants to update the Council regarding any change in their circumstances which could impact their needs. Customer Service Advisors always checked contact details when Tenants called the Council. The Council was going to undertake a ‘Tenant Census’ and would undertake a procurement exercise to appointment a company to carry out this work.

   iii.          Officers noted Tenant Representative’s concerns regarding the Council’s new Governance proposals and noted that a decision hadn’t been made on the proposals yet. Officers believed that transparency would be enhanced by the proposals as there would be a dedicated focus on housing under the proposals and more timely reporting to Members.

   iv.          Advised that the number in brackets contained within agenda item 10 page 50 of the agenda referred to the number of damp, condensation and mould (DCM) reports and not the number of dwellings due for retrofitting at Ekin Road.

    v.          The Council was 100% compliant in undertaking fire risk assessments in accordance with the Housing Regulator’s standards. Officers would look at how information could be reported to the Committee regarding fire risk actions (for e.g. what items had had to be removed from certain areas). 

   vi.          Would provide outside of the meeting the percentage figure for the number of people who were awaiting a refund under the Rent Regulation project who were on Universal Credit. Officers were currently testing systems to ensure that payments could be made to tenants who were on other benefits such as Housing Benefits. A recruitment exercise was being undertaken to recruit officers to undertake the Rent Regulation work; a Project Manager was now in post. An online form was also being created to assist tenants to contact the Council about the Rent Regulation project. Officers were mindful that not all tenants wanted to use online forms and tenants were still able to contact the Customer Services Centre for assistance. This work would need to be done in stages to manage the workload and the plan was to contact current tenants first. Further communication with tenants would follow in due course.

 vii.          Officers would provide a response outside of the meeting explaining why there was a decrease in the completion of completed DCM claims this year compared to last year.

viii.          Officers would also pick up the point previously raised at the September meeting regarding DCM figures and their accuracy.

   ix.          Noted concerns raised that residents didn’t understand the DCM process. Advised that the Council’s website had recently been updated to provide timescales for each individual process for DCM for tenants. A video providing guidance on DCM was also due to be published on the council’s website.  

    x.          Tenancy Audits covered a range of issues including checking that properties weren’t being sub-let, picking up on additional support needs of tenants and also picking up on repairs which hadn’t been reported.

   xi.          Encouraged tenants to report instances of bikes blocking doorways so that Enforcement Officers could investigate. Concerns could be reported by emailing HousingOfficers@cambridge.gov.uk or by calling the Customer Service Centre and asking to be put through to a Housing Officer.

 xii.          Would look to include more information in the Council’s magazine for tenants ‘Open Door’ around processes regarding responsive repairs and planned repairs.  

xiii.          In response to Councillor Thittala’s comments regarding his personal experience regarding an emergency repair and bathroom repair; Officers apologised for the level of service received from the Council and advised that there was an emergency repairs process in place which appeared to have failed. Advised that as part of the complaint process compensation could be payable to recognise the inconvenience experienced due to service failure. The Council would not always get the process right and that was why this report was important. Would investigate the matter after the meeting.

xiv.          Noted Member concern regarding target setting below the lower benchmark quartile (referred to Appendix A on page 42 of the agenda and the graph titled ‘Satisfaction with most recent repair). Acknowledged the target could be higher; there was a balance to be struck between setting a target and it being achievable, it was likely that the target would be set higher in the coming year. 

xv.          Agreed to investigate whether the data included within Appendix C DCM report, Table 3, Category ‘Other’ could be broken down further.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing 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.