A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register

Decisions

Earlier - Later

Decisions published

06/07/2020 - Interim Update to Medium Term Financial Strategy ref: 5139    Recommendations Approved

To approve:
- Changes to 2020/21 General Fund revenue and capital budgets to address financial pressures resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic; and
- An interim update to the General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report presented an overview of the impact of the Coronavirus emergency in the Spring of 2020 on Cambridge City Council’s budget for 2020/21. It set out how estimates had been made and the uncertainties within those estimates. It lists the financial support that central government has provided to the council and proposes several actions that the council can take to balance its budget in 2020/21.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:

      i.          Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances.

     ii.          Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.

   iii.          Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.

   iv.          Note the revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 of the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

      i.          Asked what priorities were being set and what the areas were that the council might stop spending on.

     ii.          Questioned if the council was looking to make cuts before they were required. What processes were in place to reverse these cuts if government funding came through to the council.

   iii.          Questioned what the process for was reviewing the reserve target if required.

   iv.          Questioned if funding had been cut in the right areas.

    v.          Stated it was clear why some projects had been cancelled, others had been set as lower priority or cut and do not need to be completed this year. However, there needed to be a clear definition between the two as it was not clear for all the projects referenced, the reason why this decision had been taken and by who. This information was required to undertake accurate scrutiny before the next meeting of full council.

   vi.          It was important the public sector invested and spent finances to support the local economy especially as there was a prospect of additional government funding designed to support local authorities’ loss of income. The council were able to do just this. 

 vii.          The council had stopped work at a time when the community and local economy needed it most, if the projects stopped it could be too late to reverse the decision.

viii.          Noted there was a few partnerships working projects (notably the Greater Cambridge Partnership) where funding cuts had been made.  Questioned if these projects had been postponed as those partners had decided they could not be delivered due to COVID-19, or had they been negotiated with both parties or was it the council’s decision.

   ix.          Asked for the status on the youth liaison officer.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Items that had been retained in the budget were anti-poverty, climate change, biodiversity, homelessness to maintain these services during this difficult time.

     ii.          There had been items which had been deferred until the following year as the work could not be carried out during the pandemic; other deferred items had been retained in the budget while others would be considered in the new year if financially viable.

   iii.          The next round of government funding which had recently been announced amounted to £500 million for local authorities to cover additional expenditure which met certain criteria. There would not be assistance with property income losses.

   iv.           With regards to car parking, the council would have to pay the first 5% of the losses and the government three quarters of the remainder. This could give approximately £2 million if the council met all conditions, however, detailed guidance was not yet available.

    v.          Funding from government received on homelessness amounted to £24,750 (additional cost to the council was £1.2million).

   vi.          In total a £1.3million grant had been received to date.

 vii.          If government funding were more than anticipated, it would be possible to review the council’s reserves and adjust the figures again.

viii.          Stated there were far more imponderables on the income side and reminded the committee there would be no assistance with the commercial property incomes. There was a variety of fees across the council which needed to be recovered across the council. It was uncertain if these costs would recover from government and the council would have to pay the first 5%.

   ix.          Projects postponed were capital schemes funded from revenue, therefore these could be moved back and forth from one year to the next without much issue if the work could be completed.

    x.          Acknowledged there were some climate change and biodiversity items which had been deferred but much of these works could not be restarted this year. The doubling of the wildflower meadows should already be completed.

   xi.          The council had planned to spend £100,000 on its tree programme, but this funding had been spread over a longer period.

 xii.          As the government had agreed a further tranche of funding to the GCP and the council did not have the financial resources available, it seemed sensible the contribution to the GCP could be reduced without hindering the work they were undertaking.

xiii.          The amount of money that the council allocated to the GCP was related to the new homes bonus which had been reduced.

xiv.          Could not provide a response to the query regarding the youth liaison officer but would ask that this was provided outside of the meeting.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to:

      i.          Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances.

The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:                        

     ii.          Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.

The Committee unanimously resolved to:                        

   iii.          Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.

The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:                        

   iv.          Note the revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 of the officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Lead officer: Caroline Ryba


06/07/2020 - 2019/20 General Fund Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances ref: 5138    Recommendations Approved

(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21 as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2019/20 to 2020/21 as detailed in report appendix.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2019/20 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for all portfolios, compared to the final budget for the year.  The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted.  Specific requests to carry forward funding from budget underspends in 2019/20 were reported.

 

This was the first year that one combined General Fund outturn report covering all portfolios was produced for scrutiny at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to council to:

i.      Approve carry forward requests totalling £1,070,060 revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21, as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report.

ii.    Carry forward requests of £27,634k capital resources from 2019/20 to 2020/21 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s report.

iii.   To fund the overspend of two capital schemes – Lammas Land Car Parking and Barnwell Business Park remedial projects totalling £29,757 from reserves.

iv.  Transfer the Bateman Street tree replacement underspend of £17k to the Environmental Improvements programme – South.

v.    Transfer the underspend of £24k on Grafton East car park essential roof repair project to Structural Holding Repairs & Lift Refurbishment - Queen Anne project which is renamed Car Park Structural Holding Repairs.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

      i.          It was important part to note the carry forwards in Appendix C, particularly reference 4, tourism cost centre, regarding Visit Cambridge and Beyond. There was reference to a report being prepared for the end of June which had not been seen and questioned if there were further financial costs that the committee should be aware of.

     ii.          Requested information to the carry forward for the refit carbon reduction projects and queried if this had been delayed from the previous year.

   iii.          Asked for an update on the vacancy for the cycling and walking officer.

   iv.          Requested further information on the reason for large variances for the Crematorium (Appendix A p184) and asked what was creating the greater loss, the impact of the closure of the  A14 or the increase competition in the general area.

    v.          Asked if officers would appraise the performance of Cambridge Live as it was difficult to evaluate the accounts which were no longer separate now the organisation was back under the remit of the council.

   vi.          Questioned what the sum of money was the council had allocated to deal with the original bailout of Cambridge Live and where on the officer’s report was this shown,

 vii.          Enquired if an explanation on the significant overspend regarding Environment Improvements (p136) could be provided.

viii.          Asked if the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources would comment on the 57.5% failure rate to deliver on the capital programme.

   ix.          Paid credit to garage services and car parking services.

    x.          Welcomed the improvement under the refuse and recycling collection and the surplus by the Bereavement Services and Town Hall lettings.

   xi.          Questioned why there was areas of overspend and underspend in the open spaces’ portfolio.

 

The Head of Finance and Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The carry forward for the refit carbon reduction would have been carried for a purpose.

     ii.          A detailed answer would be given outside of the meeting on the Visit Cambridge and Beyond report and Cycling and Walking Officer as this could not be provided.

   iii.          Referenced p144 of the agenda pack provided a response to the Environment Improvements question. This confirmed a lack of recharging income on officer’s time against a budget which required reviewing as it had been set higher than the potential income that was possible.

   iv.          Suggested the staff (environment improvements) in the team were not sufficient to generate the income suggested in the budget. This was a significant imbalance and would be investigated further in the budget process.

    v.          Under Culture and Communities, p143, the following headings - Corn Exchange and Guildhall, City Events and Folk festival and Cambridge Live when added together represented Cambridge Live that was the external organisation.  The variances added together showed a figure of £100,000 overspend.

   vi.          Reminded the committee that Cambridge Live was taken over by the council at the start of the year with a considerable amount of work required to be done with the organisation.

 vii.          Work had been undertaken by officers to change the structure of Cambridge Live which would help to bring down the deficit. The COVID-19 pandemic had severely impacted on this work and the finances required additional attention. Officers were wating to find out what funding was available to support Cambridge Live.

viii.          £750,000 had been allocated to cover the cost of bringing Cambridge Live back into the council.  Dealing with the deficit on the balance sheet which came into the council and developing structures to improve ways of running the organisation, legal advice, accountancy advice and audit. The money had almost been spent.

   ix.          Before COVID-19 the Culture and Community Manager was confident that Cambridge Live was ‘back on track’.

    x.          Noted the request for the breakdown of how the £750,000 had been spent and what was left and would be given outside of the meeting.

   xi.          The crematorium had been significantly impacted by the upgrade of the A14 which had contributed to three quarters of the loss revenue. There was an ongoing claim for loss of income regarding the A14 upgrade.

 xii.          Prior to COVID-19 officers had put together a work plan to compete with the new competition, offering a low-cost funeral service and the introduction of a café on site which would increase income and match the competition.

xiii.          £13million of the £27million underspend was in CIP loans with £2.8million in bonds; all of which was for development and outside the council’s control. If these figures were taken out of the underspend, the total was still significant but not as large at first glance. 

xiv.          There were variables in the open spaces budget each with a specific reason as referenced on p144 of the agenda pack; different businesses had been impacted differently by COVID-19.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resource said the following:

      i.          The original budget for Environment Improvements was higher and there had been an underspend. Could not comment why it had been reduced as much as it had.

     ii.          Further information on Cambridge Live could be read on p142 of the agenda pack. The folk festival did not have the ticket sales anticipated when the council took over and the festival would not be taking place this year.

   iii.          Agreed it was not satisfactory that there was an underspend on capital and this needed to be looked into further.

   iv.          Expressed thanks to the finance department for compiling such a comprehensive report while all working from home.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Caroline Ryba


06/07/2020 - Annual Treasury Management Outturn Report 2019/20 ref: 5137    Recommendations Approved

Recommend the report to Council, which includes the Council's actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2019/20.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Council was required by regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce an annual treasury report reviewing treasury management activities and the actual prudential and treasury indicators for each financial year.

 

This report met the requirements of both the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (the Code) and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential Code) in respect of 2018/19. Both these publications have been revised by CIPFA and references to these documents are to the 2017 Editions.

 

During the 2019/20 the minimum requirements were that Council should receive:

- An annual strategy in advance of the year

- A mid-year treasury update report and;

- An annual review following the end of the year describing the activity compared to the strategy.

 

In line with the Code of Practice on Treasury Management all treasury management reports have been presented to Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and to Full Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:

i.                Approve the report with the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2019/20

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

The Committee 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.

Lead officer: Caroline Ryba


06/07/2020 - Service Review: Revenues and Benefits ref: 5136    Recommendations Approved

To reduce the size of the service, following a reducing in benefits workload arising from introduction of Universal Credit
To consult staff on options.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The introduction of Universal Credit meant that new working-age claimants, or claimants who have certain specified changes in circumstances, no longer claim Housing Benefit from the Council, but claim Universal Credit (UC) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which includes an amount for housing costs. 

 

The report brought forward recommendations following a review of the Revenues and Benefits service in the light of this change.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.                To restructure the Revenues and Benefits service, as detailed in the officer’s of the 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 Strategic Director.

 

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

      i.          Queried what if any impact the changes would have on staff; would staff be TUPE’d (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) across.

     ii.          Requested reassurance that staff would be supported during this period.

   iii.          Asked if the council could be sure that standards would not drop supporting the vulnerable residents in the city.

   iv.          Indicated that the decision was inevitable

    v.          Acknowledged the hard work and dedicated staff that the council had and expressed disappointment that the changes would have on them.

 

The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Staff would not be TUPE’d as the Department of Working Pensions (DWP) had hired additional staff to undertake the additional work. Therefore, there could be potential redundancies.

     ii.          When roles were redundant the council did try to redeploy staff within the council and would work with staff to look at the opportunities available.

   iii.          Staff would be consulted and supported throughout the process.

   iv.          The Council did not have the power to redeploy staff to external agencies.

    v.          The work to support vulnerable people with their housing cost would be dealt with by the DWP through the universal credit scheme.

   vi.          The council had a strategic interest to ensure that residents had accessed their benefits, offering financial advice through inclusion workers and council funding to external agencies such as citizens advice bureau.

 

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.

Lead officer: Suzanne Hemingway


06/07/2020 - Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020 ref: 5135    Recommendations Approved

To consider the proposed Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.

 

To strengthen and build on the current successes of the Council’s Apprenticeship Scheme, by broadening the types of apprenticeships available to existing employees and new apprentice recruits. 

 

For Council services to plan for and utilise apprenticeships more to support succession planning, recruiting to hard-to-fill vacancies, and attracting more younger people to the work for the Council.

 

To consider a pilot programme beginning in 2020/21 which would see the transference of up to 10% p.a. (approx. £12,000) of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit organisations.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report proposed a new revised Cambridge City Council ‘Apprenticeship Strategy 2020’ to replace the existing Apprenticeship Strategy approved at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in March 2017.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.      Approved the proposed measures for a revised Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.

ii.    Agreed to consider a new provision for the transference of up to 10% p.a. to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit organisations as a pilot during 2020/21. This could be achieved by either working directly with external organisations or through the exiting schemes such as the Cambridge & Peterborough’s Apprenticeship Levy Pooling Service which supports local business to take on apprentices.

 

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 Organisational Development Manager.

 

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

      i.          Asked how easy it was to find apprentices for these schemes particularly at entry level.

     ii.          Welcomed the move away from using the levy on management apprenticeships.

   iii.          Apprenticeships were going to be difficult for people to find, particularly school leavers in the future, especially in the current conditions.

   iv.          Believed over the next two years the council’s focus on the use of apprenticeships should be coupled with recruitment rather than internal development. The priority for the community at large was for people to enter the labour market. If there was any levy left the remainder could be put into the levy pool and provide support for SME business, charitable and non-profit organisations who had a recruitment plan for sustainable employment.

    v.          Queried when the absolute deadline was to a make a final decision regarding the apprenticeship strategy?

 

The Organisational Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Would expect several applicants for each apprenticeship, particularly given the current climate of the job market that COVID-19 had caused.

     ii.          The council’s focus was in three parts, the levy transfer, supporting existing staff and new recruits. No level had been put on support for new recruits and existing staff.

   iii.          The Government allowed 25% of the total levy to be transferred annually, approximately £30,000 could be transferable.  The proposal is to transfer 10% approx. £12,000 p.a.

   iv.          The Council pays £120,000 to £100,000 into the apprenticeship levy annually which lasts two years. This is a rolling programme with each month’s payment expiring after 24 months.

    v.          It would be best to make the decision as soon as possible so that the funds could be transferred.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following comments:

    i.            That the apprenticeship levy was for training and not for apprenticeship themselves. Recognising this, the committee should think about the impact on the voluntary sector, SME’s and non-profit organisations who could make use of the levy.

   ii.            Consideration had been given to put 25% immediately into this sector but felt emphasis should be for the city council to develop its own apprentices first. This would allow those organisations the opportunity to develop apprenticeship if appropriate or express an interest. Salary costs would also have to be picked up by the businesses as the levy did not cover this cost.

 iii.            Believed there had an issue in the past in finding the appropriate training scheme for SME’s.

iv.            The work that the levy had been proposed would see an increase in manual trades that traditionally had not been offered and was what the apprenticeship scheme was for. The scheme would be reviewed on a regular basis it could be possible that the transference of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local businesses, charitable and not for profit organisations could be increased in future.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Dalzell seconded an additional recommendation:

 

NOTE the report and proposals

 

RECOMMEND a rethink of the proposed strategy applicable to apprentice starts over the next two years in the light of the post pandemic depression, with a view to emphasising the use of apprenticeships to improve recruitment offers, potentially sharing an increased surplus from the council with local SMEs, charitable and Not For Profit organisations who provide sustainable, recruitment-based business plans

 

AGREE a modified version of the strategy through the procedure for an urgent decision

 

The additional recommendation was lost by 2 votes to 4.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Vince Webb


06/07/2020 - 3Cs Legal and ICT Services and Greater Cambridge - Internal Audit Shared Service - 2019/20 Annual Reports and Partnership Agreement Review ref: 5134    Recommendations Approved

Shared Service Annual reports for 2019/20 for approval by Exec Cllr.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report summarised the performance for the 3Cs ICT, Legal Shared Services and the Greater Cambridge Shared Internal Audit Service during 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

i.                   Noted the content of the annual reports.

ii.    Noted the requirement for renewal of the 3Cs services partnership agreement the principle variations planned

iii.   Delegated authority to the Chief Executive and Strategic Director to finalise and agree the renewed partnership agreement by September 2020, in consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes.

 

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 Director.

 

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

            i.    Asked if consideration had been given to greater shared scrutiny between the authorities, such as meeting virtually. There had been recently been a couple of ICT outages and suggested it could have been resolved more efficiently if all stake holders had been involved.

          ii.    Enquired why the city council’s consumption of legal services was higher than South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council.

 

The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.         There had been a previous proposal for a shared scrutiny committee. However, there were complications for agreeing the overall decision-making process in line with each authorities’ constitution and the number of member allocations. Therefore, it had been decided not to pursue this further.

ii.       The level and complexity of the services delivered by the city council was currently greater than the other two local authorities therefore more advice and support was required from legal services when dealing with issues such as commercial portfolios.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources made the following comments:

i.                Echoed the technical difficulties that had occurred when investigating a greater scrutiny committee; the executive councillor and scrutiny model used by the City Council was not compatible with the other local authorities.

ii.               Officers across the local authorities had regular debate and communication on the business plans and services. This worked well and there was no need to change.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Lead officer: Fiona Bryant


06/07/2020 - Combined Authority Update ref: 5133    Recommendations Approved

To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships 

Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships 

Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.

 

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

i.                Agreed the Mayor’s approach to the transport projects in relation to the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) was not positive for public accountability or public understanding of the issues that were involved which was regrettable.

ii.               The GCP had just completed their first five years of project delivery and had recently been awarded the next tranche of government funding, therefore the GCP clearly the right organisation to undertake the transport project work.

iii.             Asked if the capital grants scheme had been widely advertised and if the criteria to apply for a grant was clear. It was vital there was transparency to show where and how public money had been allocated, particularly as funds were being dispersed into the private sector.

iv.             Questioned if the Mayor understood the need for affordable housing in Cambridge, any delivery was welcome. 

v.              Highlighted an article in the local press regarding affordable housing being delivered by the Combined Authority Mayor. It also referenced that he had negotiated £100 million as part of the devolution deal. The council had also taken part in the negotiations and believed a proportion of funding had been allocated to the city for affordable housing. Questioned how the income stream was allocated.

vi.             A recent Savills report highlighted the lack of affordable housing in the city; the median house price to median income ratio was 13 times the average income, compared with the national average of 7.8.

vii.           Queried the £40million rolling fund the Combined Authority had, which the same newspaper article referred to.

viii.         Asked how the Mayor decided what the funding criteria was for strategic projects as this did not appear to be clear.  Provided the example of Lancaster Way Roundabout on the outskirts of Ely and noted there were projects that required more urgent works.

ix.             Queried the Mayor’s declarations of interests at meetings at they did not seem to be consistent.

x.              Requested an update on the CAM metro policy.

xi.             Asked for an update on Alconbury Weald as had read the lease was being surrendered.

 

The Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships and the Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.        Understood there had been a widespread publicity campaign regarding the grant scheme for the first round. Comments made by the committee overlapped the concern expressed outside of the committee regarding the governance of the business board. It was important for the board to remain accountable and to report on their spending. 

ii.       Having reviewed the grant applications these had been submitted by a diverse selection of businesses.

iii.     The grants awarded were to those organisations who needed the funding to protect jobs.

iv.     The capital grant funding had been linked to the previous growth hub funding in terms of innovation specifically linked to COVID-19, shared by the economic sub-groups and had been promoted very strongly.

v.      Acknowledged the hard work and support that had been undertaken and given during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Combined Authority.

vi.     With regards to the CAM metro it did feel that the Mayor was trying to create ‘banana skins’. The Mayor’s recent actions and comments were not compatible with the Local Transport Plan agreed at the GCP January meeting.

vii.   Suggested the Mayor could be invited to a future meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee.

viii.     The Alconbury Weald lease was expensive and unnecessary, the Mayor proposed to relocate but no future strategy had been provided where this would be.

ix.        The revolving fund of up to £40million could be used for projects which would achieve an outcome and bring a return.

x.           £10million of the revolving fund had been allocated to a development on Histon Road on the former squash club site, four of the nine units would be affordable homes (£100,000 homes). Up to one thousand people had registered an interest in this scheme.

xi.        Believed that more could be achieved with the revolving fund.

xii.      Questioned the allocation of funding of projects and if the best outcome had been achieved; would suggest working with the committee to look in detail at the work going forward.

xiii.     Suggested that members read the annual finance report to look at the money spent and what had been delivered.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to note the report.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Antoinette Jackson


30/06/2020 - North East Cambridge Area Action Plan - Draft Plan for Consultation ref: 5116    Recommendations Approved

To approve the Draft Plan report for public consultation.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure

Decision published: 20/08/2020

Effective from: 30/06/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report introduces the draft Area Action Plan (AAP) being prepared jointly by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council that presented the Councils’ preferred approach for managing development, regeneration and investment in North East Cambridge (NEC) over the next fifteen years and beyond. It followed public consultation on Issues & Options in February 2019 that sought to elicit views on a wide range of options on how the area might change, the issues and challenges facing the area, and how these might be addressed.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

i.               Agreed the name of the AAP be formally changed to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP);

ii.             Agreed the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (Appendix A); the draft North East Cambridge Policies Map (including amended boundary) (Appendix B) and Topic Papers (Appendix C) for a ten-week period of public consultation under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and that this consultation also includes the evidence documents (listed in the draft AAP with relevant policy and published on the shared planning service website);

iii.            Agreed the Statement of Consultation (Appendix D) including responses to comments received to the Issues & Options (February 2019); 

iv.           Noted the findings of the updated Joint Equalities Impact Assessment, Draft Sustainability Appraisal, Draft Habitats Regulation Assessment; and Duty to Cooperate Statement (Appendices E, F, G and H respectively); 

v.             Delegated authority to the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces (in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee) and the Deputy Leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council to agree the further Topic Papers as set out at paragraph 4.17 of the officer’s report ahead of public consultation.

vi.           Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces (in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee) and the Deputy Leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, to make editorial changes to the Draft NEC AAP consultation report (including graphics) and supporting documents (prior to the

commencement of the consultation period) to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications.

vii.          Noted the update on the Fen Road access issues at paragraphs 4.19 and 4.20 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 Senior Planning Policy Officer, Assistant Director, Special Projects Officer

 

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

      i.         Questioned if the pandemic would delay the work on the NECAAP.

    ii.         Referred to policy 8 which dealt with open space; the member had expected 39 hectares of open space to be provided for a development of this size. Expressed disappointment that the topic paper stated it was unlikely that the full quantum of open space would be provided on site.

   iii.         Questioned the impact of the development on water supply / provision in the city and the surrounding network.

  iv.         Queried how limiting water consumption would be enforced.

    v.         Questioned the response rate to the NECAAP and what arrangements were being put in place for access over the railway line at Fen Road.

  vi.         Noted the AAP stated that 1 building would be built to BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) outstanding standard and asked whether this criterion could be increased.

 vii.         Asked whether the paragraph regarding passive housing could be re-worded.

viii.         Queried if an area within the AAP could be reserved if land was required to resolve the Fen Road / railway access issue. 

  ix.         Referred to policy 13c and noted that housing for local workers was not included within the current City Local Plan and questioned how key workers could be helped.

    x.         Noted some buildings were proposed to have 13 stories and questioned if the ceiling heights were reduced to achieve this building height whether that would provide enough room to accommodate passive housing.

  xi.         Questioned whether people would be able to afford to move to bigger houses in view of the COVID-19 recession.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer, Assistant Director and the Special Projects Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Officers had consulted with Community Forums to explore whether work on the NECAAP should be delayed; residents said that they would prefer for the work to continue.  Officers adopted a ‘digital first’ approach which had been successfully used during the Local Plan consultations.

    ii.         Exploration of the type of open space which should be provided as part of the development was inconclusive.  Options had been considered like Parkers Piece style open space or more dispersed open space areas. Previous respondents to the consultation had said that they wanted a wide variety of open space provision.  Multifunctional and multi-use open space was therefore being proposed.

   iii.         Was aware of concerns regarding growth and the impact on water supply and water cycle.  An independent Water Survey had been commissioned. Wanted to promote low water consumption on the site and was looking at limiting water usage to 80 litres per person per day. The issue of water consumption was a growth issue and not a geographic issue. The NECAAP set high standards across both residential and non-residential development. For non-residential developments, the plan sought to ensure that development would be built to BREAAM ‘good’ standards.

  iv.         Limiting water consumption would be enforced at source and through metering.  Monitoring requirements on consumption would seek to ensure delivery of this objective.

    v.         The consultation had received more responses than any other AAP the City had done before. People were able to dip in and out of the NECAAP.  Officers wanted to capture as many consultation responses as possible.

  vi.         Discussions were on-going regarding maintenance of the public realm.

 vii.         The plan provides for a bridge over the railway line for pedestrian and cycle access.

viii.         Officers were looking at whether they could increase the number of buildings which would be built to BREEAM outstanding standard.

  ix.         Officers confirmed that they would look at the wording of the passive housing paragraph.

    x.         The Fen Road crossing was a complex but existing issue, which the AAP could not resolve directly. Officer were seeking to engage Network Rail in discussion on options, if Network Rail intended to close the crossing then they would have to fund an alternative route of access.  The cost of resolving the access issue via the North East Cambridge site would be high, both land cost and the physical infrastructure crossing the railway and the rules about planning policy meant that only impacts arising as a result of the plan proposals could be mitigated directly by planning policy requirements. This means resolution of the Fen Road access issue would require a broader approach, working with Network Rail.  

  xi.         Would look at whether housing could be tethered to the new employment space for people on the science and business park. Could look to see whether employers could be encouraged to purchase land to accommodate their staff.

 xii.         Building height assumptions presumed at standard 3m per storey allowance.

xiii.         Officers would keep under review the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on future development trends and values / requirements for sustainable and healthy living.

 

The Executive Councillor commented:

    i.               If the water treatment centre was able to relocate then this site was the right place for development; more jobs and housing was required by the area to meet existing and future needs.

  ii.               Prior to 2015, councils were able to set requirements for water usage as part of planning applications.  The development should not rely on mains water and should look at ways to re-use water.  She wanted to challenge the Government to permit councils to set water usage conditions as part of planning applications. 

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 4 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.

 

Lead officer: Julian Sykes


30/06/2020 - Joint Development Control Committee - Terms of Reference ref: 5119    Recommendations Approved

To review the Terms of Reference of the Joint Development Control Committee in light of Cambridgeshire County Council's decision to withdraw from the joint committee by the end of July 2020.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure

Decision published: 20/08/2020

Effective from: 30/06/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The County Council resolved in May 2020 to withdraw from the Joint Development Control Committee (JDCC) after July 2020. The effect of their resolution will be for the current JDCC to no longer be quorate. 

 

The report sought agreement to the establishment of a new Committee (the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee GCJPC) and set out the proposed terms for the new Joint Committee to come into effect from 1 August 2020.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces to recommend to the Civic Affairs Committee to:

i.               Dissolve the JDCC between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council as surviving members, pursuant to section 101 (5) Local Government Act 1972 and cease all delegations to the same with effect from 31 July 2020; 

ii.             Establish a new joint planning committee between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council (to be called the Joint Development Control Committee) with the Terms of Reference detailed in Appendix A as amended to increase the membership from 3 to 6 members for both Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council and that the Chair and Vice-Chair positions rotate between the councils each municipal year and to delegate functions to the joint committee and officers as set out therein, pursuant to section 101 (5) and section 102 Local Government Act 1972 with effect from 1 August 2020

iii.            Agree that any ongoing planning matters or any other continuing action which would otherwise fall to be determined by the JDCC will, after 31 July 2020, transfer to the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee for determination 

iv.           Authorise the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development  to decide whether to refer any development control matters for determination by the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee where the boundary of the site concerned overlaps or is adjacent to the boundary between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

v.             Authorise the Monitoring Officer to make any consequential amendments to the Council’s constitution arising from the above decisions

vi.           Comment upon the proposed draft standing orders for the Committee as appropriate.

 

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 Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. He updated his report to state that:

i.               Members had queried the proposed name of the Committee.

ii.             Members may wish to consider the number of members who sat on the committee.

iii.            Clarified the geographical areas which would be covered by the new Committee.

iv.           The terms of reference should be amended to include the ability for County Members to exercise speaking rights at the Committee.

v.             Members had requested that the chair position rotated  between SCDC and the City Council.

 

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

      i.         Agreed that the new Committee should consider major planning applications rather than householder applications.

    ii.         Thought that the number of members sitting on the committee should be increased.

   iii.         Suggested the number of members sitting on the committee should comprise 6 members for both SCDC and the City Council.

 

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and Democratic Services Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Thought the matter of the size of the committee would be commented upon by SCDC councillors as well.

    ii.         The Committee could suggest how many councillors they thought the committee should comprise but noted this would still be a matter for negotiation between the two councils.

 

Councillor Baigent proposed and seconded by Councillor Porrer the following amendment:

i.               Amend the membership of the committee so there would be 6 Cambridge City Council members and 6 South Cambridgeshire District Council members rather than 3 members each.

 

Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Baigent seconded the following amendment:

ii.             Retain the name of the Committee as the Joint Development Control Committee rather than the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee and reflect this throughout the terms of reference document.

 

Councillor Baigent proposed and Councillor Smart seconded the following amendment:

iii.            Confirm that the Chair and Vice-Chair positions rotate between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council each municipal year.

 

The Committee approved the amendments unanimously.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Stephen Kelly


30/06/2020 - Update of Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme ref: 5118    Recommendations Approved

To agree updates to the Local Development Scheme.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure

Decision published: 20/08/2020

Effective from: 30/06/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

To agree an update to the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme (LDS).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

i.               Adopted the updated Local Development Scheme for Greater Cambridge included at Appendix 1 of this report, to take effect from 13 July 2020.

ii.             Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the South Cambridgeshire Lead Cabinet member for Planning and the Cambridge City Council Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces (and also the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee), to make any minor editing changes and corrections identified prior to publication.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategy and Economy Manager and Planning Policy Manager

 

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

      i.         Thought more debate was required on how growth related to climate change and exploring sustainability means both in social and environmental aspects. Welcomed what was being proposed as this would give more time for debate.  The change in the schedule made sense and wanted to harness the contribution of housing from the AAP into the Local Plan. The timeline seemed to be set by the DCO (Development Consent Order) process.

    ii.         Asked that because of the length of time involved in the development scheme process that an interim report should be brought back to Committee in 2021.

 

The Strategy and Economy Manager and Planning Policy Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         It was good practice at each stage in the local plan process to reflect and check on the local development scheme. 

    ii.         When the preferred option report was brought back to committee a report would be provided to confirm how the programme related to the local development scheme at that time and whether any further updates were necessary. 

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Jonathan Dixon


30/06/2020 - Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Issues & Options Feedback and Next Steps ref: 5117    Recommendations Approved

To receive an update on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options consultation – ‘The First Conversation’.

To agree the process for plan making moving forward, and revisions to the timetable.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure

Decision published: 20/08/2020

Effective from: 30/06/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report sought to feedback on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues and Options consultation – ‘The First Conversation’. This formed part of the early stages in preparing the next Local Plan for the area, being prepared jointly by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

i.               Noted the report on Initial Feedback from the First Conversation consultation included at Appendix 1

ii.             Agreed additional informal member and stakeholder engagement and Preferred Options stages be added to the Local Plan making process  

iii.            Agreed the approach to addressing the Duty to Cooperate included as Appendix 3 to the report, subject to any material changes necessary as a result of consultation with Duty to Cooperate bodies.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategy and Economy Manager and Planning Policy Manager.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Claire Tunnicliffe


30/06/2020 - Annual Report of 3C Building Control Service & Planning Shared Service 19/20 ref: 5115    Recommendations Approved

The annual report looking back at the service during 2019/20 and is submitted for approval by the relevant Executive Councillor.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure

Decision published: 20/08/2020

Effective from: 30/06/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report summarised the performance of the 3Cs Building Control Shared Services and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service during 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy Open Spaces

      i.         Noted the contents of the 3Cs Building Control Shared Services report.

    ii.         Noted the contents of the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service 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 reports from the Strategic Lead 3C Building Control and the Strategic Director, Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

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

      i.         In relation to Building Control, congratulated the service on their awards and noted the customer feedback was good and the service was exceeding targets. Noted in the past that a confidential appendix would be provided detailing fee generating income; exempt from publication as the service competed with the private sector. Asked how the council was doing in terms of the market share.

    ii.         In relation to the Planning Service, thought the tide was turning. Noted complaints stemmed from a backlog of validating applications. Asked what the position was in relation to the backlog and how long it would be until it was resolved.

   iii.         In relation to the Planning Service asked what could be done for more public engagement particularly for residents who were not part of a Residents Association. Noted that SCDC had Parish Forums, questioned if Area Committees could take on this role. 

 

The Strategic Lead 3C Building Control and the Strategic Director, Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Was happy to provide the committee with a brief summary of how the Building Control Department was performing in terms of the market share but did not want to discuss this in a public meeting as this information would disclose commercially sensitive information.

    ii.         The backlog of application validating and determination had been impacted by the effects of the service wide restructure and the introduction of the new joint software on which all future planning applications would be processed.  The backlog of validating applications was reducing and, there were 21 householder applications, 21 outline applications and 6 listed building consent applications awaiting validation in the City as of 29 June.

   iii.         The Technical Support Team were prioritising householder and business applications. An update would be provided on the backlog position to the Committee following the meeting. 

  iv.         The Planning Application Service had been restructured so that they were now organised into 3 x area planning teams with dedicated officers for each area.  The service was exploring how these new teams could be ‘introduced’ to the public.  Each Team had already run a virtual introductory meeting for Parish Councils and they were looking to see how else they could promote the service within the community. 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations and congratulated the teams on their achievements.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Lead officer: Fiona Bryant, Claire Tunnicliffe


02/07/2020 - Single Equality Scheme 2018 - 2021 Annual Review Year Two ref: 5114    Recommendations Approved

Note the progress in delivering equalities actions during 2019/20. Approve the actions proposed in SES for delivery during 2020/21.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.

Decision published: 17/08/2020

Effective from: 02/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The current Single Equality Scheme (SES) covers the period from 2018 to 2021. The council produces an SES in order to set out its strategic approach to equalities issues. The SES included a number of equalities objectives for the Council, which was a key requirement of the Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010).

 

This annual report presented information to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty by providing an update on progress in delivering key actions set in SES for 2019/20. It also proposed some new actions for delivery during 2020/21 under the Scheme’s objectives.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

i.      Noted the progress in delivering equalities actions during 2019/20 set out in the Officer’s report.

ii.     Approved actions proposed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report for delivery during 2020/21.

 

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 Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The council sets targets for and monitors the proportion of BAME and disabled people as a percentage of the workforce each year and produces the Equality in Employment report that is taken to the Equalities Panel.

     ii.          The council is an accredited Disability Confident Employer.

   iii.          The feasibility of offering unconscious bias training to managers was being looked into in relation to recruitment. It may be possible to offer similar training to councillors if there was demand.

   iv.          Officers were trying to make the recruitment process simpler to help encourage equality of opportunity for all by the making application process more accessible and less prescriptive.

    v.          Officers were reviewing why the number of successful BAME applicants for jobs did not reflect the percentage of BAME people who applied. The results of this would be reported back to the Equalities Panel in January 2021.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Helen Crowther


02/07/2020 - Anti-Poverty Strategy 2020-2023 ref: 5113    Recommendations Approved

To approve a revised and updated Anti-Poverty Strategy for the period from April 2020-March 2023.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.

Decision published: 17/08/2020

Effective from: 02/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Council has produced two previous Anti-Poverty Strategies covering the periods from 2014-2017 and 2017-2020. The Officer’s report provided an update on delivery of key actions included in the 2017-2020 Strategy.

 

The Officer’s report also presented a revised Anti-Poverty Strategy for the 2020-2023 period for approval.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the revised Anti-Poverty Strategy for 2020-2023 and the accompanying action 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

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

      i.          74 employers had been accredited as paying a living wage out of 4,400 across the city. Residents were also being paid a living wage by some employers who did not have the accreditation.

     ii.          Larger employers had been approached first. Small and medium employers were next.

   iii.          In order to be accredited, companies would have to sign up to paying a living wage to employees and contractors.

   iv.          A lot of dedicated work had been put into the Living Wage Campaign. A lot of 1-2-1 work and networking at business conferences was required with employers to convince them of the need. More work was required but the living wage featured prominently in the Anti-Poverty Strategy.

    v.          More people were attending food banks. The City Council was part of the food poverty alliance. This funded work through grants to city residents. Work was ongoing during the corona virus pandemic.

   vi.          There was a bid in the council’s Budget Setting Report for a project to establish a food hub in the city with voluntary groups.

 vii.          It was hard to quantify the impact of Universal Credit on residents. Stakeholders had raised issues with officers about being responsible for managing their own personal budgets; this was difficult if one was not experienced. Officers could offer support to try and avoid people experiencing financial difficulties and rent arears.

 

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.

Lead officer: David Kidston


02/07/2020 - Greater Cambridge Waste Service - Annual Report ref: 5112    Recommendations Approved

The annual report looking back at the service during 2019/20 is submitted for approval by Exec Cllr.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

Decision published: 17/08/2020

Effective from: 02/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report summarised the performance of the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service during 2019/20.

 

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

Noted the content of the report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.          Recycling rates were still around 50% as organic waste was mixed in with other waste, so it was hard to increase the recycling rate when non-recyclable items were mixed in.

     ii.          Measures were put in place to mitigate this:

a.    Education schemes and food waste schemes were in place to encourage people not to put certain items in black bins.

b.    Extra blue bins were offered to residents to encourage them not to put items in black bins when the first blue bin was full.

c.    Encouraging people to think before they bought [food] items to avoid buying too much and then throwing it away.

 

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.

Lead officer: Trevor Nicoll


02/07/2020 - Review of Public Spaces Protection Order for Dog Control ref: 5110    Recommendations Approved

To review the results of the consultation on dog control in Cambridge and to vary and extend the Public Spaces Protection Order for dog control.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

Decision published: 17/08/2020

Effective from: 02/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report:

      i.          Referenced the statutory consultation exercise conducted by the Council during March and April 2020 in relation to the proposal to extend and vary the Public Spaces Protection Order (‘PSPO’) for Dog Control 2017 in respect of dog control (including dog fouling, dog exclusion and dogs on leads requirements) within Cambridge.

     ii.          Referenced responses to consultation and main substantive issues raised

   iii.          Set out recommendations for the Executive Councillor.

 

The Council had given careful consideration to the responses to the consultation exercise.  The PSPO, as varied and extended, was not put forward as a means of unduly restricting the exercising or recreation of dogs across the city. The reason for the PSPO was to address the detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality caused by the irresponsible behaviour of a small minority of dog owners; and to set out a clear standard of behaviour to which all dog owners were required to adhere.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

      i.          Approved the PSPO, as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

·       Approved the area of the PSPO, as indicated in the maps at Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

·       Delegated to officers the authority to install, update and/or remove signage appropriate to any PSPO that may be agreed.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager. She updated paragraph 3.33 of the report as follows:

 

Following the fairly equal response regarding removal of previous restrictions at the play areas set out in 3.31, officers recommend that the areas detailed should not have the existing restrictions removed and the areas continue to be locations in which dogs are required to be on leads at all times.

 

The Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          As part of the consultation process signs had been put up in parks and open spaces advising of a consultation to variation an extension to the 2017 PSPO.

     ii.          A consultation exercise had also undertaken so that local residents could feedback on the proposals. 267 had done so, which was comparable to the 330 responses in last consultation of 2017.

   iii.          Officers had tried to contact people who walked dogs commercially [usually individuals rather than companies] about the proposals and to seek their views. .

   iv.          The Wildlife Trust had also previously been approached.

    v.          The PSPO recommendation regarding Byrons Pool and the restriction of the number of dogs followed national guidance that:

a.    One person should be limited to having a maximum of four dogs on leads at any one time in order to be able to control them.

b.    Walkers should tidy up after their dogs.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Wendy Johnston


02/07/2020 - Decarbonising Cambridge City Council Vehicle Fleet ref: 5111    Recommendations Approved

To commit to decarbonising the current vehicle fleet. This would be achieved as diesel/petrol vehicles come to the end of their life they are, where an alternative is available replaced with Ultra Low Emission Vehicles and delivering a measurable and quantifiable reduction in the carbon dioxide (CO2e) emissions that contribute to poor air quality and climate change through adopting ULEVs that are appropriate for individual service needs.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

Decision published: 17/08/2020

Effective from: 02/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

Cambridge City Council declared a climate emergency in February 2019. The Council is keen to reduce its own emissions as close to zero as possible, as soon as is feasible; within the resourcing, technological and service obligation constraints it works within. The Council’s vehicle fleet of 113 vehicles currently accounts for 24% of all the council’s emissions. We have been incrementally moving our fleet from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV) over recent years and currently there are 10 electric vans.  Of the remainder 41 of the diesel/petrol fleet are Ultra Low Emission Zone compliant and 10 have stop/start technology. The climate emergency creates an imperative to accelerate that transition, and this paper sets out a road map to achieve that.

 

The Decarbonising Cambridge City Council Vehicle Fleet paper appended to the Officer’s report set out the approach to decarbonising Cambridge City Council’s vehicle fleet, seeking to commit to replace old vehicles with ULEVs whenever possible.

 

A key enabler for the transition to ULEVs is the provision of suitable solution infrastructure primarily based at the depot location.   

 

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

Agreed to:

i.      Acknowledge the opportunities and detriments when converting to ULEVs as set out in the appended Decarbonising Cambridge City Council Vehicle Fleet paper.

ii.     Endorse the recommended approach notably:

o   The key area for action is a formal commitment to always, where there is a suitable ULEV alternative and the infrastructure allows, to procure ULEVs when replacing Council vehicles.

o   Where there is no ULEV alternative possible then this is only to be procured after a detailed business case has been written.

o   That services will actively monitor the usage of their vehicle assets and, through service reviews, seek to streamline the way work is carried out, with the twin aims of cutting carbon emissions and increasing service efficiency via a decrease in the miles driven, and over time, a decrease in the total number of vehicles required.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.          There were no plans to purchase ULEVs in 2021-22, unless they were needed to replace existing ICE vehicles as a matter of urgency eg they were unsafe or there was a justifable business case to support any new purchase.

     ii.          In order to manage the impact on the public purse, ICE vehicles would be replaced with ULEVs and electric vehicles, plus supporting infrastructure such as charging points, in incremental stages rather than through wholesale change [ie all vehicles at once]. The procurement of electric vehicle infrastructure was complex.

   iii.          Vehicles would be replaced as and when needed at the end of their working life cycle. By replacing vehicles at the end of their life cycle, their full capital value could be realised. If the council replaced ICE vehicles with ULEVs mid-life cycle, the full financial and environmental cost savings may not be realised, so the council may in fact not realise its aim of saving money and carbon emissions by changing vehicles too early.

   iv.          At the time of writing, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles provided a discount on the price of brand new low-emission vehicles through a grant the government gives to vehicle dealerships and manufacturers. The Council’s Scientific Officer could provide further information on this upon request.

    v.          Electric vehicles had not been in service for 12 years, so it was hard to compare them with the 6 years service life span expected from ICE vehicles. However, 12 years seemed probable.

   vi.          There were fewer moving parts in electric vehicles compared to ICE ones, so they should have a longer working life span.

 vii.          There were no ULEV vehicle alternatives to a limited number of ICE vehicles such as cherry pickers. Where there is no ULEV alternative possible, then an ICE vehicle would be procured after a detailed business case has been written [to evidence that an alternative was not available].

 

Councillor Matthews proposed a new [additional] recommendation 2.3:

 

Sign up to Global Action Plan's "Clean Van Commitment", which publicly pledges the Council to move to a zero emission fleet by 2028.

 

https://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/clean-air/clean-van-commitment

 

The Executive Councillor said she was happy with existing recommendation wording and actions taken by the council to decarbonise the city. There seemed no point in replacing serviceable ICE vehicles with ULEVs until they were at the end of their life cycle.

 

Councillor Matthews withdrew his proposal after a discussion by committee where the Executive Councillor welcomed the idea to work with Councillor Matthews and officers in future on ways to decarbonise the city. She would look at details then consider what to sign up to in future.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: James Elms


04/06/2020 - Annual Governance Statement ref: 5101    Recommendations Approved

To note and approve any changes made to the draft Annual Governance Statement in advance of the Statement of Accounts.

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Made at meeting: 04/06/2020 - Civic Affairs

Decision published: 02/07/2020

Effective from: 04/06/2020

Decision:

The Committee received a report from Head of Shared Internal Audit Service regarding the Annual Governance Statement for 2018/19, and the Local Code of Corporate Governance, for consideration by the Civic Affairs Committee.

 

The purpose of the report was to provide an update on the Annual Governance Statement, which had previously been approved by the Committee on 24th July 2019.

 

Unanimously resolved to note there have been no changes made to the Annual Governance Statement that had been approved previously.

Lead officer: Jonathan Tully