Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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