Decisions

To appoint Councillor Martin Smart as the City Council’s reserve (substitute) member on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Audit and Governance Committee.

Record of Officer Urgent Decision

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority- Appointment of the Council’s Audit and Governance Committee reserve (substitute) member

Decision taken: To appoint the reserve member for the City Council on the CPCA Audit & Governance Committee.

Decision of: Chief Executive

Reference: 25/OfficerUrgent/SR/01

Date of decision: 8 January 2025

Matter for Decision: To appoint Councillor Martin Smart as the City Council’s reserve (substitute) member on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Audit and Governance Committee.

Any alternative options considered and rejected: None

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: Normally an appointment by Full Council (which next meets on 24 February 2025), an urgent decision under Section 9 paragraph 2, Council Procedure Rules was necessary to enable the reserve (substitute) member to attend a CPCA meeting before the next Full Council meeting.

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: None.

Comments: None

Contact for further information: Robert Pollock, Chief Executive. Robert.Pollock@cambridge.gov.uk.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report gave an annual update on the Council’s Single Equality Scheme, which covered the period from 2021 to 2024 and set five objectives to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion. The report provided an update on the delivery of key actions during 2023/24 set against the objectives. It also set out the activities that were new for 2024/25 and details of how larger ongoing projects would progress in 2024/25.

 

Additionally, the report included a recommendation to extend the end date for the current Single Equality Scheme for a further year, to March 2025.

 

Decision of Leader

      i.          Noted the progress in actions promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion during 2023/24.

     ii.          Approved new actions proposed for delivery during 2024/25.

   iii.          Agreed to extend the end date of the existing Single Equality Scheme from March 2024 to March 2025.

 

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.          Equality Impact Assessments were undertaken on parks and open spaces. Offered to liaise with Councillor Hauk after committee regarding concerns that vegetation over growing paths and open spaces could be an obstruction.

     ii.          The Equality in Employment Report going to Equalities Panel 2 July set out statistics on BME members in the City Council workforce. The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer suggested interested parties could attend to ask for further details there. Circa 20% of the city population were BME so the City Council aimed to recruit 20% of its work force from the same community in future to reflect this.

   iii.          Training had been commissioned for school staff to engage young people on their needs. Officers would engage with schools and the community/voluntary sector who engage with schools.

   iv.          Equality Impact Assessments were undertaken by departments/services. They sought advice from the Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer as required. She would liaise with City Services to ask if they had undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment on Voi Scooters and the process for approval of location sites; also if Local Councillors had been consulted.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing agreed with concerns that Voi Scooters could sometime block the pavement when parked. People could contact Voi to request removal of scooters. Responsibility for the Equality Impact Assessment may rest with the Combined Authority as they provided the scooters.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Leader.

 

To approve the recommended roles for the Council in the work led by the Cambridge BID, to establish the feasibility of an Accommodation BID (ABID) for the Greater Cambridge area.

Matter for Decision

This report explains the context and outlines the recommended roles for the Council in the work being led by the Cambridge Business Improvement District (BID), to set up a new Accommodation BID (ABID), funded by a visitor levy, to provide the investment needed for improved management of the visitor economy in Greater Cambridge. 1.2 The levy has the potential to generate between £1.5m - £2.6m per annum over a 5-year business plan. This offers the opportunity to achieve a step change in the way the visitor economy is managed and has the potential to achieve significant benefits. 1.3 The Council is already a partner in the Cambridge BID and if the ABID goes ahead, would play a key role in the governance of the proposed ABID and would also be responsible for the ballot and levy collection, with all costs covered by the ABID.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and Community Safety

To approve the recommended roles for the Council in the work led by the Cambridge BID, to establish the feasibility of an Accommodation BID (ABID) for the Greater Cambridge area which are as follows:

a) To support the approach being taken by the BID to secure investment for improved management of the visitor economy

b) To work as members of the BID and the Welcome to Cambridge Boards on the development of the ABID business plan to ensure alignment with the council’s priorities

c) To manage the ABID Ballot with council costs to be covered

If the ballot is successful

a) To work with the BID and Welcome to Cambridge Board on the development of the governance structure for the ABID

b) To manage levy collection from hoteliers on behalf of the ABID – with council’s costs covered

c) Continued partnership working with the ABID and Cambridge BID in the delivery of Council objectives for the benefit of the City.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Economic Development Manager and the Chief Executive Cambridge BID said the following in response to Members questions:

 

      i.          As to why just hotels are being levied and not Air BnB, current legislation was regarding business rates.

     ii.          Levy was for businesses that primary business was as a hotel.

   iii.          Coach parking had been an ongoing problem. Would require work with additional stakeholders.

   iv.          Business plan would not be about short stays but longer stays.

    v.          Want to spread benefit throughout the city.

   vi.          Would need training/info points, to have the ability to advise guests.

 vii.          Regarding homelessness, businesses would want to only invest in longer term solutions.

viii.          There were currently 12 Members on the board. The City Council would not be the decision makers however would have a place on the board.

   ix.          Issues around accessible tourism had been raised, were aware of the issue of getting people from A to B outside the city centre. Did not think that it could be worked on in years 1 and 2, however would work on after that.

    x.          Apartment Hotels would be included if there were more that 10 rooms.

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

 

Matter for Decision

This report referred to the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which outlined how the Council would engage on planning matters and were obligated to review at least every five years.

 

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

 

      i.          Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received and agreed proposed changes to the Statement of Community Involvement as set out in the Statement of Consultation (Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Agreed to adopt the amended Greater Cambridge Statement of Community Involvement (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report); and

   iii.          Delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for planning policy and transport and the Chair and the Opposition Spokes for the Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure Scrutiny Committee, the authority to make any necessary editing changes to the SCI 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 Senior Planning Policy Officer who updated the Members on the following:

      i.          Paragraph 4.13 would be amended accordingly as the Disability Review Panel merged into the Cambridge Design Review Panel as agreed at Planning Committee on 6 March.

     ii.          Hayden in South Cambridgeshire District Council had been designated as a neighbourhood area with the purpose of preparing a neighbourhood plan on 15 March. Therefore, paragraph 3.14 would be amended to stated that there was now eighteen neighbourhood area designated in Greater Cambridge.  

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planning Policy Officer, Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader and Joint Director of Planning & Economic Development said the following:

      i.          Believed that the Shared Planning Services had a good reputation in terms of public engagement and had tried to raise as much awareness regarding consultations events as possible.

     ii.          The Council’s social media was a powerful tool, and Officers did factor in community led social media platforms into the communications strategy, both at Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, for consultation events.

   iii.          During the last consultation on the emerging Local Plan the Comms team had actively responded to some of the comments as they were received, which were then re-shared with local community groups. 

   iv.          Officers worked hard to de-jargon the terminology and explain the planning process in simpler terms as it was a very technical process, the aim was to enable the public to feel empowered to be able to make comment on the consultations that were run.

    v.          Non-internet engagement was just as important as digital engagement. Officers had held door to door consultation events with the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, targeted college engagements, posters had been installed at bus stops and various notice boards, both in Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire.

   vi.          Noted the suggested that shop notice boards could be used as part of public engagement, particularly in rural areas; however, this was when engagement with parish councils and ward councillors became important as they became a conduit to share, pass on the information and encourage residents to take part in the consultation process.

 vii.          Would look at the suggestion to explore opportunities to embed the terminology to the glossary.

viii.          The Shared Planning Service had a long-term commitment to the youth engagement service. This was a positive tool to communicate with harder to hear communities or those who conventionally did not engage but had done so through young people.

lix      Could strengthen the section in relation to developer engagement with the local communities. 

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor informed Members there would be a new framework for the Pre-Application Process allowing Ward Councillors and members of the Planning Committee to integrate engagement at certain stages of the process. During the last consultation for the emerging Local Plan there had been 8,000 responses, usually a consultation would bring 300 to 400 responses. The results were a testament to the work and engagement of the Shared Planning Services.

 

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

None.

 

To agree an updated Local Plan timetable.

Matter for Decision

This report provided an update regarding the Local Plan Timetable (previously called the Local Development Scheme (LDS)), of a new or revised development plan documents that set out the planning policy framework for Greater Cambridge.

 

The report also provided an update of the timetable for the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP), considering the latest timetable for the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant (CWWTP) Development Consent Order (DCO) process seeking to relocate the CWWTP to Honey Hill.

 

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

 

      i.          Agreed that The Local Plan Timetable Update at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report be added as an Addendum to the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme 2022 and published on the Greater Cambridge Planning website.

     ii.          Write to Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District Council, providing an update on the plan making timetable for Greater Cambridge reflecting the contents of this report.

   iii.          Agreed that the Greater Cambridge local planning authorities should explore further with Government the opportunity to be a ‘front-runner’ pilot for the new plan-making process.

   iv.          Agreed that a further report with a proposed specific timetable for both plans be brought to Members when there was clarity on the external dependencies of water, transport the CWWTP DCO, the new plan-making system and Cambridge 2040 Programme.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Planning Policy Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy Manager, Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.          The Water Scarcity Working Group (WSWG) consisted of representatives from various organisations, such as the Environment Agency, Ofwat, Local Government officials and industry stake holders and was nonpolitical.

     ii.          The WSWG were focused on finding practical solutions to mitigate water scarcity. Promoting water efficiency measures to reduce demand and collaborating on long-term infrastructure planning to ensure sustainable water supply.

   iii.          The group were aware of the need to have tested schemes in place on all developments that reduced demand and would assist in changing water use habits.

   iv.          Currently WSWG were exploring pilot schemes to test how these measures were applied and measure the impact over time.

    v.          Was aware of other projects looking at evidenced solutions, for example Officers were working with water industry representatives  exploring water recycling measures, the implementation practicalities and cost of the scheme. The evidence would be used for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

   vi.          Discussions were being held with Cambridge Water regarding monitoring, particularly the efficient application of the delivery of smart meters. Monitoring data from a smart meter could identify ‘constant flow’ issues within a property which may be due to faulty equipment.

 vii.          There had been work nationally on the proposed implementation of water labelling. This would allow consumers to make informed choices when purchasing water-using products. By understanding the water efficiency of these products, people could be encouraged to select options that saved water. 

viii.          The WSWG were aware of common issues with dual flush toilets; that these did not necessarily save as much water as had originally intended.

   ix.          Cambridge Water had recently published an updated draft of their Water Resources Management Plan. Believed there were more significant commitments in this plan such as the roll out of smart meters.

    x.          Cambridge Water’s latest draft Water Resources Management Plan sought to engage with concerns regarding what would happen if the measures for leakage reduction and water conservation were not effective, including the consideration of the supply for non-domestic water. 

   xi.          The Water Resources Management Plan would be reviewed by the Environment Agency amongst others and agreed by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

 xii.          The Water Resources Management Plan highlighted an accelerated and enhanced campaign to promote effective water usage. Education was key to highlight that every drop of water mattered, and people should consider how it was being used.

xiii.          Anglian Water’s Water Resources Management Plan outlined proposals to build a new reservoir in the Fens and to bring supply of water from Grafham Water reservoir to the Cambridge area. 

xiv.          Agreed that there had been questions at how effective the monitoring of performance of water usage had been in the past.

xv.          Cambridge Water drew water from thirty-one abstraction points around the Greater Cambridge area. The Environment Agency closely monitored these points and were in many cases, imposing caps on the abstraction levels. These figures were compared to the level of commitment regarding the levels of abstraction of water from those resources.

xvi.          There was a much tighter focus in the Water Resources Management Plan on highlighting the trigger points for action during very hot summers such as when to impose a hose pipe ban. 

xvii.          The Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement allowed local authorities to establish tighter water usage standards, if justified.

xviii.          It would exceed a planning authority’s power to limit water usage or shut off drinking water to a particular property. There may be additional requirements for washing, consumption of water for health or medical reasons, as each household’s circumstances were different. 

xix.          Noted the suggestion that a limit on water usage per household could be set and if exceeded, an increase in the cost of consumption should increase but pricing was a matter for Ofwat and not for a local authority to determine. Performance against the Water Resources Management Plan would be a matter for Ofwat as the industry regulator.  

xx.          The resources required to monitor the water usage on the total number of homes in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire would be significant with no obvious enforcement in the event of water usage being exceeded.

xxi.          Following the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s decision not to pursue Making Connections, Officers had asked Cambridgeshire County Council to re-run the traffic model that underpinned the Local Plan First Proposals. The Planning Policy Team was waiting for the final report which would advise of the impact in terms of any quantification of percentages or trip numbers.

xxii.          Early findings from the model indicated that assumptions associated with the wider GCP City Access scheme would have effectively reduced the number of vehicles on the city road network. The effect of not introducing a scheme of this kind (that would suppress the number of trips) would accordingly lead to additional trips from existing traffic remaining. This would impact assessments of additional capacity as part of any re-run modelling.   

xxiii.          One of the key elements of the emerging Local Plan was responding to climate change. This included reducing private car use by directing new development to locations that enable residents and workers to travel cycling around the city by sustainable means, including by public transport, walking and cycling.

xxiv.          If private vehicle trips were not reduced this would result in existing and proposed public transport solutions becoming less effective, since the buses would be held up in private vehicle congestion.

xxv.          Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) had committed to prepare a Greater Cambridge ‘child’ document to the wider Local Transport and Connectivity Plan that covered the entire area covered by the CPCA. This document was expected to sit alongside the emerging Local Plan.

xxvi.          With the proposed thirty-month deadline timescale for councils to produce their local plans there would be an element of risk in meeting those deadlines, as not all the details were yet known. However, a key benefit of the new system is a set six-month period for the examination process. In comparison, the examination of the current Local Plan had taken four and half years; within the current system there was no guarantee of the examination timetable to enable quick progression towards adoption.

xxvii.          Regulations for the new local plan process were still awaited from Central Government. Government has yet to confirm which Local Planning Authorities might be ‘front runners’ in this process.  However, the Shared Planning service is already engaging positively with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUCH) on a range of topics including regarding digitising the plan-making system, on which the planning service which had been doing innovative work.

xxviii.          Officers were working on projects highlighted to DLUCH to improve the planning process and services, such as how representations could be processed quicker and had held discussions on how a templated approach to plan making would work.

xxix.          Suggested that as the changes to the local plan process became implemented, Officers would continue dialogue with DLUCH ensuring the system worked and a new plan produced as quickly as possible.  

xxx.          Several sites in the Northeast of Cambridge were covered by an allocation in the adopted Local Plan for employment led use.  Officers were using the evidence base that had been prepared in compiling the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP) to assist, where relevant, in the responses to the planning applications received for this area.

xxxi.          A team of Officers had been appointed and overseen by a senior officer to deal with the planning applications in NEC to ensure a consistent approach in the development to the area.

xxxii.          The Joint Development Control Committee were receiving an increase in developer presentations in the North East area to understand the connection of all these schemes.

xxxiii.          There were challenges of the delivery of a comprehensive infrastructure in the North East area and Officers were working with the County Council to resolve these issues. Work was being done to determine if this area was appropriate to bring forward a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) such as for strategic transport contributions.

xxxiv.          In pre-application discussions Officers referred to the NECAAP to provide guidance and to measure the achievement of the outcomes that the developers were bringing forward against the objectives in the action plan.

xxxv.          Officers were also tracking the variances between the NECAAP, and the proposals being brought forward, to “sense check” whether the schemes deviated or met the goals set in the action plan.

xxxvi.          Although the NECAAP held very limited weight as a planning policy document it outlined the Council’s clear ambition for the area.

xxxvii.          There had been a huge amount of material evidence used to underpin the NECAAP at the draft Plan stage but also Regulation 19 Proposed Submission stage. This evidence covered a range of issues from ecology, noise, infrastructure provision and mode share. Reiterated that Officers would stress the importance of NECAAP when discussing pre-applications with developers. The evidence would also be used as a reference point when planning applications came to committee.

xxxviii.          Agreed to the suggestion that there should be a reference to Central Government’s Cambridge 2040 Programme (likely to change to Cambridge 2050 programme) at the Officer’s recommendation point iv.

xxxix.          It would not be possible to bring a further update on both plans to the next scrutiny meeting scheduled for June.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor informed the Committee that currently she would not recommend passing planning powers to a  Development Corporation as referenced in the Government’s Cambridge 2040 programme. The planning process should remain as the democratic process that was currently followed. 

 

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

None

 

Matter for Decision

The Council helped to mitigate the impact of housing development on local facilities and amenities using S106 contributions from developers. The Executive Councillor oversaw the use of S106 funds secured under the contribution types relating to informal open spaces, play provision for children and teenagers and public realm improvements.

 

The March 2024 S106 report to this Committee highlighted the need to develop a future programme of S106-funded projects in consultation with local councillors. The aim was to make effective and timely use of remaining generic S106 funds alongside newer specific contributions related to particular locations. The intention had been to present the proposed programme (particularly in relation to the Council’s outdoor play areas) in June. However, as this meeting now coincides with the General Election run-up period, it would be more appropriate to report this to the Committee in September instead.

 

In the meantime, this June 2024 report focused on those generic S106 contributions across the informal open spaces, play provision and public realm contribution types that need to be spent or contractually committed to relevant projects within the next year or so. It also considered, in the case of play provision, how the use of relevant specific S106 contributions could support the use of these time-limited S106 funds. Allocating these S106 funds to projects now would provide more time for project planning, consultation and procurement.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

      i.          Agreed to allocate at least £55,000 of generic informal open spaces S106 funds to supplement the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority’s grant for a strategic biodiversity improvement project at Logan’s Meadow Local Nature Reserve (East Chesterton ward), subject to business case approval (see section 4 of the Officer’s report);

     ii.          Agreed to allocate £13,054 of play provision S106 funding for improvements to Lichfield Road play area in Coleridge ward (based on £3,987 of generic contributions and £9,067 of specific contributions), subject to local consultation and business case approval (see section 5 of the Officer’s report);

   iii.          Agreed to allocate £37,941 of play provision S106 funding for improvements to King George V Recreation Ground in Trumpington ward (based on £21,671 of generic contributions and £16,270 of specific contributions), subject to local consultation and business case approval (see section 5 of the Officer’s report); and

   iv.          Agreed to allocate £69,018 of public realm S106 funds from a development in Harvest Way (Abbey ward) towards public realm improvements in the vicinity of that development, subject to business case approval (see Section 6 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 Technical & Specialist Services Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The intention was to make all new play provision inclusive for all users. Different items of equipment would be provided for people with different/particular needs. Details were listed in the Equalities Impact Assessment in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Officers recommended allocating funding to projects scheduled to be delivered soonest to make the most effective use of funds. Short timescales for delivery meant that consultation with residents/councillors must be appropriate/proportionate for delivery time.

   iii.          Officers were keen to engage local councillors on how best to use funding (as much as possible). Updates on scheme delivery were published on City Council webpages.

   iv.          Officers were aware of, and reviewing, various play provision accessibility issues such as surface of play areas and joints between materials.

 

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.

 

Recommend the report to Council, which includes the Council's actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2023/24.

Matter for Decision

The Council is 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.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

To recommend the Annual Treasury Management (Outturn) report to Council, which included the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2023/24.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Finance Officer who said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Council’s investment in Barclays was not via Link but as their role as the main Council’s bankers.

     ii.          The Council held an ongoing banking contract with Barclays until 2026.

   iii.          Following the Council’s agreement at Full Council May 2024 to investigate the implications of stopping banking with Barclays, this was being investigated by Officers. Member consultation had been placed on hold during the pre-election period but now this was over, engagement with Members would begin.

 

The Committee voted Unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations. 

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue
funding from 2023/24 to 2024/25 as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2023/24 to 2024/25 as detailed in report appendix.

Matter for Decision

The report presented for all Portfolios:

      i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2023/24 (outturn position).

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2024/25.

 

The outturn report presented reflected the Executive Portfolios for which budgets were originally approved (which may have changed since, for example for any changes in Portfolio responsibilities).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

To recommend to Council to:

1. Approve carry forward requests totalling £2,959,740 of revenue funding from 2023/24 to 2024/25, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report. These were carry forward requests in excess of £50k. Requests up to and including £50k which total £153,720 are approved via delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer.
2. Approve carry forward requests of £19,855,000 of capital resources from 2023/24 to 2024/25 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D 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 Chief Finance Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Finance Officer and Executive Councillor said the following:

      i.          There were significant capital programmes currently being undertaken, and some degree of slippage was not unusual.

     ii.          Important to note that most capital spend was financed from resources ringfenced specifically for capital purposes. Would not be able redirect the monies to Council services.

   iii.          Of the £20million carried forward, £3million of the capital finance was revenue finance and the rest financed from capital resources.

   iv.          There was overspend and underspend on completed projects in general. Budgets ought to be built on a project-by-project basis, money should be available as and when required.

    v.          There were overspends and underspends throughout the general fund which needed to be looked at when completing next year’s budget setting review; a more detailed process with the services would be undertaken to understand why there was such underspends.

   vi.          Underspends had occurred in the community wealth building programme; a substantial amount of funding had been agreed to this programme as it had been anticipated that this would start at the end of the financial year but didn’t.  This was not a front-line service issue but an ‘over optimism issue’, progress was still being made.

 vii.          Another underspend related to planning services due to changes introduced by Central Government, such as increase in planning application charges which meant that the service had received higher than forecast income.

viii.          The real difference was shown in the finance & resources portfolio due to higher interest rates and higher investment balances. It was not that services were underspending but there had been an ‘unexpected windfall’ that had contributed to the variance highlighted.

   ix.          The general fund was under substantial pressure and savings were required for the Council to continue to fulfil their statutory duties. If this did not happen, then the money shown in reserves would be exhausted within three financial years. 

    x.          Investments had been made in service transformation to make changes so the Council would not be forced to make an emergency budget.

   xi.          Agreed to the request to bring a detailed report on the two services areas shown in appendix B of the Officer’s report under the title Major variances (>£50k) from final revenue budgets.

 xii.          Need to review the capital programme to ensure that what was in the programme was really required.

 

The Committee voted by 3 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

 

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the MTFS was to project the General Fund’s financial position over the medium term, and set out the high level strategic approach to ensuring financial sustainability over this period.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

i.                To approve the Council’s General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2025/26-2034/35, as attached at Appendix A.

ii.               To approve the 2024/25 capital bid of an additional £487,000 for essential repairs of the riverbank at Jesus Green, as set out at page 19 of the attached MTFS.

iii.             To note the other changes to the capital plan approved under delegated powers since approval of the Budget Setting Report, as set out in section 5 of the attached MTFS.

iv.             To set the General Fund reserve Prudent Minimum Balance at £6.541 million, and the target level at £7.849 million, as recommended by the Chief Finance Officer.

 

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 Financial Officer outlining the MTFS.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Financial Officer and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources commented:

 

i.                The target of £6 million of savings over two years was an ambitious one. As the Council had been financially prudent over the previous years it was now easier to make some of the savings that were required to balance the budget gap, rather than having to find £11.5 million of savings in the next two years.

ii.               In terms of being able to deliver some of the proposed savings the Group redesign would go into more detail the ways the Council was going to deliver services whilst recognising savings that needed to be made.

iii.             Looking further into the future officers were having to make assumptions with regards to some of the key financial indicators and this was harder to predict the further out the strategy looked.

iv.             Officers were already looking at ways of bridging the budget gap from £6 million to £11.5 million.

v.              It was essential to make services more efficient and effective wherever possible. There were circumstances that dictated that sometimes less was less when it came to delivering some services and those were decisions that Council had to think through. The key for the Council was to make sure the Council was financially sustainable for the future.

vi.             The Council still aimed to deliver excellent services to its residents, including carrying out its programme on housing development. It was essential to make the right level of savings that delivered the least harm to front line services.

vii.           The MTFS assumptions were based on the report produced by the Bank of England in August. The scenario’s in the report were based on this and fell within the Bank of England’s confidence range. Scenario one was the worst case scenario and reflected CPI going back up to 5.3%.

viii.         All businesses had an independent re-valuation of their business rates which was carried out by the government. The last re-valuation was effective from April 2023. There was a deadline for businesses to appeal against the previous re-valuation done in April 2017 and that was 31 March 2024. The Council was required to make a provision for any successful appeals that were made, although most of the appeals were speculative.

ix.             The Council were in talks with government over the impact of future growth on the city and the services that are provided. The Leader confirmed that they had raised the issue of poor data that had an impact on funding levels for the Council. It was about more than housing and growth but around finances for the Council as a whole. Part of the discussions with government was to show that the Council was prudent with its finances and well run.

x.              Officers were to check the A14 project earmarked reserves fund and provide any future updates. This earmarked fund could be reallocated to environmental improvements or transport mitigations.

 

The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations, a vote on each recommendation set out below.

 

i.Approve the Council’s General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2025/26-2034/35, as attached at Appendix A. (5 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

ii.Approve the 2024/25 capital bid of an additional £487,000 for essential repairs of the riverbank at Jesus Green, as set out at page 19 of the attached MTFS. (Unanimous)

iii.Note the other changes to the capital plan approved under delegated powers since approval of the Budget Setting Report, as set out in section 5 of the attached MTFS. (Unanimous)

iv.Set the General Fund reserve Prudent Minimum Balance at £6.541 million, and the target level at £7.849 million, as recommended by the Chief Finance Officer (Unanimous)

 

 

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the recommendations on the future of the shared ICT service that serves Huntingdonshire District Council, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

      i.          Noted the final report submitted by Triple Value Impact (TVI) (Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report – confidential item).

     ii.          Agreed to the recommended option 1 (redesigned 3C ICT and Digital, Lead Authority remains Huntingdonshire District Council) and to delegate the responsibility for finalising the scope and detailed nature of the new agreement and associated activities to the Chief Executives and respective Portfolio Holders for each partnership council reporting on progress through the revised member board.

 

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 Digital Lead Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Operating Officer and Strategic Digital Lead Officer and External Consultant said the following:

      i.          The reference to legacy systems were systems that needed to be replaced.

     ii.          Originally the partnership agreement was a shared partnership agreement, but it had become more of a client, supplier relationship which would be renewed as part of the agreement.

   iii.          The data would be stored in a UK based data centre (which was a requirement of where any data would be moved to) with UK based staff who would be subjected to the living wage.

   iv.          With the move to the cloud there would be some risk, such as being impacted by Microsoft wide outages. These were very rare, .01% when these outages occurred and the resilience very good.

    v.          Some of the data would be stored in Microsoft data centres; Microsoft had a target to be carbon negative by 2030. Further information could be provided.

   vi.          The future of the ICT service was integral to the Our Cambridge programme and the work on the Council’s digital technology strategy.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to draft proposals developed through the Our Cambridge programme, which would enable the Council to achieve £6million net savings and requested the necessary permissions and delegations to progress.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for the Leader of the Council

i.               Agreed design principles for Communities Group and the Economy and Place Group, and delegated authority to the relevant Director/CEO to develop and implement internal organisation in line with Council policy.

ii.               Recommended to the Executive the inclusion of proposals in the public consultation that would impact service delivery on the strategic outline budget. Following consultation final decisions would go through the budget setting process.

iii.               Noted the overall approach to achieving £6m savings over the 25/26 and 26/27 budget cycle as recommended in the MTFS.

 

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 Operating Officer.

 

The Chief Operating Officer, Director of  Communities, Chief Finance Officer and the Leader said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               A neighbourhood-based approach would allow services such as housing, environmental health, estates, sport and leisure and community development, as example, to be delivered collectively and collaboratively, which would look at services from a resident’s perspective in the different neighbourhoods throughout the city with inclusion from Ward Councillors.

ii.               There were also other key public services that worked on a neighbourhood-based approach, particularly in health.  Worked had been undertaken to determine how the Council was better aligned with external health colleagues and integrated neighbourhoods to improve the working relationship. 

iii.               The neighbourhood approach would also benefit the Council’s external organisations such as the Police and health groups.

iv.               Savings referenced would be made across all groups in the Council.

v.                The report had been set out to establish the principles that could be taken out to consultation with staff and the community. The details would come back for full scrutiny at a future meeting. It was important to highlight that Officers were working behind the scenes to look at that detail.    

vi.               The process was not just about savings, the transformation programme was also about making a Council fit for purpose for the future, working more effectively and efficiently and better for residents.

vii.               Was looking at the Council’s internal staffing structure to enhance resilience, reduce cost and become more effective.  The Council had in place traditional structures for a long time, it was right to question whether they were still the correct structures to meet the needs of how the Council would operate moving forward.

viii.                Part of the Our Cambridge programme was to look at performance, how well were officers carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

ix.               Disputed that the Our Cambridge programme was taking too long; already significant changes had taken place.

x.                The way the Our Cambridge programme had outlined the purpose, was to talk more about the impact and outcome of what was trying to be achieved as a Council and not necessarily focused on the individual services.

xi.               Looking across the work that Officers undertook, the Council was a fundamental partner to public safety; shared the community safety partnership, provided environmental health services across the city, employed antisocial behaviour teams and enforcement teams.

xii.               While the Council were not the primary / lead contributor to public safety had contributed £14 million of health and wellbeing services

xiii.                The Council was also a housing provider in the City which was probably the most fundamental role for providing a safety net for residents.

xiv.               The Council were investing £100million in Abbey Ward which would take some of the health inequalities that currently existed with the current housing properties.

xv.               The 2.5% inflation figure was a baseline assumption that was used to calculate the budget gap. The Council’s budget for 2024/25 included £23 million income from fees and charges, although this did not include income from commercial property, of which there was an additional £10 million of income. There was also an additional £3.5 million in income from other commercial sources.

xvi.               The public budget consultation would ask high level questions, however there would still be opportunity to scrutinise those fees and charges that are proposed to change through the budget setting process.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

An update on the vacant possession strategy for Council Land at Hartree and approval to progress a CPO application as part of the strategic plan to meet programme timescales.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report referred to Hartree - Vacant Possession Strategy

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council. 

      i.          Approved Officer’s recommendations.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader of the Council  (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Leader.

 

Matter for Decision

In 2023/24, officers presented a range of projects submitted through two previous S106 funding rounds for investment in local community and sports facilities. These rounds had identified 30 projects with allocations of over £500,000 of S106 contributions that were approved by the (then) Executive Councillors for improving equipment and/or storage at a range of sports venues or community facilities across Cambridge.

 

Many of these projects had now been completed or are in the process of being delivered. This latest follow-up round (also being referred to as the ‘third phase’) drew on on-going dialogue with community groups and sports clubs, schools and other partner organisations. It picked up some sports projects that were not quite ready or developed enough for submission before now. The report also recommends S106 funding for strategic sports projects and investment in the light of further assessments of City Council facilities and new community and sports facilities coming on board this coming year.

 

The Officer’s report recommended allocating £360,000 of S106 funds to fourteen proposals relating to the community facilities, outdoor/indoor sports and swimming pool facilities contribution types. This was mostly about making timely use of those remaining generic S106 contributions that need to be contractually committed or spent, particularly within the next year. Officers envisaged that the projects proposed in this report could be delivered within six months, albeit that the implementation start dates may need to be phased.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing

      i.          Noted that £73,276 of outdoor sports S106 funds and £28,935 of community facilities S106 funds had been deallocated from projects to which they were previously assigned and were now available for allocating to relevant new projects (see paragraph 3.7 of the Officer’s report); and

     ii.          Allocated generic S106 funding from the relevant S106 contribution types, subject to business case approval and community use agreements (as appropriate), to the following project proposals (see Section 4 of the Officer’s report and the Appendix):

 

	Project proposals	Amount	S106 type
A	Grant to Chesterton Indoor Bowls Club: Indoor sports equipment	£7,000	Indoor Sports
B	Grant to Cambridge Gymnastics Academy for new gym training equipment	£20,000	Indoor Sports
C	Abbey Leisure Complex: sports changing room upgrades	£20,000	Indoor Sports
D	Grant to Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre: new gym equipment	£35,000	Indoor Sports
E	Grant to CamSkate for indoor skate equipment at RailPen sites at Newmarket Road Retail Park	£45,000	Indoor Sports
F	Pickleball markings at tennis courts in South, East & West/Central areas	£10,000	Outdoor Sports
G	Nightingale Recreation Ground: upgrade tennis courts	£65,000	Outdoor Sports
H	Nightingale Recreation Ground: playing pitch improvements	£30,000	Outdoor Sports
I	Abbey Astroturf pitch: new benches and team shelters around the new 3G pitch	£20,000	Outdoor Sports
J	Coldham’s Common: new Gaelic football posts	£3,000	Outdoor Sports
K	Additional tables and chairs at four Bowls Clubs within Cambridge	£10,000	Outdoor Sports
L	Jesus Green skate park: flood lighting and CCTV coverage	£20,000	Outdoor Sports
M	New community meeting room at Abbey Leisure Complex (related to a joint project funding with NHS England for mental health space)	£50,000	Community Facilities
N	Kings Hedges Learner Pool: light & sound equipment for pool users	£25,000	Swimming Pool

 

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, Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

The Community, Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Officers evaluated the community benefit of projects. If funding went to ‘closed clubs’  then community access agreements would be put in places so facilities were available to all.

     ii.          Jesus Green Association and local councillors were consulted on the CCTV and lighting installed at Jesus Green.

   iii.          Undertook to update Councillor Swift about Donkey Common skate ramps after the meeting.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an annual report on the work of the key strategic partnerships that the Council was involved in; and covers the recent decisions on the Cambridge & Peterborough Combined Authority.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Health and Community Safety

      i.          Agreed to work more closely with the Health and Wellbeing Board and Integrated Care Partnership and its sub-system (as detailed in paragraphs 3.42 – 3.46 of the Officer’s report) to ensure that the City Council’s role in prevention and wellbeing working in partnership with other public agencies could address the health needs and concerns of Cambridge residents.

     ii.          Agreed to continue to work with partners within the framework of the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership (as detailed in paragraphs 3.47 – 3.53 of the Officer’s report), identifying local priorities and taking action that would make a positive difference to the safety of communities in the city.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Chief Executive.

 

In response to the report Councillors asked for details about partnerships covered by sections of the report to be discussed by Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee 1 July. The Assistant Chief Executive and Leader of the Council undertook to respond to questions at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee 1 July.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The Community Grants scheme priorities were reviewed periodically to ensure they remained relevant and align with the Councils Corporate Plan and wider objectives. Similarly, the grant procedures were reviewed annually as part of a continuous improvement process, considering feedback from applicants and the experience of the Grants Team.

 

In addition to this, a full community grants review was started in 2022 with the introduction of a ‘light touch’ small grants application process for awards of up to £2,000. There was also agreement to begin the broader work required which would be developed alongside the ‘Our Cambridge Transformation Programme’. This included exploring the introduction of longer-term funding arrangements for organisations delivering ongoing essential services and infrastructure support to the voluntary sector; considering the challenges presented by the Area Committee grants process; and the potential to move to a digital grants platform.

 

The Community Grants Review was not driven by the need to make financial savings, but instead recognised the issues that were facing the voluntary and community sector (VCS). It reflected Officer’s understanding of the challenges the sector faced in responding to inequalities and prolonged financial hardship and how the Council could better work alongside VCS partners to deliver positive change for our communities.

 

Discussions were currently underway within Cambridgeshire about the potential to agree a set of shared principles across all public sector partners which would foster collaboration. Although these conversations were in the early stages, the community grants review provided an opportunity to embed these principles now.

 

There were three strands to the proposed new approach to community funding set out in section 4 of the Officer’s report. Running alongside this Officers were exploring with statutory partners whether funding schemes could align more closely together, both in terms of grant making and grant monitoring.

 

Decision of Leader

      i.          Approved the introduction of a twice-yearly Small Community Grants scheme replacing the previous Small Community Grants scheme and Area Committee Grants scheme, for applications with a value of £5,000 or less.

     ii.          Approved the continuation of the annual Main Community Grants scheme, for applications with a value over £5,000.

   iii.          Approved the introduction of multi-year funding agreements for specific provision within the City.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager.

 

The Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          There were sufficient staff resources in place to process the bi-annual grant cycle assessments.

     ii.          Moving to a digital grants platform would free up staff resources that could be reallocated to administration as required.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

i.To agree to implement a digital grants platform.
ii.To delegate responsibility to the Chief Operating Officer and Director of Communities to oversee the procurement of a digital grant’s platform and the smooth transition with its implementation.

Matter for Decision

Grant funding to community groups was a core component of the council’s approach to community wealth building, with funding of approximately £2m available annually to support the community and voluntary sector.

 

The Council Grants Team managed most of these grants and had a reputation for providing an exemplary service to community groups across the city.

 

The current grant management approach relied heavily on manual data entry systems, and there were fragmented grant streams available across the council, with different systems and processes for applicants to navigate to be able to access funding.

 

There were some risks and constraints with the current management approach for the council and applicants, and a comprehensive options appraisal had been completed to assess alternative approaches the council could consider.

 

Having assessed the strengths, weaknesses, and risks for a range of options detailed at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, the appraisal recommended that the council considered implementing a digital grant management platform. This would help to minimise risk, maximise efficiency and improve the applicant experience.

 

The appraisal further recommends completing an end-to-end systems audit and considered managing all community and voluntary grant funding streams included in the matrix at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report, via a digital grant’s platform, which would effectively become the new Grants Gateway.

 

Decision of Leader

      i.          Agreed to implement a digital grant platform.

     ii.          Agreed to delegate responsibility to the Director of Communities to oversee the procurement of a digital grant’s platform and a smooth transition to implementation.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager.

 

The Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Measurements on the impact of grants had to be proportionate to the amount of funding awarded such as fewer measures for smaller grants. There was no one size fits all approach. Officers could look at different types of measures such as pictures not just written records.

     ii.          The expected timeframe was to undertake procurement in the autumn then make a decision in spring 2025 on the successful digital platform candidate.

   iii.          Two meetings had been held, one with the Digital Lead, and one with the Procurement Officer regarding the procurement process. They agreed the timescales were reasonable and offered advice on how to undertake the procurement.

   iv.          Grant Officers would offer support to grant applicants online and in person to help them with the application process and ensure funding goes to appropriate recipients.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Leader  approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Leader.