Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
To note the annual report and agree to its publication on the City Council website.
Decision Maker: Leader of the Council
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report set out progress made during
2018/19 on implementing the objectives set out in the Corporate Plan 2016-19.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External
Partnerships
i.
Noted the achievements during third year of the Corporate
Plan 2016 to 2019 and agreed the annual report be published.
ii.
Agreed to the annual report being reported alongside the
annual complaints report, to one committee in future years.
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 Corporate
Strategy.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Commented that the report was drafted from the
glass half full perspective and the report needed to contain more information.
For example Appendix A on p49 of the agenda referred
to the requirement to provide 40% affordable housing. The delivery of 40%
affordable housing was expected from all developers and not just the council
when it was developing a site. Commented that the ‘Dual Diagnosis Team’ had
ceased to exist. Referred to recycling rates (on p68 of the agenda) which were
over 50% and questioned if this was the City Council’s recycling rate or
whether it was a joint recycling rate with South Cambs
District Council (SCDC) as SCDC tended to had a better recycling rate. Commented that it would be better to have a
rolling average to compare the recent figures with.
ii.
Referred to p67 of the agenda and the investment in
solar panels.
The Head of Corporate Strategy said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
He would liaise with the Planning Service to find
out whether all developers delivered 40% affordable housing on development
sites.
ii.
It had been a couple of years since the shared
waste service had been operating so recycling rates for SCDC and City had been
combined for some time.
iii.
He would liaise with the Head of Environmental
Services regarding the queries relating to Streets and Open Spaces.
The Chief Executive referred members to p66 and p76 of the agenda which
contained information about the Council’s own emissions.
The Strategic Director confirmed that further funding has been
identified by the Council and hoped that the service would be up and running
again soon.
The Benefits Manager stated that the council had moved away from council
tax benefit to a council tax reduction scheme following the introduction of
universal credit.
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: Andrew Limb
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since
the 25 March Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy
and External Partnerships
i.
Noted the update provided
on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on the 27
March and 29 May and 26 June 2019.
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.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Referred to p95 of the agenda, which noted that the
non- statutory spatial framework had been withdrawn. Asked whether this would
impact on the City Council’s Local Plan process.
ii.
Referred to p97 of the agenda and queried whether
the work being done on skills by the Combined Authority was the same as that
done by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP).
iii.
Expressed their view that the City Council did not
need to be part of a Combined Authority to bid for Housing Infrastructure
Funding (HIF).
iv.
Expressed concern regarding the speed and progress
of Combined Authority projects. From
March 2019 a significant number of projects that the Combined Authority was
involved with were still at an early stage.
v.
Commented that the Combined Authority had spent a
lot of money on consultants and that limited progress appeared to have been
made ‘on the ground’.
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Understood that the non-statutory spatial framework
was due to go back to the Combined Authority Board in September. This was not a
binding document. The Combined Authority needed to be clearer what its
ambitions were regarding housing.
ii.
Work undertaken by the Combined Authority on skills
was a wider skills strategy, they were putting more funding into further
education. Their growth company was going to bid for a further £2 million
funding. The GCP tended to focus more on apprenticeships.
iii.
Commented that if members looked in detail at large
HIF bids, only a Combined Authority were allowed to bid for this level of
funding. ie: over £100
million. The City Council would not have been able to bid for that level of
funding had it not been part of a Combined Authority.
iv.
The Combined Authority had big ambitions; some
delays were as a result of the amount of time that Central Government was
spending on Brexit. There was no dialogue regarding Cambridge South train
station, this was meant to be completed by 2025 but Central Government and
Network Rail were silent. Cambridge
needed the Cambridge South train station and proof could be given by the
success of Cambridge North train station.
v.
To be effective in securing funding, the Combined
Authority still needs to do much more work on prioritising projects.
The Committee noted the update.
The Executive Councillor noted the update.
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
Shared Service Annual reports for 2018/19 for approval by Exec Cllr.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
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 2018/19.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance
and Resources
i.
Noted the content of the
report.
ii.
Agreed to bring a report
to the next Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee regarding proposals for
the joint scrutiny of shared services
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 whether there were plans to reapply for the Lexcel accreditation for the Legal Service.
ii.
Asked about the weakness of customer feedback for
Legal Services and what percentage of staff responded to the request for
feedback.
iii.
Referred to p121 of the agenda and two significant
ICT service disruptions and queried whether the correct key performance indicators
(KPIs) were in place.
iv.
Noted across the shared services that there were
issues with recruitment.
v.
Noted that the Legal Services had made savings of
£200,000 and commented that the service had been doing well in difficult times.
The Head of Legal Practice said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Legal Services were unable to apply for the Lexcel accreditation because there was a requirement for
separate systems that the service was unable to achieve. It was however a good
exercise to undertake to check their standards against.
ii.
Legal Services had a 30% client satisfaction survey
return rate. As part of the intelligent client process he wanted to encourage
more officers to provide feedback on the service regardless of whether this was
good or bad.
iii.
Acknowledged that there was an issue with
recruitment, but that this wasn’t limited to the council. He was working with the Head of HR to try and
make jobs as attractive as we could.
The Head of ICT said the following in response to members’ questions:
i.
Although there had been outtages
these were not significant in the overall delivery of the service.
ii.
The Council Anywhere project was underway and there
were no specific KPIs for this project. Acknowledged that this project had
encountered delays but the project was being carefully managed by officers.
The Executive Councillor made the following
comments:
i.
He was trying to get the shared services reports
standardised.
ii.
Asked for reports to provide information on savings
for each council for future reports.
iii.
Acknowledged that the service outtages
did mean that staff were not able to work effectively
for several days.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
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: Fiona Bryant
(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests
for revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, if appropriate, as detailed in
report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing
from 2018/19 to 2019/20, where relevant, as detailed in report appendix.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report gave a summary of actual income and expenditure compared to
the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position). The report outlined the
revenue and capital budget variances with explanations. It outlined specific
requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into
2019/20.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy
and External Partnerships
i.
Agreed to carry forward requests totalling £651,630 revenue funding from
2018/19 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C
ii. Agreed to carry forward
requests of £437k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D.
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.
Noted that savings were budgeted for but that these
weren’t quite achieved.
ii.
Questioned what stopped savings being made as part
of the support services review.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Savings were expected to be made on support
services through contracts and procurements; some savings were delivered but
unfortunately they were not able to achieve as many savings as had been
budgeted for.
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: Chris Humphris
(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests
for revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, if appropriate, as detailed in
report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing
from 2018/19 to 2019/20, where relevant, as detailed in report appendix.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report presented a summary of the
2018/19 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. Explanations
had been reported to individual Executive Councillors / Scrutiny Committees and
were reproduced here.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance
and Resources
i)
Recommended to Council to carry forward requests totalling £923,000k revenue
funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C of the officers
report.
ii)
Recommended to Council to carry forward requests of £14,539k capital resources
from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital
spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officers
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
Officer updated her report:
i.
Referred to p225 of the
agenda and stated that the Mill Road cemetery access and main footpath rephasing should show a carry forward of £20,000 which had
been omitted.
ii.
Referred to p194 of the
agenda and the carry forward request contained in recommendation 2.b, this
should read: Carry forward requests of £14,539k £14,519k capital
resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased
net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officers report.
iii.
Referred to p195 of the
agenda and the variance and increased use of General fund Reserves figure, this
should read £1214k and not £1956k.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Queried the Bereavement Service’s loss in income
and what the service’s future plans were.
ii.
Commented that green burial
sites were getting more popular and perhaps the council should look into this.
iii.
Referred to Appendix D to
the report and the number of significant carry forwards on capital, this year
it was £14 million and last year it was £10 million. Queried whether there was
an issue on project delivery and whether the growing backlog meant there was no
capacity to deliver projects.
iv.
Referred to p223 of the
agenda and the vehicle replacement programme.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Work on the A14 had led to a decline in demand for
the crematorium service. This should recover when the road re-opened. The City
Council expected some compensation from Highways England.
ii.
Income levels may not recover fully to pre-A14 work
levels due to competition from another crematorium in the area.
iii.
The City Council Crematorium should benefit from
A14 road works in the long term as it would be in a better location.
iv.
With regards to the query about rephasing,
items are rephrased for a number of reasons, including those outside the
control of the council. There were relatively few underspends which were
released back into revenue.
v.
Treasury Management Capital loans were those due to
be given to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) and a local bond to Allia, this was where large rephasing
on financial transactions had taken place.
vi.
The Head of Commercial Services was undertaking a
review of the Council’s fleet vehicles.
The Chief Executive commented that the Bereavement Service was looking
at income generating options, for example potential investment in a café at the
crematorium. The service would also look at developing their marketing
practices and relationships that they had with funeral directors.
The Executive Councillor commented that most of the capital carry
forwards were loans and bonds associated with the Cambridge Investment
Partnership (CIP) and Allia.
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: Chris Humphris
(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests
for revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, if appropriate, as detailed in
report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing
from 2018/19 to 2019/20, where relevant, as detailed in report appendix.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report presented a summary of actual income and expenditure
compared to the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position). The report gave an
overview of the revenue and capital budget variances with explanations and
outlined specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget
underspends into 2019/20.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance
and Resources
i.
Approved
carry forward requests totaling £85,080 revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20
as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report.
ii.
Approved
carry forward requests of £3,116k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 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 Head of Finance.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Referred to the £50k payment an ICT creditor on
p186 of the agenda.
ii.
Acknowledged the savings which had been made by the
Legal Services Department.
iii.
Queried whether the Property Department was under
budgeting for income and being overly prudent which meant that services were
proposed to be cut when they didn’t need to be.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Confirmed that no payment was due to the council
from the ICT contract.
ii.
Budgeting for property income was not straight
forward due to rent reviews and some rents that depend on the turnover of the
tenant. An experienced Accountant works
with the Head of Property Services to review the property portfolio annually to
calculate budgets.
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: Chris Humphris
To approve the recommendations arising from a review of the Council's commercial property portfolio and operational property including an Asset Management Plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
The Officer’s report set out a proposal entitled Property Review.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance
and Resources
i.
Approved
the officer’s recommendation
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 (by 3 votes to 0) 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 resolved (by 2 votes to 2 and on the Chair’s casting vote)
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: Dave Prinsep
To approve the proposed specification and procurement plan for the Council’s building cleaning contract.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The existing building cleaning contract is due to expire June 2020, the
Executive Councillor’s approval was sought to
re-procure the service.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Asked
Officers to develop proposals for the new contract on the feasibility of paying
at least £10 / hour to contracted staff; to ensure that the evaluation of the
current contract is used to inform the specification for the new contract; and
to prepare a stringent contract monitoring plan for Year One of the next
contract
ii.
Approved the re-procurement of the Building Cleaning
contract, subject to best value considerations.
iii.
Delegated to the Head of Environmental Services authority to
take decisions to determine the specification, evaluate tenders and award one
or more contracts for cleaning in consultation with the Executive Councillor,
Chair and Opposition 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 Head of
Environmental Services.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Expressed sympathy with the comments made by the
unions during the public question slot. Having read the report could not see
why the recommendation could not be approved and the Executive Councillor asked
to do some further investigation, the main issue seemed to be management.
Commented that with a 0.6 FTE (full time equivalent) post and 5 client managers
there should be sufficient capacity to manage the contract in house. An
in-house bid should be permitted.
ii.
Questioned if the capacity pressure changed as the
tender had been split into 5 different lots.
iii.
Expressed concerns regarding a desire to
sub-contract to make savings as there was no requirement to require
sub-contractors to pay £10/hour to staff.
iv.
Commented that the previous contract was able to
have an in-house bid because people were employed by the council as this
service was currently contracted out, an in-house bid could not be submitted.
The Strategic Director and Head of Environmental Services’ said the
following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Under the 2015 procurement regulations the council
itself could not bid for the contract.
ii.
Commented
that significantly more resource would be required to manage the building
cleaning contract if it was undertaken in house than 0.6 FTE.
iii.
The different lots had been proposed because the
cleaning contract was specialist work and might enable more people to be able
to submit a bid. The current contractor sub-contracted parts of the cleaning
contract due to the specialist nature of the work.
iv.
The current procurement policy required the council
to pay the real living wage, if they changed the requirement for this contract
it could have a dramatic effect on other contracts which would be coming up for
re-procurement in the coming years.
v.
Had the ability to make an assessment if the
service was in –house whilst the procurement proceeds but this came with risks.
The issue was to do with capacity to do the work and how this would fit into
the management structure of the council, 4 years after the service was
contracted out. Staff would be on different terms and conditions and it would
take time to harmonise these. Performance Management would also require
managerial time.
The Executive Councillor made the following
comments:
i.
He wanted to make sure that the contract was
monitored properly.
ii.
When the contract was let in 2015, the existing
contractor came on good references but did not live up to these immediately.
Strict contract management needed to be in place.
The
Executive Councillor proposed an
additional recommendation to become new (i) to:
i. Ask Officers to develop proposals for the new contract on the feasibility
of paying at least £10 / hour to contracted staff; to ensure that the
evaluation of the current contract is used to inform the specification for the
new contract; and to prepare a stringent contract monitoring plan for Year One
of the next contract.
On a show of hands the Committee unanimously
approved the amendment.
The Committee approved the recommendations:
-
Unanimously to endorse
recommendation i
-
Unanimously to endorse
recommendation ii
-
By 3 votes to 2 to
endorse recommendation iii.
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: Joel Carré
To authorise officers to undertake the re-tendering and award of the Councils Insurance Services Contract.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The existing Insurance Services contract is due to expire 31 March 2020,
the Executive Councillor’s approval was sought to
re-tender the service in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure
Rules.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Authorised officers to undertake the
re-tendering and award of the Council’s Insurance Service contract for an
initial 3 years to 31 March 2023 with the Council’s option to extend the
contract for a further period up to 2 years to 31 March 2025, subject to the
preferred tender price being with 10% or less of the approved budget and if
necessary to seek the approval of the Strategic Director to any additional
expenditure.
ii.
Authorised officers to review the Local
Government Mutual offering to establish if this is a viable alternative to the
traditional insurance arrangements, the review will also include the Local
Government procurement arrangements as the Local Government Mutual will not
participate in a formal tender exercise.
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 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: Karl Tattam
Recommend the Officer’s report to Council, which includes the Council's actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2018/19.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 27/08/2019
Effective from: 01/07/2019
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 2018/19 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
i.
Recommended to Council to approve the report which
included the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2018/19.
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.
Queried whether the New Homes Grant was included
within the figure contained on p145 of the agenda.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The New Homes Grant was revenue but there was the
ability to use it for capital.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
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: Steve Bevis