Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
a) To propose revenue and
capital budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years
2021/22, (estimate), 2022/23, 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26 (forecast).
b) To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2021/22.
c) To recommend the updated Corporate Plan 2019/22.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) includes the updated Corporate Plan and
detailed revenue bids and savings and capital proposals and sets out the key
parameters for the detailed recommendations and budget finalisation being
considered at this meeting. This report reflects recommendations that will be
made to The Executive on 8 February 2021 and then to Council, for consideration
at its meeting on 25 February 2021.
Decision of the
Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
To recommend the Executive to:
i.
Approve Revenue Pressures and Bids shown in
Appendix C(b) and Savings shown in Appendix C(c).
ii.
Approve Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix
C(d).
iii.
Agree that there are no bids to be funded from
External or Earmarked Funds (which would be included as Appendix C(e).
iv.
Agree any recommendations for submission to the
Executive in respect of the proposals outlined in Appendix D(a) for inclusion
in the Capital Plan.
To recommend Council to:
i.
Approve delegation to the Chief Financial Officer
(Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax
taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form,
NNDR1, for each financial year) which is set out in Appendix A(a).
ii.
Approve the level of Council Tax for 2021/22 as set
out in Appendix A (b) (to follow for Council) and Section 4 [page 20 of
the BSR refers].
Note that the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime
Panel will meet by 3 February 2021 to consider the precept proposed by the
Police and Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority
will meet on 11 February 2021 and Cambridgeshire County Council will meet on 9
or 12 February 2021 to consider the amounts in precepts to be issued to the
City Council for the year 2021/22.
iii.
Approve delegation to the Head of Finance authority
to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring
and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with
the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).
iv.
Approve the revised Capital Plan for the General
Fund as set out in Appendix D(c) and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page
29 of the BSR.
v.
Note the impact of revenue and capital budget
approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the
budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 8, page 49 refers].
vi.
Approve the updated Corporate Plan 2019 - 2022,
attached at Appendix B.
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.
Members of the Executive
and Spokes Councillors who did not ordinarily attend the Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee joined the Committee for discussion on the budget.
In response to
members’ questions the Head of Finance confirmed:
i.
That
the quarter 3 financial management report supported the assumption in the
Budget Setting Report that the Council would have a balanced budget at the end
of the financial year.
ii.
When
the interim assessment was carried out in July a revised budget was put forward
which proposed using £2million of reserves.
iii.
Had
been through a couple more lockdowns since this period which posed additional
pressures but there had also been additional funding from Central Government.
iv.
Were
following requirements to spread the Collection Fund deficit over 3 years and
currently anticipating that only £1million of reserves would have to be used.
However they were yet to submit income compensation claims to government and go
through the reconciliation process.
S4682 Closure of Housing Cashiers [linked to
S4698 – HRA]
In response to
members questions Councillor Davey confirmed:
i.
The
Covid pandemic had provided the opportunity to look at the implications of
potentially shutting the Housing Cashiers. Wanted to offer an improved and
enhanced service. The consultation was currently on-going so they did not know
whether there would be any redundancies. Was in constant discussion with
Unions. There had been a 1% increase in arrears but did not think this was due
to shutting down offices but due to the impacts of the Covid pandemic. The
issue of poverty needed to be looked at.
S4679 Housing Enabling Officer
In response to
members questions Councillor Davey confirmed:
i.
The
post had been vacant for a few years this was why this post was being offered
up as a saving.
S4798 Selective Landlord Licensing [linked
to RI4797]
In response to
members questions the Strategic Director (SH) and Councillor Johnson confirmed:
i.
Officers
undertook a thorough investigation into this matter.
ii.
Noted discussions
which had taken place at Housing Scrutiny Committee, some elements were clear,
and some were not so clear. The feasibility study was useful as it provided a
lot of information about the private sector and as a consequence, enforcement
options could be considered.
URP 4739 Review and consideration of
possible alternative delivery models for the Arts Distribution Service
(including a stop).
In response to
members questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:
i.
The
revenue pressure arose because there had been a reduction in income as a result
of the pandemic.
ii.
A
decision had not been made regarding the service and it was currently being
reviewed.
iii.
Consideration
was being given as to whether the service could be digitised.
iv.
Noted
the description of this budget could have been clearer.
CAP 4787 Market Square project
In response to
members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:
i.
The
project had been slightly delayed given the deferment of the item from
Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee in January. It was anticipated that the item would be
brought back to the March Committee. This did not prevent the bid being
included in the budget. This would not affect any future consultation. The
market needed investment and updating.
CAP 4741 Investment programme for public
toilet re-purposed property assets [linked to II4754] and S4743 Public toilet
review and policy implementation.
In response to
members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:
i.
There
were 21 public toilets in varying states of condition. The review of the public
toilets may result in closing the least used toilets and investing in the
toilets used the most. Changing Places toilets were also being considered.
CAP4740 Creation of a new boat pumping
station near or on Stourbridge Common.
In response to
members questions Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:
i.
Regular
meetings had been held with Cam Boaters and a close eye would be kept on how
much maintenance was undertaken. Would continue to have regular meetings with
the community.
II4754 New business opportunities on Parks
and Open Spaces (not event related) [ linked to CAP 4741].
In response to
members questions Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:
i.
Officers
were working closely with Ward Councillors as this would affect certain wards
more than others.
ii.
Questioned
if the open spaces could be used for education or arts and culture events.
iii.
Once
applications had been received regarding proposed new activities and these had
been assessed, Ward Councillors would be consulted prior to the proposal moving
ahead.
iv.
Wanted
any business opportunities to reduce the use of diesel. If the activity
involved food, would want this to be sustainable.
v.
Questioned
if buildings could be repurposed for example as a hedgehog hospital.
B4715 Community Seed Funding Scheme – grass
root grants and B4813 Community Grants – additional Covid related support.
In response to
members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:
i.
There
was a £30,000 uplift in funding under B4813 because of the greater use of
community grants coming through because of Covid. This funding would be
allocated through Area Committee funding. Noted that not every community group
was large enough to be able to access the Area Committee grant process.
CAP4706 Cambridge Corn Exchange –
Infrastructure improvements and upgrades.
In response to
members questions the Strategic Director (SH) and Councillor Smith confirmed:
i.
The
Council was currently gathering information on the carbon footprint of the Corn
Exchange. The boiler work needed to be carried out urgently as it was extremely
inefficient.
ii.
Before
the pandemic the Corn Exchange had been achieving high numbers of audiences.
iii.
This
was an opportune time to change the boiler as the Corn Exchange was closed
because of the pandemic. The works would be as carbon neutral as possible
iv.
Maintenance
of the boiler had been undertaken.
v.
A
report would be brought to the next Environment and Community Scrutiny
Committee to provide further detail.
The Committee resolved
by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations
The Executive
Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of
Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations
Granted)
No conflicts of
interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
(a) To propose revenue and capital budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years 2021/22, (estimate), 2022/23, 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26 (forecast).
(b) To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2021/22.
(c) To recommend the updated Corporate Plan 2019/22.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) includes the updated Corporate Plan and detailed
revenue bids and savings and capital proposals and sets out the key parameters
for the detailed recommendations and budget finalisation being considered at
this meeting. This report reflects recommendations that will be made to The
Executive on 8 February 2021 and then to Council, for consideration at its
meeting on 25 February 2021.
Decision of the
Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
To recommend the Executive to:
i.
Approve Revenue Pressures and Bids shown in
Appendix C(b) and Savings shown in Appendix C(c).
ii.
Approve Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix
C(d).
iii.
Agree that there are no bids to be funded from
External or Earmarked Funds (which would be included as Appendix C(e).
iv.
Agree any recommendations for submission to the
Executive in respect of the proposals outlined in Appendix D(a) for inclusion
in the Capital Plan.
To recommend Council to:
i.
Approve delegation to the Chief Financial Officer
(Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax
taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form,
NNDR1, for each financial year) which is set out in Appendix A(a).
ii.
Approve the level of Council Tax for 2021/22 as set
out in Appendix A (b) (to follow for Council) and Section 4 [page 20 of
the BSR refers].
Note that the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime
Panel will meet by 3 February 2021 to consider the precept proposed by the
Police and Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority
will meet on 11 February 2021 and Cambridgeshire County Council will meet on 9
or 12 February 2021 to consider the amounts in precepts to be issued to the
City Council for the year 2021/22.
iii.
Approve delegation to the Head of Finance authority
to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring
and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with
the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).
iv.
Approve the revised Capital Plan for the General
Fund as set out in Appendix D(c) and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page
29 of the BSR.
v.
Note the impact of revenue and capital budget
approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the
budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 8, page 49 refers].
vi.
Approve the updated Corporate Plan 2019 - 2022,
attached at Appendix B.
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.
Members of the
Executive and Spokes Councillors who did not ordinarily attend the Strategy and
Resources Scrutiny Committee joined the Committee for discussion on the budget.
In response to
members’ questions the Head of Finance confirmed:
i.
That
the quarter 3 financial management report supported the assumption in the
Budget Setting Report that the Council would have a balanced budget at the end
of the financial year.
ii.
When
the interim assessment was carried out in July a revised budget was put forward
which proposed using £2million of reserves.
iii.
Had
been through a couple more lockdowns since this period which posed additional pressures
but there had also been additional funding from Central Government.
iv.
Were
following requirements to spread the Collection Fund deficit over 3 years and
currently anticipating that only £1million of reserves would have to be used.
However they were yet to submit income compensation claims to government and go
through the reconciliation process.
S4682 Closure of Housing Cashiers [linked to
S4698 – HRA]
In response to members
questions Councillor Davey confirmed:
i.
The
Covid pandemic had provided the opportunity to look at the implications of
potentially shutting the Housing Cashiers. Wanted to offer an improved and
enhanced service. The consultation was currently on-going so they did not know
whether there would be any redundancies. Was in constant discussion with
Unions. There had been a 1% increase in arrears but did not think this was due
to shutting down offices but due to the impacts of the Covid pandemic. The issue
of poverty needed to be looked at.
S4679 Housing Enabling Officer
In response to
members questions Councillor Davey confirmed:
i.
The
post had been vacant for a few years this was why this post was being offered
up as a saving.
S4798 Selective Landlord Licensing [linked
to RI4797]
In response to
members questions the Strategic Director (SH) and Councillor Johnson confirmed:
i.
Officers
undertook a thorough investigation into this matter.
ii.
Noted
discussions which had taken place at Housing Scrutiny Committee, some elements
were clear, and some were not so clear. The feasibility study was useful as it
provided a lot of information about the private sector and as a consequence,
enforcement options could be considered.
URP 4739 Review and consideration of
possible alternative delivery models for the Arts Distribution Service
(including a stop).
In response to
members questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:
i.
The
revenue pressure arose because there had been a reduction in income as a result
of the pandemic.
ii.
A
decision had not been made regarding the service and it was currently being
reviewed.
iii.
Consideration
was being given as to whether the service could be digitised.
iv.
Noted
the description of this budget could have been clearer.
CAP 4787 Market Square project
In response to
members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:
i.
The
project had been slightly delayed given the deferment of the item from
Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee in January. It was anticipated that the item would be
brought back to the March Committee. This did not prevent the bid being
included in the budget. This would not affect any future consultation. The
market needed investment and updating.
CAP 4741 Investment programme for public toilet
re-purposed property assets [linked to II4754] and S4743 Public toilet review
and policy implementation.
In response to
members questions Councillor Moore confirmed:
i.
There
were 21 public toilets in varying states of condition. The review of the public
toilets may result in closing the least used toilets and investing in the
toilets used the most. Changing Places toilets were also being considered.
CAP4740 Creation of a new boat pumping
station near or on Stourbridge Common.
In response to
members questions Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:
i.
Regular
meetings had been held with Cam Boaters and a close eye would be kept on how
much maintenance was undertaken. Would continue to have regular meetings with
the community.
II4754 New business opportunities on Parks
and Open Spaces (not event related) [ linked to CAP 4741].
In response to
members questions Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:
i.
Officers
were working closely with Ward Councillors as this would affect certain wards
more than others.
ii.
Questioned
if the open spaces could be used for education or arts and culture events.
iii.
Once
applications had been received regarding proposed new activities and these had
been assessed, Ward Councillors would be consulted prior to the proposal moving
ahead.
iv.
Wanted
any business opportunities to reduce the use of diesel. If the activity
involved food, would want this to be sustainable.
v.
Questioned
if buildings could be repurposed for example as a hedgehog hospital.
B4715 Community Seed Funding Scheme – grass
root grants and B4813 Community Grants – additional Covid related support.
In response to
members questions Councillor Smith confirmed:
i.
There
was a £30,000 uplift in funding under B4813 because of the greater use of
community grants coming through because of Covid. This funding would be
allocated through Area Committee funding. Noted that not every community group
was large enough to be able to access the Area Committee grant process.
CAP4706 Cambridge Corn Exchange –
Infrastructure improvements and upgrades.
In response to
members questions the Strategic Director (SH) and Councillor Smith confirmed:
i.
The
Council was currently gathering information on the carbon footprint of the Corn
Exchange. The boiler work needed to be carried out urgently as it was extremely
inefficient.
ii.
Before
the pandemic the Corn Exchange had been achieving high numbers of audiences.
iii.
This
was an opportune time to change the boiler as the Corn Exchange was closed because
of the pandemic. The works would be as carbon neutral as possible
iv.
Maintenance
of the boiler had been undertaken.
v.
A
report would be brought to the next Environment and Community Scrutiny
Committee to provide further detail.
The Committee
resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations
The Executive
Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of
Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations
Granted)
No conflicts of
interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
Recommend this report to Council, including the estimated Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2021/22 to 2023/24.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Council is
required to receive and approve, as a minimum, three main treasury management
reports each year.
The first and most
important is the Treasury Management Strategy (this report), which covers:
• capital plans (including prudential
indicators);
• a
Minimum Revenue Provision policy which explains how unfinanced capital
expenditure will be charged to revenue over time;
• the
Treasury Management Strategy (how investments and borrowings are to be
organised) including treasury indicators; and
• a
Treasury Management Investment Strategy (the parameters on how investments are
to be managed).
A mid-year treasury
management report is produced to update Members on the progress of the capital
position, amending prudential indicators as necessary, and advising if any
policies require revision.
The Outturn or
Annual Report compares actual performance to the estimates in the Strategy.
The statutory
framework for the prudential system under which local government operates is set
out in the Local Government Act 2003 and Capital Financing and Accounting
Statutory Instruments. The framework incorporates four statutory codes. These
are:
• the Prudential Code (2017 edition)
prepared by CIPFA;
• the
Treasury Management Code (2017 edition) prepared by CIPFA;
• the
Statutory Guidance on Local Authority Investments prepared by Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (effective 1 April 2018); and
• the
Statutory Guidance on Minimum Revenue Provision prepared by MHCLG (effective 1
April 2019).
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources
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 comment in response to the
report:
i.
Did not have any concerns with the borrowing
limits and thought that the council should be able to manage the level of debt.
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: Caroline Ryba
The Executive Councillor will recommend the strategy to Council. (Item to be considered by Council on 25 February 2021.)
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
This report presents the capital strategy of the council
together with a summary capital programme for the General Fund (GF) and Housing
Revenue Account (HRA). The previous capital strategy was approved by the
council on 25 February 2020. The strategy is focused on providing a framework
for delivery of capital expenditure plans over a 10-30 year period.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources
i.
To
recommend Council approved the Capital Strategy as set out in the officer
report.
ii.
Noted
the summary capital 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 Head of Finance.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Noted the report proposed the end of revenue
funding of capital programme, which was a substantial change. Questioned the
financial impact of borrowing over time and if there would be a burden on the
revenue budget.
ii.
Noted commitment to building 1000 new council
homes to Passivhaus standards but only where this was feasible.
iii.
Referred to ‘Doughnut economics’ which looked at
what helped address economic issues and what was sustainable.
iv. Referred
to the Asset Management Plan and noted that maintenance did not appear to be
done on a regular basis and commented this could lead to increased costs and
carbon foot print by the time the works were completed.
v.
The New Homes Bonus used to be seen as funding
for capital development but not anymore.
vi. Thanked
the Finance Team as they had maintained the Council in a good financial
position so felt a new approach could be tried.
vii.Asked what could be done to
encourage development of officers especially Planning Officers.
In response the Head of Finance said the following:
i.
Agreed that there was a fundamental change to
the way the council would fund its capital programme however it created a
revenue saving to the council, £2.3 million would be returned to the revenue
budget for service delivery. There would be a number of capital receipts
totalling £25 million in the next 5 - 10 years. Work had been undertaken with
services to identify capital works although this would need to be revisited and
extended. Where borrowing would increase the revenue pressure, this would be
reviewed at the Medium-Term Financial Strategy.
ii.
Could not say how many councils used revenue
resources to fund their capital programmes but considering the number of
councils who borrow, and that borrowing can only be used to fund capital expenditure,
there could not be many councils who had the capacity to do so.
iii.
Now was a good time to make changes to the way
in which the capital programme was funded as there were significant challenges
ahead. This linked to the transformation
programme and was an opportunity to consider whether the council needed all the
assets it had.
In response the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources said the following:
i.
Their ambition was to build the new council homes
to Passivhaus standards however this was where possible. Hoped would be
operating on zero carbon as soon as possible but this had to be balanced
against being able to build 1000 new council homes.
ii.
The Council were investigating the costs to
retrofit council housing stock so that they were carbon neutral.
iii.
The recruitment and retention of staff was
vital. The Planning Department was currently fully staffed. There had been some
work carried out regarding ‘golden hellos’.
The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
To approve the proposed approach to bringing forward the Council's General Fund Development programme.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding the
Delivery of General Fund Property Development Programme
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources
i.
Approved
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 Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to
endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the
recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Dave Prinsep
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on the activities of
the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the 5 October 2020
Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
i.
Noted
the update provided on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined
Authority Board held on the 25 November (reconvened on 27 November 2020) and on
27 January 2021.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Scrutiny Considerations
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.
Noted from the November Combined Authority Board
meeting that a special purpose vehicle had been created for the Cam Metro
project. Questioned the amount of money being spent on this project. Commented
that the financial commitments being entered into were
significant.
ii.
Noted that 3 affordable housing schemes had not
received funding and thought that they would have received funding.
In response the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships said the following:
i.
He had voted against the setting up of a special
purpose vehicle for the Cam Metro project.
ii.
Noted that there were a number
of affordable housing schemes which were being stalled. Ministers were waiting for the Combined
Authority Mayor to respond to a letter.
iii.
Welcomed the work undertaken on the University
of Peterborough.
The Committee noted the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor noted 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 Grant
To determine the preferred way forward when the legal basis for the existing experimental scheme comes to an end in July 2021.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report sought
the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety’s support for work
to enable the existing temporary barrier apparatus to remain in place from July
2021, whilst a more suited longer-term solution is developed.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Transport and
Community Safety
i.
Noted the outcomes of public and stakeholder
engagement and consultation, and behavioural monitoring, on the interim scheme
introduced from January 2020;
ii.
Noted the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on
every-day life and visitor numbers to the city, and the limitations on
undertaking a fully comprehensive evaluation of the scheme’s effects, through
2020;
iii.
Supported a request to Cambridgeshire County
Council for Traffic Regulation Orders to become permanent, enabling the
existing controls and a fuller appraisal of their effects to continue beyond
13th July 2021;
iv.
Requested that officers continue to investigate and
develop a more sympathetic and suited longer-term solution that addresses the
primary limitations of the existing interim scheme and aligns with parallel
work with partner organisations and groups to better manage access to the
city-centre.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Scrutiny Considerations
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Public Realm
Engineering & Project Delivery Team Leader.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Noted that more people disagreed that the
barrier improved safety and the environment. The current barrier needed to be
replaced with something better. Expressed concern that the committee were being
asked to make a restriction permanent and that the current barrier’s location
may not be the most suitable permanent location. Questioned why the County
Council as Highway Authority were not leading on this project.
ii.
Noted that a minority of consultation responses
felt that the barrier provided safety and environmental improvements. Noted
that work could be done to see if the barrier could be located somewhere else,
but a barrier needed to be present to protect the public. Noted that the visual impact was not good and a longer-term solution was needed. Disabled drivers
needed to be considered.
iii.
Noted that the threat of terrorism needed to be
taken seriously but also noted the impact the control would have on the architecture
in the area.
iv.
Noted that cyclists felt the barrier made them
feel less safe.
v.
Noted at section 6.9 of the officer’s report
that there was little change in the personal injury reports. Also noted that
2020 was an unusual year and the respondents to the consultation may not
reflect those if it was undertaken in more usual times.
In response the Public Realm Engineering & Project
Delivery Team Leader said the following:
i.
The interim scheme had shown potential benefits
of the barrier controls. Noted the consultation responses provided mixed views
on the barrier. It was hoped that the negative features of the temporary
barrier could be addressed in any replacement scheme which came forward.
ii.
Temporary and experimental orders had a maximum
duration of 18 months this being considered a reasonable period to be able to
test the benefits of the controls. After 18 months the controls are removed or
made permanent.
iii.
The County Council were a party to the
discussions and were supportive of bringing the controls forward. The City
Council would lead on the introduction of controls because the City Council
understood the city’s needs more than the County Council.
iv.
The number of personal injury accidents did
fluctuate, and it was better to judge this based on 3-5 year
period. Personal injuries in the area were running at 1-2 per year. Noted in
2019 there were 4 cases. The County Council did not have any personal injury
cases recorded however was aware from a consultation response that there had
been a cycling conflict incident. It seemed that the personal injury rates were
similar to the rates before the temporary barrier was
put in place.
The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
commented:
i.
Work was in place for a new barrier location,
the current location was not fixed.
ii.
Kings Parade was identified as a high-risk area.
iii.
Work was on-going and the public would be
consulted on the final design to ensure that it suited the city and the
historic core.
The Committee voted on recommendations 2.1 (i), (ii) and
(iv) these were endorsed unanimously.
The Committee voted on recommendation 2.1 (iii) this was
endorsed by 4 votes to 0.
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: John Richards
Update on programme and core site summary baseline business plan.
Information report, no decision required.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report provided an update on the North East Cambridge
(NEC) programme and outlined progress against the three key projects associated
with its strategic regeneration.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
i.
Noted the update on progress across the programme
ii.
Noted the progress against the projects which are
managed in line with their statutory and legal governance and management
arrangements.
iii.
Noted that a further update will be submitted to
Strategy and Resources committee in 2022 (any reserved matters decision
requirements will be reported to the relevant Committee and Anglian Water’s
Board as required)
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Scrutiny Considerations
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.
Noted a dip in housing provision since the
Darwin Green development as there were no other major schemes which had been
brought forward.
ii.
The NEC development was an important site which
was adjacent to the city and was in a sustainable location but there was still
a lot of work which needed to be done to address sustainability aspects of the
development.
iii.
Asked for clarification regarding the density of
the development.
In response the Strategic Director said the following:
i.
The proposals regarding the density of the
development were still at an early stage; a balance was required between the
needs of a new district and any planning framework determined. On the core part
of the site there would be a normal range of housing with 2-3 storeys, 4-6
storeys and 8 storeys. The project was still in the early stages.
The Committee endorsed the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive
Councillor.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
As shareholder, to inform the Board of Directors of Cambridge City Housing Company of the comments of the Council for consideration in finalising the Business Plan for the Company.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report presented
an update on the Council’s intermediate housing company, Cambridge City Housing
Company Limited (CCHC).
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
i.
Noted
the comments of the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee on the draft
Business Plan; and
ii.
Informed
the Board of Directors of Cambridge City Housing Company of the comments of the
Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee/Council for consideration in
finalising the Business Plan
iii.
Requested
a further review of the Housing Company’s acquisition policy and future plans prior to the Council’s loan refinancing due in
April 2022.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Scrutiny Considerations
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 when the Housing Company was
originally set up, properties were put into the company which the council
intended to let at sub-market rent. Asked what level this was in relation to
market rent.
ii.
Noted that properties released from the Housing
Revenue Account which were used to house homeless people was an expansion of
Town Hall lettings which was previously run through the private sector. The
existing programme intended to provide sub-market rents.
The Scrutiny Committee resolved by 5 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. Responses to
the members’ questions are not included within the minutes as these were
provided during exempt session.
The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive
Councillor.
Lead officer: Dave Prinsep
To continue to work with the key partnerships so that together the Council and its partners can address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge, to the overall benefit of citizens.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 18/05/2021
Effective from: 08/02/2021
Decision:
Matter for Decision
This report provided an update on the work of the following
partnerships:
• The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Combined Authority (including the Business Board)
• Greater
Cambridge Partnership
• Fast Growing
Cities
• London-Stanstead-Cambridge
Consortium, and the
• Cambridge –
Milton Keynes – Oxford Arc.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
i.
Noted the contents of the report and agreed to
continue to work with the Greater Cambridge Partnership, Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Combined Authority, Fast Growing Cities,
London-Stanstead-Cambridge Consortium and the Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford Arc, so that the Council and
its partners can address the strategic issues and challenges affecting
Cambridge City, to the overall benefit of citizens.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Scrutiny Considerations
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.
Noted the County Council had put a number of residents parking schemes on hold. Asked whether
there was any progress on this. Noted a motion had been tabled regarding this
at the last County Council Full Council meeting.
ii.
Asked for an update on the Combined Authority’s
affordable housing programme and Eastern Access project.
iii.
Noted the Combined Authority were running an
e-scooter pilot and asked whether there was a public process for people to be
able to provide feedback.
iv.
With regards to the Cambridge to Oxford Arc
noted concerns regarding sustainability of water supply and that earlier
reports of the Arc stated that water usage could double which could impact on
ecological issues.
In response the Executive Councillor for External
Partnerships said the following:
i.
Expressed disappointment regarding the County
Council’s decision to put residents parking schemes on hold. Noted funding was
still available and that a couple of schemes had been implemented.
ii.
Had questioned the Mayor on what had happened to
the £45 million of the £100 million affordable housing scheme. The Combined
Authority Mayor had stated that the scheme was about to be approved however he
was not persuaded that the Civic Servants were persuaded. There had been a good
response to the Eastern Access Project consultation and the dialogue would
continue. There were a range of issues affecting the eastern wards.
Improvements were required on Newmarket Road.
iii.
The Cambridge to Oxford Arc wasn’t a massive
growth zone; there were issues regarding connectivity and different needs of
specific sections. A document had been published looking at the impact on Chalk
Streams which was also being considered as part of the Joint Local Plan. Noted
that the Liberal Democrat amendment regarding water conservation options for
the existing housing stock had been supported at Housing Scrutiny Committee.
The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety
said the following:
i.
Would discuss with officers how information
could be put on the City Council’s website to advise members of the public to
direct any feedback regarding the Combined Authority’s e-scooter pilot scheme
to Voi and the Combined Authority.
The Committee noted the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor noted 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: Graham Saint
To agree the joint response to West Suffolk Local Plan (Regulation 18) Issues and Options
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 16/02/2021
Effective from: 16/02/2021
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL
Record of Executive
Decision
Response to West
Suffolk Local Plan (Regulation 18) Issues and Options |
Decision of: |
Councillor Katie Thornburrow, Executive Councillor
for Planning Policy and Open Spaces |
||
Reference: |
20/URGENCY/P&T/23 |
||
Date
of decision: |
21
December 2020 |
Recorded
on: |
21.12.2020 |
Decision Type: |
Non Key Decision |
||
Matter for Decision: |
Response to West Suffolk Local Plan (Regulation 18) Issues and Options |
||
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):
|
To agree the
joint response to West Suffolk Local Plan (Regulation 18) Issues and Options.
The West
Suffolk Local Plan (WSLP) will provide strategic and local policies that will
enable and guide the delivery of sustainable growth to 2040. The
Issues and Option stage is the very beginning of the process of producing a
Local Plan. Its scope is to identify the key strategic issues. The
consultation addresses and sets out options and initial ideas for the
strategic policies in areas such as housing and economic growth and where the
growth might take place (distribution), and the provision of strategic
infrastructure. This report focuses on matters of interest to Greater
Cambridge. The
consultation materials are available online: https://westsuffolk.inconsult.uk/consult.ti/WSLP_Issues_and_Options/consultationHome The
deadline for comments is 22 December 2020. |
||
The Executive
Councillor’s decision(s): |
Agreed
the joint response to West Suffolk Local Plan (Regulation 18) Issues and
Options. |
||
Reasons for the decision: |
As
detailed in Appendix 1. |
||
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning
and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.
|
||
Report: |
Please see Appendix 1.
|
||
Conflicts of
interest: |
None
|
||
Comments: |
|
Lead officer: Jenny Nuttycombe