Decisions

To note the progress on Cambridge City Council's Affordable Housing Programme as funded by the Combined Authority Devolution grant.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the programme to deliver 500 Council homes by March 2022 with funding from the Combined Authority.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

       i.          Noted the overall progress on the Combined Authority programme to deliver 500 Council rented homes.

     ii.          Noted the overall Cambridge Investment Partnership programme.

   iii.          Approved (subject to specific project approvals) the addition of the Meadows Centre & Buchan Street site to the Affordable Housing Programme.

   iv.          Noted the updated reporting arrangements with the Combined Authority.

 

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 Manager, Housing Development Agency.

 

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

       i.          Suggested that a covering report listing all sites under development, budgets and delays would be very useful as an overview.

     ii.          Suggested that it was good that housing was being delivered but questioned how the Committee could be sure that this was the most efficient delivery method. A clear tracking of projects against the predicted budgets was needed.

 

The Manager, Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Stated that 611 homes were being delivered against a target of 500. These were a mix of new properties and re-provision and would be delivered very close to the original budget.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

To agree the policies that will be identified as Strategic Policies in respect of Neighbourhood Planning.

Matter for Decision

 

The report sought approval for the schedule of strategic polices of the adopted Cambridge Local Plan 2018 for the purposes of neighbourhood planning.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

       i.          Agreed the schedule attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, containing the policies that are considered strategic for the purposes of neighbourhood planning, taking into account the broad guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and the planning practice guidance.

 

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.  The report referred to Neighbourhood Plans (NP) which were introduced by the Localism Act (2011) to provide a planning tool for local people to use to guide future development, regeneration and conservation of an area.  Government policy and practice guidance for neighbourhood planning had set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in associated planning practice guidance. NP were prepared by local communities, and in Cambridge by Neighbourhood Forums. 

 

In response to comments from the Committee, the Director for Planning and Economic Director and Planning Policy Manager said the following:

       i.          The table in Appendix 1, of the Officer’s report (p440) of the agenda pack outlined the policies from the adopted Cambridge Plan 2018 that are recommended to be strategic policies in line with Central Government guidance.

     ii.          Regarding non-strategic policies it was possible for a local community to take a different view in a NP to that of the Local Plan (LP). The Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans together provide a context for considering planning applications.

       i.          A NP had to demonstrate general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan.

 

The Committee:

 

 The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

 

The report sought approval for the Local Plan and Housing Monitoring for approval.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

                i.          Agreed to publish the Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report 2017-2018 (included as Appendix 1), with any further minor editing changes delegated to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they relate to technical matters.

              ii.           Agreed that in future, a Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report is produced, and that these future Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Reports would  be agreed for publication by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council), unless the Authority Monitoring Report identified any significant issue with the implementation of any Local Plan or Area Action Plan policy that requires more detailed consideration by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport at a meeting;

            iii.          Agreed that a decision on whether to submit a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement (relating to five year housing land supply) to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for consideration would be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport,  Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council) and that the decision will be made before 1 April each year as required by national planning guidance;

            iv.          That, whether or not it is decided to prepare a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement, the housing trajectory and five year supply calculations will be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council);

             v.          Approved to seek agreement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire should be considered together for the purposes of the Housing Delivery Test; and

            vi.          Agreed that, if on publication of the annual Housing Delivery Test results, an Action Plan was necessary in this or future years, it would be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting.

 

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.  The report set out the current processes for monitoring the Local Plan and housing delivery, and to propose a new approach to the decision making processes for the preparation, consultation, publication and submission of monitoring documents, such as the Authority Monitoring Report and housing trajectory.

 

Councillor Bick welcomed the report and the joint working with South Cambridgeshire District Council. He requested that any decision made outside of the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee that the Chair and Spokes was included in the consultation process as was standard procedure with Cambridge City Council. 

 

It was unanimously resolved to do so and the recommendations changed accordingly (additional text underlined).

 

                i.           Agreed to publish the Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report 2017-2018 (included as Appendix 1), with any further minor editing changes delegated to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they relate to technical matters.

              ii.          Agreed that in future, a Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report is produced, and that these future Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Reports would  be agreed for publication by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council), unless the Authority Monitoring Report identified any significant issue with the implementation of any Local Plan or Area Action Plan policy that requires more detailed consideration by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport at a meeting.

            iii.          Agreed that a decision on whether to submit a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement (relating to five year housing land supply) to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for consideration would be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport,  Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council) and that the decision will be made before 1 April each year as required by national planning guidance.

            iv.          That, whether or not it is decided to prepare a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement, the housing trajectory and five year supply calculations will be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council).

             v.          Approved to seek agreement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire should be considered together for the purposes of the Housing Delivery Test; and

            vi.          Agreed that, if on publication of the annual Housing Delivery Test results, an Action Plan was necessary in this or future years, it would be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting.

 

In response from a question from Councillor Payne regarding the number of the homelessness recorded as 67 and the number of accepted as homeless and in priority need was 38 between April 2017 and March 2018 (p382 of the agenda pack); the Director of Planning and Economic Development responded that he would request a detailed explanation from the relevant officer.

 

The Committee:

 

 The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport approved the recommendations.

 

To agree the Cambridge Northern Fringe Area Action Plan - Issues & Options 2 consultation document for publication.

Matter for Decision

 

The report sought approval for the joint Cambridge Northern Fringe Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2 and supporting documents to be published for consultation.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

i.          Approved the Cambridge Northern Fringe Issues and Options 2 for Regulation 18 public consultation in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for a period of six weeks jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council (Appendix 1 as amended attached to the Officer’s report).

ii.          Approved the Statement of Consultation (Appendix 2 attached to the Officer’s report).

iii.          Noted the findings of the Interim Sustainability Appraisal and Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendices 3 and 4 attached to the Officer’s report).

iv.          Agreed to delegate authority to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to consider and agree, as is consistent with this Council’s Corporate Objectives, any changes proposed by South Cambridgeshire District Council.

v.          Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make editorial changes to the Issues and Options Report and supporting documents prior to the commencement of the consultation period (to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications).

 

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 Director of Planning and Economic Development. The report referred to the Cambridge Northern Fringe East area which had been designated in the new local plans for both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire as an area for regeneration. The area extent, and the quantum and phasing of development, was proposed to be established through the production of a joint Area Action Plan (AAP).

 

In response to the Committee’s comments the Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

       i.          The use of the term ‘Knowledge District’ was envisaged as a positive signal to show monetary value could be gained through the industry of knowledge rather than other kind of industries such as manufacturing.

     ii.          Important to understand these were statutory documents.

   iii.          Noted the Committee’s comments they were pleased to include the science park as part of the development. This was necessary as there was limited land available in an urban area and there would be a different way of thinking  to show how the park could be used

   iv.          Officers would have to justify with evidence and viability the basis on which the figures for the employment and housing numbers had been referenced in the report.

    v.          The reality of developing creative quarters, such as artist studios instead of tech industries, was that creative quarters were not as viable and would not pass the test of ‘soundness’ in a Local Plan. However creative sectors could be developed in the long term,

   vi.          Noted the Committee’s concern regarding inequality with regard to the lack of affordable business spaces. It was possible with policy framework to secure additional benefits which would not be exclusive to those businesses on the science park as had occurred in the city previously, particularly with the tech industry.

 vii.          Affordable enterprises and business spaces were being considered at how this might be included. It was important to remember that this would have a reflective cost and further work and consultation was needed on how this could be delivered.

viii.          Officers recognised the need to work with Members and residents’ groups whom had the knowledge and experience of the locality to share.

   ix.          Engagement with members of the public through area committee meetings and local residents association on the development had begun. These groups had been asked to identify other resident groups / organisations to further cascade the engagement and consultation process.

    x.          It was important to identify all the wide range of users within the locality of the development, various businesses, employees and operators who used the science park, residents who lived adjacent to the park and those residents who lived on the city edge such as those in Milton. 

   xi.          There was a recommendation in the delegation to make editorial changes to the Issues and Options Report and supporting documents prior to the commencement of the consultation period (to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications).

 xii.          The EQIA would be updated through each stage of the process.

xiii.          The Housing Infrastructure Team had estimated that the capacity of the development could produce 7600 homes on what was a significant piece of land. The report outlined how:

·        To make more efficient use of brownfield land; looking at the volume of traffic to and from the site.

·       The science park could become a ‘mix used district, (not just housing in one area, employment in the other, joined by a road as would have been done in the past).

xiv.          The highway ‘trip budget’ approach referenced in the report identified the level of vehicular trips that could be made to and from the areas east and west of Milton Road without leading to a severe further impact on the strategic road network. It was therefore based on the number of trips generated and not any particular level of development.

xv.          The policy would challenge the developer to demonstrate how their schemes could compliment the overall number of trips on the road; such as looking at the management of car parking spaces, the promotion of linked trips ensuring there were facilities for both employees and residents to avoid travel out of the area. This could be done by the early development of a school and community facilities to reduce vehicular travel.

xvi.          Car parking spaces on the science park covered more of the land (area) than buildings. This provided an opportunity for development and in turn would incentivise businesses to push innovative travel plans for their employees.

xvii.          Developers / businesses needed to move away from one parking space for one person for a 24 hour period and begin to think about communal parking with different functions at different times.

 

The Committee:

 

The Chair proposed the following amendments to Appendix A (Cambridge Northern Fringe Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2) additional text underlined, deleted text struck through:

 

The Director for Planning and Economic Development reminded the Committee that any changes to Appendix A would also require approval from the Lead Member at South Cambridgeshire District Council; further amendments may also be considered outside of the meeting.

	PAGE	PARA	CHANGE
i.	Throughout document		Amend Title to North East Cambridge Area Action  Plan
ii.	8 & 42	Para 13 & 4.4	Amend Vision to read: ‘North East Cambridge Northern Fringe – An inclusive, thriving, and low carbon place for innovative living and working; in which economic growth and prosperity are delivered with social justice and equality, inherently walkable where everything is on your doorstep.’
iii.	8 & 43	Para 13 & 4.5	Amend objective heading: ‘A high quality, healthy, biodiverse place, which will be a major contributor to achieving zero carbon in Greater Cambridge by 2050’
iv.	8 & 43	Para 13 & 4.5	Replace objective heading: ‘An adaptable knowledge district’ with ‘A City Innovation District which will deliver affordable homes, a diverse range of quality jobs and excellent neighbourhood facilities. ‘
v.	48	5.13	‘This new city district needs activity and vibrancy to support the existing and establishing communities. The leisure and cultural offer to enrich lives is a key component of creating successful places and will be needed for residents, workers and visitors alike. Embedding creativity and culture into the scheme is a vital aspect to the success of the CNF as a new city district with its own identity. A leisure and cultureal strategy along with a public art strategy will be needed early in the process to support the overall masterplanning and decision making for the regeneration of the CNF.’
vi.	50	5.16	Cambridge Regional College As an innovation district, the CNF needs to capitalise on great links to education facilities in the area to improve links to businesses. Cambridge Regional College (CRC) is a major further  and higher education facility with a catchment, which includes Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Suffolk. The existing CRC site supports 3,000 full-time further and higher education students. Due to its close proximity to the CNF site and the role that the college plays within the immediate and wider area we need to consider how the two can function together and support each other.
vii.	80	9.3	A range of community facilities will be required to serve local residents and staff. This will require either new provision on site, or improvements to existing facilities. Where these are off site, we will need to consider how these can be easily accessed. The Councils are in discussion with service providers on what these needs are, and this will continue as the draft AAP is developed .
viii.	53	Q15	E - Increasing ease of movement across the sites by opening up opportunities to walk and cycle through areas where this is currently difficult, for example Cambridge business park and the Cambridge Science Park, improving access to the Kings Hedges and East Chesterton areas as well as the City beyond.
ix.	64	6.13	The Chisholm Trail, creating a mostly off-road and traffic-free route between Cambridge Station, via Abbey,  and the new Cambridge North Station, and beyond to St.Ives and Huntingdon.
x.	32	6.26	Effective ‘last mile’ links from the station and from the busway stops to destinations like the Science Park will be key to the area’s success. This potentially could use innovative solutions like autonomous vehicles, demand responsive transport, or cycle hire schemes.
xi.	65	Q25	Question 25: Do you agree that the AAP should be seeking a very low share of journeys to be made by car compared to other more sustainable means like walking, and cycling and public transport  to and from, and within the area?
xii.	70	7.3	Employment will form an important part of the mix, bringing together a diverse range of business and employment opportunities  to create a vibrant new district for Cambridge, where there are opportunities for existing and new residents to live and work in the area, and which responds to the transport constraints and opportunities in the area.
xiii.	70	Add new para after 7.3	‘As highlighted in chapter 2 of this report, adjoining wards are among the most deprived in Cambridgeshire. North East Cambridge provides an opportunity to deliver new affordable housing, shops services and infrastructure that can offer opportunity and improve amenities in this part of Cambridge. Development could also provide opportunities for specific measures to share the benefits of new development with surrounding communities, such as training and employment opportunities.’

 

xiv.

81

9.4

Amend Sentence:   ‘Active open space often requires facilities and structures to support and promote this use, such as toilets, walkways, run routes, interpretation material, seating, tables, children’s playgrounds areas and sports fields.’

 

This amendment was carried 7 votes to 0.

 

The Committee resolved 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations

Matter for Decision

       i.          The City Council had agreed a devolution deal with government to deliver 500 new Council homes over 5 years.

     ii.          Clerk Maxwell Road is a scheme of 35 units being brought forward by Hill in conjunction with Trinity College Cambridge and has been identified as a potential S106 opportunity with Hill. The proposed scheme will provide 14 new Council rented dwellings (40%).

   iii.          The report sought approval for a capital budget for the acquisition of the 14 affordable units as Council rented units based on an initial appraisal of the scheme and approval for the delivery route to be adopted.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

       i.          Noted the indicative mix of the proposed scheme to include 10 no. one bedroom flats and 4 no. two bedroom flats to meet minimum Council space standards requirements (NDSS) and provision of through floor lifts.

     ii.          Approved that the scheme be brought forward with an indicative capital budget for the scheme of £2,837,760 to cover all of the purchase and construction costs, legal and professional fees and associated other fees to deliver a scheme that meets an identified housing need in Cambridge City.

   iii.          Noted that the scheme is indicative and authorise the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in this report.

   iv.          Approved that the site is progressed subject to agreement of terms and a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council prior to entering into a build contract with Hill.

 

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 Manager, Housing Development Agency.

 

The Manager, Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

       i.          A Head of Terms agreement had been agreed with the developer.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Approve a capital budget to redevelop Council sites at the Meadows Centre and Buchan Street for Council housing.

Public Speaker

 

Councillor Price addressed the Committee as follows:

       i.          The proposal was an exciting opportunity.

     ii.          The Meadows Community Centre had been an asset to the local community.

   iii.          New development should be even better.

   iv.          The Buchan Street development would provide much needed housing.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The report proposed a redevelopment of The Meadows and Buchan Street sites, to provide much-needed Council rented housing, and a new community centre. It proposed adding these sites to the Council’s Rolling Programme of Housing development, making the resources for the redevelopment available, and working with centre users, neighbours, staff and others to ensure the design of the new homes and community centre provides well for the local community.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities:

 

       i.          Approved the rationalisation of two community centres into a new community hub in line with the Community Centres Strategy (June 2017), in order to make land available for much needed Council housing; The development process will ensure that a community centre remains open throughout the redevelopment period; and that local residents and centre users are engaged in the detailed design of the new community facility.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

       i.          Approved the addition of Meadows and Buchan Street sites to the Rolling Programme, to enable detailed design and project work to proceed

     ii.          Approved the indicative mix of the proposed scheme, subject to design and planning, to include a mix of Council rented housing, as set out below:

 

	Meadows	Buchan
1B2P Flat (Housing First)		2
2B4P Flat (Housing First)		1
1B2P Flat	58	6
2B4P Flat	27	5
3B5P House	0	7
Totals	85	21
Community Centre GIA	1583m2
Retail space GIA		148m2

 

   iii.          Recommended to Council the inclusion of an indicative budget of £26,379,880 in the Housing Capital Programme (to be presented to Council in the HRA BSR).

 

   iv.          _{­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­}Authorised the Strategic Director, delegation exercised in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes following future business planning, to seek approval from the Secretary of State for use of HRA resources to fund part of the cost of the Community Centre and commercial unit (on the basis that this would aid the release of land for much needed housing in line with national government policy), subject to this being viable within a revised HRA business plan, and to vary the contributions recommended from the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund in the light of the decision.

 

    v.          Approved that the site is offered to CIP to progress in accordance with the CIP process which was approved at Strategy & Resources Committee on 9th October 2017 subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council prior to entering into the Agreement for Lease set out in that process.

 

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 Manager, Housing Development Agency.

 

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

       i.          Thanked officers for work over a number of years that had brought this project to the point of delivery.

     ii.          Expressed regret at the loss of green space.

   iii.          Concerns were raised about conflicting demands for parking and the level of provision for the new housing units.

 

The Manager, Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The new facility would be slightly larger than the combined size of the two existing community facilities.

     ii.          Stated that the remaining green space would require better management to ensure the full benefit was achieved.

   iii.          The proposed building would cross the City /South Cambs boundary and planning permissions would need to take this into account.

   iv.          Sports England was expected to approve the plans.

    v.          Existing users would be given priority when allocating resources in the new facility.  

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities confirmed that a range of consultations had taken place and the resulting scheme was intended to meet as much need as possible.

 

Councillor Cantrill expressed concerns that an application was being submitted to the Secretary of State regarding the use of HRA funds for the community building when full business case had not been completed. He asked for an assurance that this Committee would have sight of the business case before such an application was submitted.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed an amendment to delete recommendation 2.2.4.

 

Authorise the Strategic Director to seek approval from the Secretary of State for use of HRA resources to fund part of the cost of the Community Centre and commercial unit (on the basis that this would aid the release of land for much needed housing in line with national government policy), subject to this being viable within a revised HRA business plan, and to vary the contributions recommended from the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund in the light of the decision.

 

The Strategic Director suggested additional wording to recommendation 2.2.4 could achieve the desired level of scrutiny.

 

Councillor Cantrill withdrew the proposed amendment to delete recommendation 2.2.4 and proposed the following amended wording (additional text in bold):

 

Authorise the Strategic Director, subject to final approval from the Housing Scrutiny Committee, to seek approval from the Secretary of State for use of HRA resources to fund part of the cost of the Community Centre and commercial unit (on the basis that this would aid the release of land for much needed housing in line with national government policy), subject to this being viable within a revised HRA business plan, and to vary the contributions recommended from the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund in the light of the decision.

 

The amendment was lost by 3 votes to 4.

 

Following Committee discussions, the following amendment to recommendation 2.2.4 was proposed:

 

Authorise the Strategic Director, delegation exercised in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes following future business planning, to seek approval from the Secretary of State for use of HRA resources to fund part of the cost of the Community Centre and commercial unit (on the basis that this would aid the release of land for much needed housing in line with national government policy), subject to this being viable within a revised HRA business plan, and to vary the contributions recommended from the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund in the light of the decision.

 

This amendment was carried by 4 votes to 0.

 

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendation 2.1.1.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities approved the recommendation.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendation 2.2.1 to 2.2.6 (as amended)

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an overview of three changes which impact Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives (TLR). A dedicated TLR Code of Conduct (Appendix 1) had been written which aligns with their unique position on the Housing Scrutiny Committee (HSC). This report also reviews TLR allowances and provides an update on the Tenant Representative vacancy, as required by committee decision.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

       i.          Agreed the terms of the new TLR Code of Conduct.

     ii.          Agreed the allowance proposal detailed as option 1 in this report, to increase the TLR allowance for 2019 to correspond with the Consumer Price Index level set in the preceding September.  The new allowance rate would begin from March 2019.

   iii.          Agreed from 2019 the TLR allowance should change annually by the Consumer Price Index level set in the preceding September, thus creating an inbuilt review mechanism. The allowance will then be reviewed again in 2022.

   iv.          Noted the approach taken to fill the vacant Tenant Representative position.

                                         

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 Resident Engagement Officer. The Committee noted a correction to page 2 of the report, para 3.8, allowance B should read £299.

 

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

       i.          Welcomed the clarity regarding the roles.

     ii.          Stated that the representatives were good value for money.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations 2.1 and 2.4.

 

The Committee resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendations 2.2 and 2.3.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

a) Approve the proposed charges for HRA housing rents and service charges.
b) Consider the revenue budget proposals.
c) Consider the capital budget proposals.

Matter for Decision

As part of the 2019/20 budget process, the range of assumptions upon which the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy were based, had been reviewed in light of the latest information available, culminating in the preparation of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

The HRA Budget-Setting Report provided an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It sets out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and final budget proposals, and was the basis for the finalisation of the 2019/20 budgets.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Under Part 1 of the agenda, the Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Review of Rents and Charges

 

a.    Approve that council dwelling rents for all social rented properties be reduced by 1%, in line with legislative requirements, introduced as part of the Welfare Reform and Work Act, with effect from 1 April 2019. This equates to an average rent reduction at the time of writing this report of £0.99 per week on a 52 week basis.

 

b.    Approve that affordable rents are reviewed in line with rent legislation, to ensure that the rents charged are no more than 80% of market rent, with this figure then reduced by the 1% per annum, as with social housing. Local policy is to cap affordable rents (inclusive of all service charges) at the Local Housing Allowance level, which will result in rent variations in line with any changes notified to the authority in this level.

 

c.    Approve that rents for shared ownership are reviewed and amended from April 2019, in line with the specific requirements within the lease for each property.

 

d.    Approve that garage and parking space charges for 2019/20, are increased in line with inflation at 2.2%, with resulting charges as summarised in Section 3 of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

e.    Approve the proposed service charges for Housing Revenue Account services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

f.      Approve the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

g.    Approve that caretaking, building cleaning, estate services, grounds maintenance, temporary housing premises and utilities, sheltered scheme premises and utilities, digital television aerial, flat cleaning, third party management and catering charges continue to be recovered at full cost, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September 2018 (2.4%) plus 1%, wherever possible.

 

h.    Approve that service charges for gas maintenance, door entry systems, lifts and electrical and mechanical maintenance are increased in an attempt recover full estimated costs, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September 2018 (2.4%) plus 1%, equivalent to an increase of 3.4% in total, wherever possible.

 

Revenue – HRA

 

Revised Budget 2018/19:

i.       Approve with any amendments, the Revised Budget identified in Section 4 and Appendix D (1) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, which reflects a net increase in the use of HRA reserves for 2018/19 of £300,670.

 

Budget 2019/20:

j.       Approve with any amendments, any Non-Cash Limit items identified in Section 4 of the HRA Budget Setting Report or shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

k.    Approve with any amendments, any Savings, Increased Income, Unavoidable Revenue Pressures and Reduced Income proposals, as shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

l.       Approve the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised in the Housing Revenue Account Summary Forecast 2018/19 to 2023/24 shown in Appendix J of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

l1  In light of issues surrounding Universal Credit and payment arrangements for housing costs, approvals for eviction will not be progressed for a tenant in rent arrears which relate solely to Universal Credit delays and missed payments which are beyond their control. Any delays that are deemed to be the result of the tenant’s own delay in applying/supplying the correct information will be followed up through the usual processes.

Full support will be provided for any tenant in such difficulties, including ensuring that the rent element is paid direct to the Council, through a DWP managed payment arrangement.

If there are other breaches of the tenancy agreement (such as ASB) then appropriate action will be taken.

 

Under Part 2 of the agenda, the Executive Councillor for Housing resolved to recommend to Council:

 

Treasury Management

m.  Recognise the decision to defer the review of the current approach to treasury management, which requires 25% of the value of the housing debt to be set-aside by the point at which the loan portfolio matures until after it is formally confirmed that the legislation allowing the introduction of a levy in respect of the sale of higher value voids will be repealed.

Housing Capital

n.    Approval of capital bids, shown in Appendix D (3) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, to include the replacement of the lifts at Ditchburn Place whilst other major refurbishment work is underway.

o.    Approval of the latest Decent Homes Programme, to include any updated allocation and timing of decent homes expenditure for new build dwellings, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

p.    Approval of the latest budget sums, profiling and associated financing for all new build schemes, including new scheme specific approvals for Colville Road, Meadows and Buchan Street and Clerk Maxwell Road, based upon the latest cost information from the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) or direct procurements, as detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

q.    Approval of re-phasing of budget for the last phase of refurbishment at Ditchburn Place from 2018/19 into 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix E, and summarised in Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

r.      Approval of the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix K of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

General

s.    Approval of delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to approve an in year increase or decrease in the budget for disabled facilities grants, in direct relation to any increase or decrease in the capital grant funding for this purpose, as received from the County Council through the Better Care Fund.

t.      Approval of delegation to the Strategic Director to review and amend the level of fees charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for disabled facilities grants and repair assistance grants, in line with any decisions s made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board.

u.    Approval of delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down resource from the ear-marked reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the purpose of open market property acquisition or new build housing development, should the need arise, in order to meet quarterly deadlines for the use of retained right to buy receipts.

v.    Approval of delegation to the Strategic Director, following formal consultation with tenants, to make a decision in respect of the number of rent weeks over which the annual rent is charged for council tenants, and implement any change in policy accordingly.

 

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 Business Manager / Principal Accountant.

 

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

       i.          Praised the work of the Estate Champions and welcomed the improvements achieved so far.

     ii.          Tenant representatives expressed concern about the loss of an office in the South of the City and how his might impact tenants experiencing difficulties due to Universal Credit. It was confirmed that staff were moving to more mobile working.

 

The Business Manager / Principal Accountant stated the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The Transformation Fund could be used to fund a fourth edition of Open Door, subject to the approval of the Strategic Director.

     ii.          Confirmed that a funding bid for extra resources needed to complete a stock condition survey was expected shortly.

   iii.          Clarified the delays in the delivery of some new build schemes: Ventress Close had been delayed by a bat survey.

 

Councillor Cantrill introduced the Liberal Democrat Amendment to the 2019/20 Housing Revenue Budget.

 

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

         i.          Suggested that the zero tolerance policy regarding storage of items on landing was necessary and that fire resistant items would not resolve the issue of trip hazards in an emergency. Any proposals to soften the policy would be difficult to police.

       ii.           Discussed Housing First approaches and the role of the County Council in funding this.

     iii.          Stated that offering lower rents to 3 and 4 bedroomed properties would not be directing the limited resources to those most in need.

     iv.          Discussed the best way to assist those transitioning to Universal Credit.

 

The Strategic Director undertook to circulate figures regarding the use of Discretionary Housing Payments.

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair /Tenant Representative)

 

The Liberal Democrats Group alternative budget: 3 votes in favour to 9 against. The amendment was lost.

 

Diana Minns proposed and Lulu Agate seconded the following amendment to the recommendations:

 

Part 1 Recommendations, insert as new (L1).

 

In light of issues surrounding Universal Credit and payment arrangements for housing costs, approvals for eviction will not be progressed for a tenant in rent arrears which relate solely to Universal Credit delays and missed payments which are beyond their control. Any delays that are deemed to be the result of the tenant’s own delay in applying/supplying the correct information will be followed up through the usual processes.

 

Full support will be provided for any tenant in such difficulties, including ensuring that the rent element is paid direct to the Council, through a DWP managed payment arrangement.

 

If there are other breaches of the tenancy agreement (such as ASB) then appropriate action will be taken.

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair /Tenant Representative)

 

The additional recommendation was agreed unanimously.

 

Resolved (by 9 vote to 0 and 3 abstentions) to endorse the original recommendations A to L and additional recommendation L1.

 

The following votes were chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones

 

Resolved (4 votes to 0 and 3 abstentions) to endorse the original report recommendations M to V of the budget proposals

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

The report sought approval for a capital budget for the scheme based on the indicative capacity study which has been undertaken for the site and the outline appraisals referenced in this report and for the delivery route to be adopted.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

       i.          Approved that the scheme was brought forward with an indicative capital budget for the scheme of £13,781,590 to cover all of the site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and associated other fees to deliver a scheme that meets an identified housing need in Cambridge City.

     ii.          Authorise the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in this report.

   iii.          Approved that the site was offered to CIP to progress in accordance with the CIP process which was approved at Strategy & Resources Committee on 9^th October 2017 subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council prior to entering into the Agreement for Lease set out in that process.

   iv.          Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to commence Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings on Leasehold properties to be demolished to enable the development should these be required.

    v.          Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.

 

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 Manager, Housing Development Agency.

 

 

The Committee welcomed the scheme.

 

The Committee resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

Agree the suite of revised policies.

Matter for Decision

A review of a suite of tenancy management, repair and void management policies, and the way the service recovers money owed to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for rechargeable work, damage to HRA assets or fees relating to HRA owned property or land.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

       i.          Approved the suite of revised policies

     ii.          Noted the review dates listed within each policy and delegated authority to the Head of Housing to determine if individual policies should be brought back for committee approval depending on the degree or significance of any changes made at review points.

 

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 Housing.

 

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

       i.          Welcomed the gas safety policy.

 

The Head of Housing stated the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Assistance was available to help vulnerable residents to clear properties.

     ii.          The mutual exchange system allowed medical needs to be considered when extra bedrooms were needed.

   iii.          The re-chargable repairs scheme was targeted at wilful damage rather than no fault incidents.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

 

The Housing Ombudsman had upheld a complaint relating to the victim of anti-social behavior (ASB) from a neighbouring tenant.

 

In these circumstances, the Head of Legal Services, as the Council’s Monitoring Officer, has an obligation to report the findings to the Executive. The Executive is obliged to set out what action has already been taken in respect of the findings, what action it intends to take and the reasons for taking the action.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

       i.          Endorsed the actions taken by officers in response to the finding of the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

Matter for Decision

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommends that

Councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of

Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Leader and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation and Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 22 January 2018.

 

The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory powers regulated by RIPA since February 2010.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Reviewed the Council’s use of RIPA set out in paragraph 3.5 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Noted and endorsed the steps described in paragraph 3.7 and in Appendix 1 to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

   iii.          Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 to 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 Legal Practice.

 

In response to the report Councillor O’Connell said she was glad the Council had not used its RIPA powers.

 

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.

 

Approval for the use and assignment of generic S106 funds towards the following strategic projects;

1. Abbey Swimming Pool Improvements.
2. Spectator seating at Kelsey Kerridge Sports Hall.
3. Outdoor artificial pitch and hard court improvements at Chesterton Community College.
4. Nightingale Recreation Ground pitch improvements.

Matter for Decision

To approve the allocations of generic S106 developer contributions for Indoor Sports and Swimming funds towards new projects within the City, aligned with the Indoor Sports and Swimming Pool investment strategies.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the allocation of generic s106 developer contributions towards the following projects that have been identified within the Indoor and Swimming Pool Strategies:

       i.          £230,000 of swimming S106 contributions towards the Abbey Pool improvement project, subject to full business case approval.

     ii.          Up to £45,000 of additional Indoor Sports S106 contributions towards the new Gym and Studio and Changing Room refurbishment at Netherhall Academy.

 

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.          Water based play equipment was to be provided for disabled children to access in the Abbey Pool project. The proposed slide could be accessed by a lift to the first floor.

     ii.          A dedicated 6 hours per week were scheduled into daytime for use by Exercise Referral clients only, and these would be specially staffed sessions which met the safeguarding requirements for use of the new gym during curricular hours, all other public access is outside of School hours.  

   iii.          Leisure facility providers monitored air quality in the pool halls eg the smell of chlorine, but officers could look at more detailed air quality monitoring within these environments.

   iv.          There is a legally binding community use agreement in place with all funded Academy’s to ensure school facilities that received funding were available for community use. There is a funding clawback clause if the Academy’s did not fulfil these community use obligations.

 

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.

 

Financial Support to Voluntary and Not for Profit Organisations from the Community Grant fund 2019-20.

Matter for Decision

The annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations provided a brief overview of the process, eligibility criteria, budget, applications received and recommendations for 2019-20 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2019-20, as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2019 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

     ii.          Allowed Safer Communities to retain £10,000 (previously allocated to area committee grants) to enable the Council to respond to community priorities as they arise.

 

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 Development Manager.

 

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

       i.          The Hunts Forum of Voluntary Organisations was the lead organisation for Support Cambridge. Although based in Huntingdon it was looking to do something specific for Cambridge City. Hence the funding bid. Details would be available in future.

     ii.          The formula for area committee allocations goes back to the start of the programme circa 2003. Funding was split proportionally to wards and based on their population numbers. Details on how funding was allocated could be included in future reports.

 

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.

To note the results of public consultation on the impacts of recent changes to the Council's Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy and consider any actions arising.

Matter for Decision

The Council’s Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy sets out the Council’s commitment to promoting equality and diversity, including through its role as an employer and a provider of services to the public. A revised and updated version of the policy was presented for approval at the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee on 4 October 2018. The Officer’s report provided feedback from consultation carried out related to the impacts of the changes, and identified how the Policy would be applied in practice at service level.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

The Executive Councillor approved the approach to implementing the revised Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy, as set out in section 6.0 of the officer’s report, subject to amendments that:

·       It is not the Council’s intention to allow non-disabled people to access the disabled changing facilities at any City Council-owned leisure centres (as referred to in 6.12 of the Officer’s report).

·       The planned facilities audit will also explore options for greater privacy for non-disabled people when getting changed at Kings Hedges Learner Pool and Cherry Hinton Village Centre, where existing female and male changing rooms are open plan.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer who set out how the Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy would be applied at a service level based on consultation feedback The Officer clarified that the report presents the council’s current approach to applying the Policy related to single sex services and facilities, based on the evidence that is currently available. The approach to applying the Policy would be kept under review. Any requests to apply the service and employment exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 would be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account any new evidence or adverse impacts identified to other protected characteristic groups.

 

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

       i.          The Council had a good equalities policy but questioned the writing style. Opposition Councillors expressed concern that the council had presented its policies using incorrect terminology. They took issue with some phraseology in both the committee report and the prefix used for a public speaker in the 4 October 2018 Scrutiny Committee minutes. In relation to the report, they challenged the use of the terms ‘women’ and ‘men’, instead of ‘cis women’ and ‘cis men’, and ‘transsexual women’ and ‘transsexual men’. Opposition Councillors queried how transgender people could have faith in the council if it could not get its terminology correct.

 

All Committee Members supported the principle that council terminology should be correct to avoid causing offence or a sense of exclusion.

 

The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer said it was not the intention to offend transgender people. The committee report used terminology of the Equality Act 2010 because the report sets out how the Council in practice will meet its legal commitments reflected in the Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy. The Equalities Impact Assessment at Appendix B referred to ‘cis women’, ‘cis men’ and ‘transgender people’ in acknowledgement that these are terms used by organisations the council consulted with that support equalities groups.

 

The Chief Executive undertook to write to the member of the public on behalf of the City Council to apologise for the mistake in the minute of the last meeting.

 

The Executive Councillor also apologised and said there was no intention to cause offence. Council terminology would be reviewed in future and she would ask officers to develop an updated style guide to ensure correct terminology was used.

 

     ii.          Supported the proposal for cubicles (for privacy) in male showers that were currently open plan in Abbey Leisure Complex, Cherry Hinton Village Leisure Centre, Kings Hedges Learner Pool and Parkside Pools.

   iii.          Expressed concern that non-disabled people could access the disabled changing facilities at City Council-owned leisure centres (as referred to in 6.12 of the Officer’s report). It would reduce disabled people’s access to changing facilities if able-bodied people are provided with permission to access disabled facilities.

 

The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer said that after consideration the council would amend the report to remove non-disabled peoples’ access to disabled facilities.  The recommendation would be amended as follows:

 

The Executive Councillor is recommended to approve the approach to implementing the revised Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy, as set out in section 6.0 of the officer’s report, subject to amendments that:

·       It is not the Council’s intention to allow non-disabled people to access the disabled changing facilities at any City Council-owned leisure centres (as referred to in 6.12 of the Officer’s report).

·       The planned facilities audit will also explore options for greater privacy for non-disabled people when getting changed at Kings Hedges Learner Pool and Cherry Hinton Village Centre, where existing female and male changing rooms are open plan.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation as amended.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To Sign up to Oxford's Cleaner Air Charter.

Matter for Decision

A new charter for cleaner air has been launched by Oxford City Council, Greenpeace UK, and Friends of the Earth, calling on the United Kingdom (UK) Government to place the health of communities first.

 

The Charter for Cleaner Air, was created by Oxford City Council with the support of the UK100 Clean Air, Clean Cities Network, of which the Cambridge City Council is a member. It is the first formal cooperation with Greenpeace UK and Friends of the Earth (EWNI) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) to be led by a local authority.

 

The purpose of the Charter is to maintain pressure on central government to take steps to reduce illegal levels of air pollution and to recognise the crucial role local authorities play in this area by providing them with adequate funding, powers and new legislation to be able to fulfil their role and deliver local air quality action plans and other actions.

 

The City Council was recommended to sign up to the Charter to make clear to government that air quality remains an area of concern that needs central policy and funding support to deliver effectively at a local level. The Charter provided a reasoned set of steps Government could take to support local authorities working to deliver cleaner air.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services

and City Centre

To sign up to the Oxford Charter for Cleaner Air on behalf of Cambridge City Council.

 

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 Environmental Quality & Growth Manager.

 

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

       i.          Welcomed the report.

     ii.          Central Government should be lobbied to take action and have more ambitious clean air targets.

   iii.          The Council should look for where pollution could come from in future to monitor air quality changes.

 

The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The National Clean Air Strategy was launched 14 January 2019. It picked up some points from the Charter for Clean Air, but did not commit to meet them, only work towards them.

     ii.          Cities coming together put pressure on Central Government to do more in future.

   iii.          The Council was monitoring where pollution could come from in future. For example taxi emissions and the area around Cambridge Railway station. This would provide an evidence base to Central Government to tackle air quality in future.

   iv.          Principles were fixed in the Charter for Clean Air. If another city (eg Oxford) changed their principles, Cambridge would not need to change too.

 

The Executive Councillor said:

         i.          The National Clean Air Strategy was not as hard hitting as she would like.

       ii.          The Charter for Clean Air was needed to lobby Central Government to take more action.

     iii.          The Charter had been adopted by Labour controlled councils so far. Hopefully others would follow in future.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To consider the trade proposal to increase the fares in line with inflation each financial year.

Matter for Decision

Section 65 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 provides that in respect of the charges for Hackney Carriages, the Council “may fix the rates or fares within the district as well for time as distance, and all other charges in connection with the hire of a vehicle…by means of a table”.

 

The existing Table of Fares came into effect on the 13th January 2018.

 

On 29th August 2018 Cambridge City Licensed Taxis Ltd (CCLT) requested a Fare Increase of 2.74%. Subsequent discussions with CCLT confirmed they would be willing to use the current Consumer Price Index when determining the fare increase.

 

The correspondence received made a further request regarding fare increase; that Cambridge City Council undertakes an automatic annual review of Hackney Carriage Fares, on a set date, without a request to do so being submitted.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services

and City Centre

       i.          Considered the fare charge increase requested and determined it was appropriate to consult on the proposed fares in Appendix C with the increase taking effect from 1 April 2019.

     ii.          Agreed to implement an automatic annual fare review in line with the Consumer Price Index at that time and delegated this annual review and implementation to the Head of Environmental Services on condition that:

a.    The consultation takes place in early March each year with the adopted fares coming into effect from 1st April each year.

b.    The rate of fare increase be based on the Consumer Price Index rate published by the Bank of England on 1 March each year, and then rounded to a practical figure.

c.     Any future request for an increase greater than Consumer Price Index be decided by the Executive Councillor.

 

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 Environmental Health Manager.

 

The Environmental Health Manager said future tariffs would rise in-line with the Bank of England Consumer Price Index. If there was a change to this process, and the Consumer Price Index was not to be used, this would be reported back to the committee.

 

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 purpose of the Officer’s report was to:

a.    Inform the Executive Councillor and Scrutiny Committee Members of the revised fixed penalty notice (FPN) levels for environmental crimes, namely commercial waste receptacles, flyposting, graffiti, that came into force under The Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (England) Regulations 2017 (The 2017 Regulations) on the 1 April 2018; the revised FPN levels for community protection notices under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (The 2014 Regulations); and the revised FPN levels for domestic waste offences as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 (The 2015 Regulations).

b.    Seek authority to revise the current fixed penalty for offences related to commercial waste receptacles, flyposting, graffiti, community protection notice and domestic waste offences to the new legal maximum FPN level; and to give a discount of 40% (i.e. discounted fine value) for early payment provided payment is made within 10 days of the date the FPN was issued.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

Agreed to adopt the new legal maximum fixed penalty notice (FPN) level for offences related to commercial waste receptacles, flyposting, graffiti, community protection notice and domestic waste offences and to give a discount of 40% (i.e. discounted fine value), for early payment provided payment is made within 10 days of the date the FPN was issued, as detailed in the following table.

 

 

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 Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement.

 

In response to the report the Committee commented FPNs were an important crime deterrent.

 

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

       i.          The Enforcement Team increased in number during 2014-15, so the number of FPNs issued increased accordingly. The amount of income (for the Council) increased, but not necessarily the number of crimes.

     ii.          People could pay the lower threshold of a FPN within ten days of a FPN being issued. If the person being fined contacted the council and said they had financial difficulties, the council could extend the payment period for the lower threshold. Each such contact would be dealt with on a case by case basis

   iii.          The Council did not accept part payments due to administration costs.

   iv.          If someone did not pay, or did not want to pay, they could wait for the case to go to the Magistrate’s Court where they could put their version of events. The Magistrates would then decide the outcome of the case.

    v.          Funding from FPNs could be used to help prevent future issues (eg bin provision), promotional materials for education, plus provision of tools for community payback schemes. Funding could be used flexibility.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

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.

The Committee received a S73 application to a vary condition of permission application 16/2040/FUL.

 

The application sought approval for a S73 application to vary conditions 2 (approved drawings) and 6 (obscure glazing) of permission 16/2040/FUL (Erection of dwelling and creation of new vehicular access) to allow removal of approved basement, removal of the approved integrated garage and proposed replacement garage, bike store and bin store, proposed dormer window, non-obscured glazing on upper floor windows, additional tree planting along northern boundary, and associated internal and external alterations.

 

The Planner updated her report to introduce a new condition requiring the submission of sedum roof details.

 

Dr Wickham (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers plus an additional condition requiring sedum roof details as follows:

10. Prior to construction of the garage, details of the proposed sedum roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the sedum roof will provide adequate surface water drainage (Cambridge Local Plan 2018 policies 31 and 32).

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of three dwellings and provision of access.

 

The Senior Planner updated his report by stating reference to the 2006 Local Plan should be discounted from conditions.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s report to include an informative that wildlife access gaps should be included in garden boundary treatments.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers plus additional informative added regarding wildlife gaps in fences and the removal of references to the previous Local Plan policies from conditions to 3 to 8 and substituting as appropriate to those comparable policies of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a change of use to a 9 bed HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) erection of a bin/bike store, and erection of a single storey rear extension.

 

Mr Li (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received a Section 73 application to vary a condition of permission to application 17/0675/FUL.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 2 (approved drawings) of permission 17/0675/FUL (demolition of existing garages and erection of three 2bed dwellings with associated landscaping and access arrangements) to permit increase of building height due to site conditions.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to objections on the public file.

     ii.          Expressed concern that the original application had been given planning permission as this set a new precedent for heights of developments in the area as it was higher than neighbouring properties.

   iii.          The S73 application had been made after neighbours complained that 17/0675/FUL was not being built according to permission given.

   iv.          Queried why the Building Control Department had not realised the property was being built to a higher level than expected and taken enforcement action such as requiring the roof be redesigned to reduce the building height.

    v.          Queried why the building was put on a higher level instead of removing some of the earth before foundations were put in, as neighbours had done.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to grant the Section 73 application permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the erection of 2no. houses to the rear of site. First floor side and rear extension to main house. Conversion of house to 1no. 3-bed and 1no. 1-bed flat.

 

The Planner corrected a typographical error in her report (agenda P108):

0.18 I am satisfied that the revised plans are accurate. The removal of the loft conversion and amendments to make the plans accurate has resulted in a minor increase decrease to scale, bulk and massing of the extensions to the host dwelling.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Took issue with the Planner’s view that “on balance” the application was acceptable.

     ii.          The amount of development was unacceptable in the proposed space/area. It was too dense, complex and overdevelopment of the site.

   iii.          Queried if the application met amenity space requirements in the new Local Plan.

   iv.          Expressed concern about:

a.    Access to the site (for people and bin collections). Also the impact of this on amenity space.

b.    Loss of privacy.

c.    A car free development was impractical due to the lack of local public transport.

 

Councillor Herbert (Coleridge Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          7 sets of drawings had been received for the site as part of planning applications over 2 years.

     ii.          Councillor Herbert had received 200 emails in response to the 7 sets of drawings. He had expressed concerns about these to the Planning Department.

   iii.          The Council was working to the new Local Plan. The application appeared to have been considered against policies in the previous 2006 Local Plan. Suggested the development did not meet accessibility and amenity space requirements in the new Cambridge Local Plan.

   iv.          The development was not sustainable. By being car free, it also stopped families and disabled people buying properties on the site.

    v.          Families and disabled people would be interested in 3 bedroom properties, but access issues restricted emergency services and potential property owners who needed cars or buggies. There was no sensible way for people to get from their homes to the road (the access route was too small for the number of new/existing properties on-site).

   vi.          The Council supported car free developments. However it was impractical for this application. There was no reliable public transport nearby and property owners in Coleridge needed access to cars.

 vii.          Expressed concern that the application would set a poor precedent for further back garden developments.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

Resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed access to the house to the rear would generate unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance, through activities including movement of bikes and bins, and deliveries, to the future occupiers of the 2 proposed flats and to the neighbouring property at 66 Coleridge Road which would result in a poor level of amenity for the residents of the flats and adjoining property. This would be contrary to policy 52 and 57 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.

2.    The proposed flats would introduce additional built form in close proximity to the two roof lights in the neighbouring dwelling, no 62 Coleridge Road, this would result in an unacceptable degree of overshadowing and consequent loss of light to the living room of this dwelling and would unacceptable harm the amenities of this dwelling. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 53 and 58 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018).

The Committee received an application for prior approval under Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).

 

The application sought approval for construction of new gated east side stairway from Mill Road to provide access to train drivers walkway, including alterations to arches 5 and 6 to facilitate new sidings, walkway and passive provision for Chisholm Trail.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Supported the work being undertaken. Work needed to be done on the railway and Chisholm Trail.

     ii.          Expressed concern about details of the work programme and communication about it.

   iii.          Had followed progress to date.

   iv.          His concerns were available on the public file. They had not been addressed. Requested details to respond to these.

 

Mr Thompson (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Mr Davies addressed the Committee in support of the application. He spoke as the County Council Officer delivering the Chisholm Trail. Network Rail were happy to accommodate the Chisholm Trail and deliver part of it as part of this planning application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for prior approval in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Committee received a Section 73 application.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 2 (approved drawings of ref no: 17/0172/FUL (erection of a residential apartment development to be arranged within two blocks comprising of 10 x 2 bed units and 6 x 1 bed units along with car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping following the demolition of the existing buildings on the site) to include changes to the basement layout, introduction of roof lights, increase in height of block (370mm), alterations to windows on second floor units, and changes to the appearance of the east and west elevations.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Additional height would add to the impact of the building.

     ii.          Proposed density would impact amenity of neighbours.

   iii.          Additional windows would result in overlooking.

   iv.          Plant in basement would produce a noise nuisance.

    v.          Other developments in the area had already had a visual impact on the skyline.

   vi.          Requested mitigation such as frosted glazing and additional green measures, such as a hanging garden.

 

Mr McKeown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

Members expressed concerned about disabled access and reduced designated disabled parking.

 

The Legal Adviser reminded Members that this was a Section 73 application and that they could only determine what was before them today.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 and 3 abstentions) to grant the application for Section 73 permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2019 and 3 December 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.