Decisions

Recommendations (part 1) a to k were chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair /Tenant Representative) and recommendations (part 2) I to w were chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

As part of the 2021/22 budget process, the range of assumptions upon which the HRA Business Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy were based, have been reviewed in light of the latest information available, culminating in the preparation of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

The HRA Budget-Setting Report provides an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It sets out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and final budget proposals and is the basis for the finalisation of the 2021/22 budgets.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Review of Rents and Charges

a)   Approved that council dwellings rents for all social rented properties be increased by inflation of 0.5%, measured by the Consumer Price Index(CPI) at September 2020, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of 1.5%,with effect from 5 April 2021. This equates to an average rent increase at the time of writing this report of £1.52 per week.

b)   Approved that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) are reviewed in line with rent legislation, to ensure that the rents charged are no more than 80% of market rent, with rents for existing tenants increased by no more than inflation of 0.5%, measured by the Consumer Price Index(CPI) at September 2020, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of up to1.5%. Local policy is to cap affordable rents (inclusive of all service charges) at the Local Housing Allowance level, which would usually result in rent variations in line with any changes notified to the authority in this level if these result in a lower than 1.5% increase. As the Local Housing Allowance was increased significantly in late March 2020, affordable rent increases will be capped at 1.5% from April 2021.

c)    Approved that rents for shared ownership properties are reviewed and amended from April 2021, in line with the specific requirements within the lease for each property.

 

d)   Approved that garage and parking space charges for 2021/22, are increased by inflation at 0.9% in line with the level of inflation incorporated into the HRA as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy process, and that charges for parking permits are reviewed, with resulting charges as summarised in Section 3 of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

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

f)      Approved the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2021/22, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

g)   Approved that caretaking, building cleaning, window cleaning, estate services, grounds maintenance, temporary housing premises and utilities, sheltered scheme premises and utilities, digital television aerial, gas maintenance, door entry systems, lifts, electrical and mechanical maintenance, flat cleaning, third party management, specialist equipment 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 2020 (0.5%) plus 1%,wherever possible.

h)   Approved 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 2020/21 of £550.

i)      Approved 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.

j)      Approved with any amendments, any Savings, Increased Income, Unavoidable Revenue Bids, Reduced Income Proposals and Bids, as shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

k)    Approved the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised in the Housing Revenue Account Summary Forecast2020/21 to 2025/26 shown in Appendix J of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

The Executive Councillor recommended Council to:

l)      Approve the need to borrow over the 30-year life of the business plan, with the first instance of this anticipated to be in 2022/23, to sustain the proposed level of investment, which includes ear-marking of funding for delivery of a net 1,000 new homes over a 10 year timeframe.

m)  Recognise that any decision to borrow further will impact the authority’s ability to set-aside resource to redeem 25% of the value of the housing debt by the point at which the loan portfolio matures, with the approach to this to be reviewed before further borrowing commences.

n)   Approve the latest Decent Homes Programme, to include updated decent homes expenditure for new build dwellings to recognise the increased ongoing costs of maintaining homes at Passivhaus standards, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

o)   Approve the latest budget sums, profiling and associated financing for all new build schemes, including revised scheme budgets for Tedder Way, Kendal Way, Clerk Maxwell, Campkin Road, Colville Road and Kingsway, 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.

p)   Approve allocation of funds from the budget ear-marked for the delivery of 1,000 net new homes to the five schemes at Fen Road, Ditton Walk, Aragon Close, Sackville Close, and Borrowdale in line with the scheme specific reports presented to Housing Scrutiny Committee in the committee cycle.

q)   Recognition of removal of the budget and associated MHCLG grant income for the acquisition of property to accommodate rough sleepers, following confirmation that the authority was unsuccessful in the 2020/21 round of the Next Steps Grant bid process.

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

s)    Approve the inclusion of Disabled Facilities Grant expenditure and associated grant income from 2021/22 onwards, based upon 2020/21 original grant levels, with 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 any year, 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. Approval of delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to determine the most appropriate use of any additional Disabled Facilities Grant funding announced in year, for the wider benefit of the Shared Home Improvement Agency.

t)      Approve 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 made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board.

u)   Approve 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 land or 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 or to facilitate future site redevelopment.

v)    Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to include both expenditure and income budgets in respect of any grant bid made to MHCLG as part of the Next Steps Grant Programme, recognising that any net impact for the HRA will need to be retrospectively incorporated as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in 2021/22.

w)  Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make the necessary technical amendments to detailed budgets in respect of the outcome of the review of recharges between the General Fund and the HRA, with any change in impact for the HRA to be incorporated as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in September 2021.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager.

 

The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          There was an initial increase in rent arrears for tenanted properties in the first lockdown, this stabilised in May 2020 so the broad trend was that closing cash offices did not increase rent arrears as people moved onto other payment methods e.g. online.

     ii.          There was sufficient provision for bad debt in the Medium Term Financial Strategy. This also set out interest rates for loans.

   iii.          There were no proposals to reduce the number of Open Door (magazine) issues from three to two. Funding for this had not been removed, there was historic underspend in the resident grant budget over a period of years so the budget had been reduced.

   iv.          The Community Alarm Charge of £5.32 should include an enhanced response time by the County Council. As this service would not be provided, the figure was expected to change to £3.42 for a response within sixty minutes (as opposed to thirty under the £5.32 figure). This was subject to written confirmation from the County Council, which would then be agreed by Housing Scrutiny Committee and at Full Council.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Council had a 30 year business plan to build and maintain housing stock.

     ii.          The above inflation rent increase was fair and in line with other local authorities. Cambridge City Council had measures in place to assist people who had difficulties paying rent.

   iii.          Reiterated that rent arrears were stable over a period of several months. Sufficient resources were in place to support tenants who experienced financial difficulties. No-one would be evicted during the pandemic. The council was trying to balance income with investment and service provision. Rents would be kept under review.

 

Councillor Martinelli introduced the Liberal Democrat Amendment to the 2021/22 Housing Revenue Budget.

 

Councillor Robertson requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report (amendment shown as bold text):

1.3ii A proposal to include a revenue bid for £50,000 to fund a project to explore over two years water conservation options for the existing housing stock, recognising that the findings from the project, once fully explored and quantified, are likely to result in a future capital bid to facilitate the desired investment in the housing stock.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

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

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Liberal Democrats Group alternative budget should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

1.3i A proposal to include a revenue bid of £30,000 to fund a

project to review responsive and void repairs service

standards, with the aim to improve service levels for council

property maintenance, to manage tenant expectations and

reduce complaints. 

 

3 votes in favour to 11 against. The amendment was lost.

 

1.3ii A proposal to include a revenue bid for £50,000 to fund a project to explore over two years water conservation options for the existing housing stock, recognising that the findings from the project, once fully explored and quantified, are likely to result in a future capital bid to facilitate the desired investment in the housing stock. 

 

Committee unanimously in favour. The amendment was accepted.

 

1.3iii A proposal to extend the funding for the Energy Assessor post, from the current two year fixed term funding, for a further three years (at a cost of £47,200 per annum), to

ensure that energy improvements can be considered for a

greater number of existing council homes, recognising that

the work of the Energy assessor is likely to result in future

capital bids to facilitate the required investment in the

housing stock.

 

3 votes in favour to 11 against. The amendment was lost.

 

Diane Best introduced the Resident Representative Amendment to the 2021/22 Housing Revenue Budget.

 

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

      i.          Fly tipping was an issue to address.

     ii.          Councillors expressed concern that enforcement action could be taken against a whole block of flats if an individual perpetrator could not be identified.

   iii.          Extra personnel could be needed in lockdown to assist tackling fly tipping in lockdown. Clean up days could be re-instated after lockdown. Council enforcement teams liaised with other officers, so if the enforcement team could not take action, other officers would.

 

The Resident Representative alternative budget: 11 votes in favour to 0 against with 3 abstentions. The amendment was accepted.

 

Unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations a to k of the budget proposal, as amended above. 

 

The following vote was chaired by Councillor Todd-Jones.

 

Resolved (5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions) to endorse the original recommendations l to v of the budget proposal. 

 

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.

 

Regular update on the delivery of the 500 new council homes. This is marked as a key decision as an increased budget may be required to deliver revisions to approved schemes.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the programme to deliver 500 Council homes with funding from the Combined Authority.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the combined Authority programme.

     ii.          Noted the revised budget related to the Kingsway refurbishment scheme as detailed in paragraph 7.4.2 of the officer’s report approval of which was sought under the HRA Budget Setting Report (HSC Item 8, Section 5).

   iii.          Noted the revised budget related to the Tedder Way and Kendal Way schemes as detailed in in paragraph 7.4.2 of the officer’s report, approval of which was sought under the HRA Budget Setting Report (HSC Item 8, Section 5).

   iv.          Approved the revisions to the proposed Scheme at Tedder Way as outlined in paragraph 7.4.2 and Appendix 3 of the Officer’s report.

    v.          Approved the revisions to the proposed Scheme at Kendal Way as outlined in paragraph 7.4.2 and Appendix 3 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Development Agency.

 

The Strategic Director and Head of Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Funding for some of the program came from the Combined Authority, but this would not cover the whole program. The City Council would continue to report to the Combined Authority on a quarterly basis. Future funding may come from Central Government.

     ii.          Jimmy’s Homeless Shelter managed the pods. They would provide reports to the City Council. Pods were set up in Dundee Close and Newmarket Road. Crowlands Way pods had planning permission.

   iii.          Sixteen pods were planned, future ones could be made accessible if there was demand. Pods and furniture had to be ordered in advance of being set up. The Council could order more modular homes if they were needed.

   iv.          Officers were reviewing housing sites to balance the need for conventional homes and modular ones. Officers had to look at the need for different accommodation on-site.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 (with 3 abstentions) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve a package of new build housing schemes to be brought forward following Passivhaus design principles. These schemes require approval of capital budgets to progress up to planning application stage, and approval to commence consultation with neighbouring tenants and leaseholders.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report brought forward proposals for 35 dwellings across five sites as a first step in delivering homes on Passivhaus principles.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved new build housing schemes

a.    at Ditton Walk.

b.    at 71-73 Fen Road.

c.    at Aragon Close.

d.    at Sackville Close.

e.    at Borrowdale.

     ii.          Approved the capital budget as set out in the Officer’s report for the package of Passivhaus schemes noting that this will be reduced should any of the five sites not proceed.

   iii.          Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the schemes, including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in the Officer’s report.

   iv.          Subject to Council approval of the budget, approved the development to be carried out through the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the 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 Senior Housing Development Manager.

 

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

      i.          Allocated disabled parking was available.

     ii.          There was a lot of misinformation around what the City Council planned for the Fen Road site, it was hoped the Officer’s report addressed this.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the new build housing programme for 2022-2032.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved the recommendations from the Buro Happold Report, and agreed these should be included in the Updated Sustainable Housing Design Guide so that all council developments will be required to:

a.    Target Net Zero Carbon from 2030.

b.    Target Passivhaus certification from 2021.

c.    Attain Sustainability targets for water, overheating, post-occupancy evaluation (POE), Electric vehicle charging, car parking and biodiversity.

 

To attain this will require the adoption of:

d.    the Sustainability Roadmap to Net Zero Carbon.

e.    the decision-making process for sustainability standards.

f.      the seven principles of sustainability.

 

     ii.          Approved the following delivery strategy:

a.    Pursue a mix of delivery strategies to deliver the 10-year programme.

b.    The majority of the programme to be delivered through CIP.

c.    A programme of smaller schemes to be delivered through design and build contracts.

d.    Purchase of affordable units from developers delivered as a result of S106 agreements.

e.    Consideration of other opportunities which may arise for joint ventures or development agreements with other partners.

 

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 Development Agency.

 

The Strategic Director and Head of Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Circa two thousand homes were being built to the Passivhaus standard.

     ii.          National bodies and other local authorities were supportive of the standard but were not building on similar scale schemes to Cambridge as the risks were higher to achieve targets.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 (with 3 abstentions) to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Public Questions

 

A member of the public (representing ‘It Takes a City (Cambridge)’) asked a question as set out below.

 

      i.          Supported the strategy as it would help rough sleepers.

     ii.          Asked the council to consider some additions to the Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy:

a.    Reduce rough sleeping target to zero.

b.    Collaborate with the public, private and third sectors.

c.    Could all partners jointly own the Strategy and share actions.

 

The Executive Councillor said he would be happy to follow up with officers on how to develop the Strategy going forward.

 

Councillor Bick, speaking as a Ward Councillor raised the following points:

      i.          Welcomed the report and Strategy.

     ii.          Was seeking a joined up approach to address issues.

   iii.          The adoption of the street to home approach would be of particular help to entrenched rough sleepers through support for individuals by a link worker.

   iv.          There was concern that the County Council would close hostels, but they had stepped back from this. The County Council were looking to work with the City Council to ensure a strategy was in place before funding was withdrawn.

    v.          The ambition was to reduce rough sleeping numbers, but this would involve dealing with people with complicated issues who were sometimes hard to engage.

   vi.          The city was a magnet that attracted people to get money for substance addictions, which stopped them getting homes and jobs. This needed to be addressed to get to zero rough sleepers.

 vii.          Members of the public wanted to help the homeless community, but did not always know how to. Queried how to educate them and show links to voluntary groups.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.          Signposted priorities in the Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy to address rough sleeping and the complicated issues associated with it such as begging.

     ii.          The Strategy was looking at advice, support and enforcement actions that could be undertaken with partner organisations such as the Police.

   iii.          The public made enquiries about how to help people seen begging:

a.    Ways to give education information (eg webpages) were being reviewed.

b.    A future Communication Strategy was being considered (with partner organisations) on how to do this.

 

The Committee gave a formal vote of thanks from to the Housing Services Manager and colleagues for their work to tackle homelessness.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council is required by law to produce a Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy. This requirement is provided for in the Homelessness Act 2002 (as amended). 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy (2021-26) and the year one and two action plan as appended to the officer’s report

     ii.          Delegated authority to the Head of Housing to approve annual reiterations of the strategy action plans at years 3,4 and 5 of the strategy in consultation with the Executive Councillor

   iii.          Agreed than an update on progress made in delivering objectives outlined in this strategy was brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.

 

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 Housing Services Manager.

 

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

      i.          Many homeless women were ‘hidden’ as they sofa surfed instead of living on the streets.

     ii.          80% of rough sleepers were men and 20% were women, so services were geared towards men.

   iii.          Women were often homeless due to domestic abuse, so were a vulnerable group, which should be reflected in the Strategy.

   iv.          Separate male and female accommodation should be provided in homeless accommodation.

    v.          Queried how the LGBT community were affected by homelessness.

   vi.          There were people who resisted coming off the street. Different solutions were needed to get people off the street and address anti-social behaviour such as campfires and drug abuse.

 vii.          The pods were a good idea. Queried if they could be set up in all city wards. Asked Ward Councillors to recommend areas where pods could be built.

 

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

      i.          There were many reasons why homeless figures fluctuated such as inward migration. A target to achieve zero homeless people could be set, but it would be hard to achieve.

     ii.          Jimmy’s Homeless Shelter would provide an exceptions report to show the rate of homelessness to the County Council who were responsible for monitoring it.

   iii.          The City Council would support people moving from hostels to private rented or local authority housing.

   iv.          One pod will be allocated specifically for a LGBT person’s use. Officers would look at LGBT needs separately, this did not require a change to the Officer’s recommendation.

    v.          Homelessness was a wider issue than just rough sleeping.

 

Councillor Martinelli requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report :

2.3 Agree that an update on progress with this strategy is brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.

 

This was amended by Councillor Sheil (with Councillor Martinelli agreement) to:

 

2.3 Agree that an update on progress made in delivering objectives outlined in this strategy is brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee on a yearly basis.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this additional recommendation.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

An independent feasibility study was conducted into the need for selective licensing of private rented properties within Cambridge City. The study was for the purpose of identifying if it was appropriate for the Council to implement a scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Agreed that the Feasibility Study Report, contained in Appendix A of the Officer’s report could be released into the public domain.

     ii.          Agreed the actions outlined within the Committee Report to address recommendations of the Feasibility Study Report throughout 2021/22, continuing the Council’s focus of improving and sustaining the quality of the private rented sector within the City.

   iii.          Agreed that an annual report be brought back assessing progress on the work in time for any new bids to be submitted for work in the budget for the following year.

 

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 Residential Team Manager, Environmental Services.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The report raised several possibilities where the council could take action against private sector landlords where they did not respond to issues raised by tenants.

     ii.          The report had a wider scope than just housing (acknowledged there was a high demand for this). The report looked at socio-economic issues (eg crime) and how actions could be taken to address these.

 

The Residential Team Manager said that work was underway to set up an enforcement group to share intelligence across regulatory services within the council as well as with external stakeholders including the Fire Service.

 

Councillor Robertson requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report:

Add third recommendation: 2.3 Agree that an annual report be brought back assessing progress on the work in time for any new bids be submitted for work in the budget for the following year.”

 

The Committee unanimously approved this additional recommendation.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation 2.1.

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation 2.2 by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions.

 

The Committee approved (new) recommendation 2.3 unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

Cambridge City Council are the lead authority with overall management responsibility for the Cambridgeshire Home Improvement Agency (CHIA) shared service. In accordance with the

City Council’s corporate governance, the Officer’s report sought approval for the CHIA Board’s decision to procure new contractors for delivery of adaptations work managed by the Agency.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved the CHIA’s board decision to proceed with a procurement exercise for up to four years for the provision of three contracts for adaptations and repairs related work

     ii.          Authorised CHIA to invite, evaluate tenders and to award contracts to suitable bidders following a competitive tender evaluation 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 Home Improvement Agency Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Home Improvement Agency Manager said that the contract retendering process would encourage local contractors as those based further away may not be able to fulfil the project brief.

 

The Committee unanimously* resolved to endorse the recommendations. (*Only councillors were able to vote on part 2 items.)

 

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.

For information not decision.

The report provides an update on the Estates & Facilities Service Review and information on compliance related work within the service, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing and fire safety.

This item was Chaired by Diana Minns (Vice-Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

The report provides an update on the Estates & Facilities Service Review and information on compliance related work within the service, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing and fire safety work.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Noted the progress of the service review and compliance related work detailed within 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 Housing Maintenance and Assets.

 

The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Officers were writing to leaseholders inviting them to use the same contract as tenants to install fire doors in flats. Some leaseholders had taken up this offer. A report would come back to committee in future after Fire Safety Bill information had been received.

     ii.          Options around payment for fire doors for Leaseholders would be set out in the report.

   iii.          Currently, it was not always possible for officers to undertake fire door work as people did not always want work personnel in their homes due to home working/schooling in lockdown. Officers were working with contractors and residents to find a compromise. Officers would wait until the end of lockdown to undertaken work if residents did not want work undertaken at present. A waiver to seek written confirmation to delay work would not be sought from residents. Officers could seek advice to ascertain the impact on home insurance if fire doors were not installed.

 

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.

This item was Chaired by Diana Minns (Vice-Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

The Council owns a number of blocks of flats built in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of these flats have structural concrete elements. Further to a report submitted to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2020, Estates and Facilities have been surveying blocks of flats that have three stories or more and a further list of properties where structural repair work is required has been identified. Detail designs were underway, and the work needed to be tendered in order to award a contract(s) to a building contractor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Approved the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorised the Strategic Director (following consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to carry out structural repairs and associated repair works to Council housing flats.

 

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 Asset Manager.

 

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

      i.          There would be no climate change impact from the repair work, it was making good what was already in place.

     ii.          Other programs of work in the housing capital program may have a more positive impact in reducing climate change.

Councillor Todd-Jones said work would lead to more energy efficient buildings.

   iii.          Stakeholders were being consulted about repairs, the council would listen to resident’s wishes about whether they would like repairs to be undertaken or not. Officers would be mindful of the impact of repairs (eg noise) as people stayed at home due to covid lockdown.

   iv.          The budget provision for work was already set out in the Council’s 30 year plan. If committee members wished to scrutinise progress of the contract process then a report could be brought back to Housing Scrutiny Committee.

 

Councillor Robertson said processes were in place for officers to oversee the contract process if/once delegation was given.

 

The Strategic Director said a  general capital program delivery report could be brought  to committee, but not one for individual projects.

 

Diane Best requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report (amendment shown as bold text):

 

Approved the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorised the Strategic Director (following consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to carry out structural repairs and associated repair works to Council housing flats.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation as amended.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The report presented the findings of a self-assessment undertaken in response to the publication of the Housing Ombudsman’s (HO) Complaint Handling Code and Self-Assessment Tool.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Approved the report and associated action plan included in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Policy and Performance Officer.

 

The Head of Housing and Policy and Performance Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Officers had compared the City Council with several other councils, we were doing well in comparison to others.

     ii.          The City Council had similar levels of complaint escalation to other councils.

   iii.          The City Council performed better in responding faster to stage 1 and 2 complaints compared to other councils.

 

The Committee resolved by 13 votes to 0 (unanimous of all present) to endorse the recommendation.

 

Mandy Powell-Hardy joined the meeting after the vote.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

(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.

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.

Recommend this report to Council, including the estimated Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2021/22 to 2023/24.

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.

The Executive Councillor will recommend the strategy to Council. (Item to be considered by Council on 25 February 2021.)

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.

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.

To continue to work with the Health and Wellbeing Board and Cambridge Community Safety Partnership to ensure that public agencies and others can together address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens can be addressed.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board and Cambridge Community Safety Partnership as a part of the Council’s commitment given in its “Principles of Partnership Working”.

 

The rise of the pandemic this year has disrupted some of the planned activity of the partnerships to allow the wider systems to focus on the immediate priorities of responding to the pandemic and planning for future recovery and resilience.

 

During this time partnership working both with other public agencies and local communities has become more important than ever as new arrangements and ways of working have emerged. This report, however, looks at the business of the partnerships in question and does not look to these wider partnership arrangements, which have been the subject of other papers to members.

 

Decision of Executive Councillors

      i.          The Executive Councillor for Communities agreed to continue to work with the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Committees to ensure that public agencies and others can come together to address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge City, and that the concerns of citizens are heard.

     ii.          The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety agreed to continue to work with the Community Safety Partnership to ensure that public agencies and others can come together to address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge City, and that the concerns of citizens are heard.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee made no comments in response to the report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillors approved their recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillors.

Matter for Decision

The Council passed a motion on 16 July 2020 in support of Black Lives Matter. One of the actions identified in the motion was to: “Request from the Director of Public Health a report on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on BAME communities in Cambridge by the end of 2020, to be reviewed in the Environment and Community scrutiny committee, and shared with BAME community representatives.” The report from Public Health is attached as Appendix A to the Officer’s report.

 

In addition, the Officer’s report provided details around how Cambridge City Council has been supporting Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic, especially relating to sharing Public Health messaging through community leaders.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Noted the content of the Officer’s report and Appendix A.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

The Director of Public Health said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Public Health see vaccination take-up as a key priority in overall control of Covid and are offering support to the NHS that is leading on the vaccination work.

     ii.          There is indication of vaccination hesitance for different groups in the community, especially some BAME groups.

   iii.          Since the start of the pandemic, Public Health has worked closely with the network of district and city councils across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to develop links with a range of community leaders trusted by different ethnic minority communities. Where there have been updates to Public Health messaging this has been co-produced with residents. For instance, there have been video blogs produced in different languages and read by community leaders.

   iv.          Referred the committee to weekly Covid-19 Gold Group updates on the Covid situation in the city. Suggested councillors liaised with the Strategic Director (who sat on Covid Gold Group) and council officers to pass on ‘soft’ data on how best can work together to help engage different communities in the take-up of vaccinations.

 

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 extend the use of the Council's Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget to include projects delivered by community organisations.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report recommended extending the scope of the council’s Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget to include projects delivered by community groups as well as those delivered or managed by council services. This would represent a change from the criteria agreed when the fund was proposed in a committee report in June 2018.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Agreed that the council’s Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget can be used for community-led as well as council-led projects that help deliver the objectives of the Anti-Poverty Strategy.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.

 

The Head of Corporate Strategy said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The budget process set out if funding was allocated to support projects or not. The Officer’s report set out how it would be used if so.

     ii.          The funding, if allocated through the Budget-Setting Report would effectively be held in reserve in case it were needed.

 

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

This was the annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It provided an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget in Section 3 and Appendix 1 detailed the applications received with recommendations for 2021-22 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2021-22, as set out in Appendix 1 of this report, subject to the budget approval in February 2021 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

     ii.          Approved the following grants for 2020-21 as detailed in Section 4:

a.    £15,000 – Cambridge Online (devices and data).

b.    £10,000 – Cambridge Sustainable Food (hygiene and food supplies).

c.    £20,000 – Cambridgeshire Community Foundation (Coronavirus Fund donation for City projects).

 

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.          Community grants were not specifically aimed at supporting projects that supported biodiversity. Projects may impact indirectly on environmental policy. Grants were awarded to projects that met assessment criteria. The Community Funding and Development Manager offered to liaise with Councillors about this after the committee.

     ii.          Officers actively monitored groups, funding applications and what funding could be given to support projects  that would make a difference for residents. The intention was to provide maximum flexibility in awarding grants.

   iii.          Officers worked with other teams to provide a joined up signpost on what funding was available so people could be directed to apply to another stream if one was unsuitable.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

Councillor Hadley did not take part in the vote.

 

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 Executive Councillor asked the committee to note the death of a member of the public art panel.

 

Matter for Decision

In June 2018, Environment and Community Services Scrutiny Committee considered a report that set out the future aspirations for public art in the City, and the need to update the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in light of changes to the national planning system and planning regulations, and to support the new Local Plan. The report included the requirement to undertake an evaluation process and have a ‘Big conversation’[1] about public art to inform future Policy work.

 

Following a process of evaluation through 2019/20, the Officer’s report sets the direction of travel to develop a Public Art Strategy (Strategy) for Cambridge and makes recommendations on the process and methodology required to ensure that Cambridge continues to be at the forefront of public art commissioning and delivery.

 

The Officer’s report set out the work that has been undertaken so far, and the work to be completed to secure the Strategy and future policy for public art provision in Cambridge.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Supported the use of the draft Manifesto for public art in Cambridge and the process set out in the report for researching and developing new public art policy.

    ii.          Approved:

a.    The process for taking the work forward, including the formation of a cross departmental Working Group.

b.   The Terms of Reference for the Working Group set out at 4.2.

c.    The use of consultation and research through events and a public survey, to test the draft manifesto and support the development of Policy.

 

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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Officers could revisit the manifesto text to clarify links between public art, health benefits and biodiversity.

     ii.          An Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken on artists.  Procurement rules can be used to focus on people with the required characteristics such as able to represent the local community.

 

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

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 Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety and Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 16 January 2020.

 

The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory

powers regulated by RIPA since February 2010.

 

The Officer’s report set out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

      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 this 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 made no comments in response to the report from the Officer.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report made recommendations on the development of a Litter Strategy for Cambridge City.

 

The Strategy would comprise of four key parts:

      i.          A strategic vision including a set of principles and policies.

     ii.          An appraisal of current service issues identifying areas of opportunity and setting out a current position statement.

   iii.          A review of current and potential future behavioural change activities, including awareness raising, education and enforcement, to help deliver the Strategy.

   iv.          An action plan which sets out a phased programme of activity to deliver the Strategy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

      i.          Supported the development of a litter strategy for Cambridge as outlined in the report.

     ii.          Approved the terms of reference set out at 4.3 of the Officer’s report:

a.    The programme of work to achieve the Strategy as set out in the Project Initiation Document (appendix A) subject to approval by Business Transformation Board.

b.    The use of community and stakeholder engagement and

c.    Research to support the development of the Strategy.

 

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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Strategy would introduce new recycling initiatives.

     ii.          There was no data at present on where bins would be located or how often they would be emptied. The intention was to look at where efficiencies could be gained based on consultation feedback.

 

The Executive Councillor welcomed recommendations on bin locations and litter hot spots from the public.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision 

The report 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.

 

 

Update on programme and core site summary baseline business plan.

 

Information report, no decision required.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

This item was chaired by Councillor Mike Todd-Jones

 

Matter for Decision

This report outlined grant funding to organisations providing homelessness prevention services. It provided an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget in Section 3 of the Officer’s report and Appendix 1 detailed the applications received with recommendations for 2021-22 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

Approved the Homelessness Prevention Grants to voluntary, community and statutory organisations for 2021-22, as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2021 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations

 

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 Housing Services Manager.

 

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

      i.          The City Council were doing a lot with a fixed amount of money.

     ii.          The same amount of grant funding was available this year as last year, but the cost of services was increasing. Expressed concern that grant funding was increasing by 1% but inflation was increasing by 2%.

 

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

      i.          Organisations would have to source funding from other sources to cover their costs.

     ii.          There had been an increase in domestic tension in the last nine to ten months due to covid. Officers were monitoring the situation. There had not been an increase in the number of people approaching the housing advice service.

 

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 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.

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.

 

 

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.