Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
Approval of a plan to deliver an additional 1,000 Council homes, building on the success of the 500 programme. This report will include newly identified sites, delivery models and funding options.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report set out key issues for the committee to
consider in formulating a new Housing Programme. The report outlined the
strategic objectives of the programme, the key assumptions that had been used
as a starting point and steps to investigate potential opportunities to move
the programme forward. The report is in line with the provisions and
assumptions in the HRA MTFS report.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved
the bringing forward of a development programme to provide new housing in 2022-32
by the Council.
ii.
Approve
the strategic guidance for the aims of the programme set out in Section 4 of
this report.
iii.
Approve
the allocation of £1m to the 2020/21 budget and £2m to the 2021/22 budget to
allow early investment in feasibility, site investigation and land assembly
from the overall resource incorporated in the MTFS for the delivery of this
programme.
iv.
Approve
the proposal to report progress on development of the new programme to Housing
Scrutiny Committee in January 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 Strategic Director (FB).
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
The delivery of 10 x 1 bed flats to accommodate
rough sleepers was good and was looking forward to the pods being located in
East Chesterton.
ii.
Noted the need for decent housing and queried the
council’s different investments.
iii.
Questioned what plans were going to be put in place
for tenants when existing sites were redeveloped.
iv.
Noted that some market housing may need to be built
on sites to enable the development of affordable housing. Also asked whether
affordable housing would be pepper potted across the development to build a
mixed sustainable community.
v.
Referred to paragraph 5.2 of the officer’s report
on page 158 of the agenda which said that building zero carbon homes could add
an extra 40% to build costs and noted that the cost implications of such
development could mean a reduction in the number of houses which could be
built.
The Strategic Director (FB) and the Head of Housing said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The Council had been prudent with its investments,
there were different reasons for investing in the commercial sector and in
housing. Commercial investments ensured
that facilities in retail were still available and could attract returns which
could be used to support other council services. Investment in housing could be
used to support more investment in affordable housing.
ii.
When existing sites were considered for
redevelopment a detailed options analysis would be undertaken. This would consider the current status of the
site, past and current maintenance costs, the EPC ratings and whether
renovation was a better option.
iii.
All homes would be built as sustainably as the site
constraints would allow. Building mixed and balanced communities was at the
forefront of officer's minds.
iv.
Each site would be assessed on an individual basis,
there may be some sites which could not support net zero carbon development.
The Executive Councillor commented:
i.
That
when existing sites were considered for redevelopment tenants would be
consulted to ensure that they were fully involved, the council had gained
valuable experience in this area over the last couple of years.
Councillor Martinelli proposed and
Councillor McGerty seconded the following amendment to recommendation 2.1
(additional text underlined):
2.1
Approved
the bringing forward of a development programme to provide new housing 2022-32
by the Council, on a net zero carbon basis.
Councillor
Martinelli stated that they did not want housing development to add to the
carbon footprint, the council should be a nationwide leader on this issue. He also supported the pod housing scheme.
Lulu Agate
commented that a lot of people worried about climate change and expensive
heating bills. She knew a lot of tenants who would be in support of the
amendment to recommendation 2.1.
The Executive Councillor commented that any
proposal now to go to net zero carbon would require additional financing and
could result in fewer homes being built. The increasing costs would call into
question the ability of the council to be able to deliver the number of homes
that they wanted to. There could be technical or geographical limits to deliver
sustainable housing on a particular site.
Councillor Ashton queried the financial
impact of the proposed amendment.
On a show of hands the amendment was lost by
3 votes to 5.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
Joint response with South Cambs District Council to the consultation.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 29/09/2020
Decision:
Matter
for Decision
The report informed Cambridge City
Council’s response to the Government's White Paper, Planning for
the Future Consultation, and the Changes to the Current Planning
System consultation.
This report set out, for both
consultation responses the key response points and the direction of the
response for discussion, to be refined following the meeting.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for
Planning Policy and Open Spaces.
i.
Noted the initial
response to the Government’s White Paper (Planning for the future) consultation
as set out in appendix 1 of the officer’s report.
ii.
Noted the initial
response to the Government’s Changes to the Current Planning System
consultation as set out in appendix 2 of the officer’s report.
iii.
Agreed, for each
consultation the wording of a final joint response and/or any individual
response through an out of cycle decision, in consultation with Chair and
Spokes.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and
Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the
Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and the Planning Policy
Manager.
The Committee made the following comments
in response to the report:
i.
The way the questions
were worded in the White Paper there was an assumption that the
reader agreed with the proposals.
ii.
Concerned the white
paper changed the balance in the planning system; many people locally felt the
democratic element of the planning system too weak and these proposals did not
make it stronger.
iii.
It appeared in the
proposals that the democratic involvement process was completed ‘upfront’
such as allocating land free zones and agreeing design codes, but this would be
disingenuous as the Government was proposing to reduce the preparation
time available.
iv.
Welcomed the reference
to digital consultation for the public. But both the City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council were already achieving this.
v.
Believed that residents
became energised at the plan stage and resident’s involvement seemed to be
diminished at this stage in these proposals.
vi.
Mistake
to remove the ownership of the local planning authority to determine the
housing needs rather than be advised by Government of the number of housing
required. This removed local discussions with external agencies, the public and
any ownership from the local authority.
vii.
Seemed
to be a return of an adult and child relationship with Government.
viii.
Questioned
if the changes would improve the planning system.
ix.
Important
to highlight the infrastructure levy; how and who would deliver the major
infrastructure. Currently this was done by
the developer and asked how much the local authorities would be expected
to deliver and when.
x.
Queried
who would be responsible for
the infrastructure, including onsite and off-site.
xi.
Who would determine what infrastructure
should be on site, the developer, or the local authority?
xi.
Questioned
if the levy could be used as an economic tool by Government which could be
changed at any time.
xii.
The Government
could change development and the resources that flowed through local
government, i.e. changing the number of houses, designating, or de-designating
the number of growth areas or renewal areas every five years.
xiii.
Did
not consider this would be an advantageous system to certain vested political
interests.
xiv.
Believed
the proposed changes could lead to MP’s, elected representatives and large
financial institutes lobbying Government to implement where growth areas were
allocated; this could lead to poorer parts of the country not being
developed.
xv.
Would
support growth in the Cambridge area if it were sustainable with the correct
infrastructure; needed to ensure the best deal for Cambridge was secured.
xvi.
Required
further clarity on the lifting of the site threshold for affordable housing and
asked if this be temporary or not.
xvii.
Noted
the Government wanted to prioritise first
time buyers; it should be to provide affordable housing in the first
instance.
xviii.
The
papers proposed that the Carbon neutral ambition
was 2050 but Cambridge City Council’s was 2030. This would be a backward step
for the environment and this point should be highlighted.
xix.
Welcomed suggestion
that local authorities would be able to generate income at the ‘call for site
stage’.
xx.
Officers
should provide localised examples when critiquing the papers.
xxi.
Developments
not being completed was an issue and time limits and penalties were
needed.
xxii.
There
was no mention of water and questioned if there was there enough of a water
supply to meet demand in the city and surrounding areas.
xxiii.
Expressed
concern at having only one design code and work undertaken at pre-application
by the city council should be used as an example. Both
officers and councillors spent time considering the overall style and
if this were suited to the area which it would sit in.
xxiv.
No
reference to disability adjustments; an area that officers and councilors were
extremely diligent on.
xxv.
Expressed
concern at the temporary lifting the small sites threshold below which
developers did not need to contribute to 40 or 50 units to support SME
builders; what about those individuals who needed economic support caused by
the effects of COVID-19. This would also support large building companies. The
Government should look at a specific policy that supported SME
builders only and did not have a negative impact of another
group.
xxvi.
Stated
the temporary lifting of the small site threshold for affordable housing would
increase developers profit margins; house prices should therefore come down as
the cost of the affordable housing was not being funded.
xxvii.
The Infrastructure
Levy would be paid out at the conclusion of the development with a proposal for
local authorities to borrow against this. Could it be suggested that some of
the monies should be paid upfront that would help negate financial risk to
burden the cost of infrastructure at the start of the development.
xxviii.
Further explanation was
required on the area set up and what control would local authorities
have, such as the number of housing units.
xxix.
Queried how
raising the threshold on affordable housing units would impact on the viability
assessment; would this be an improvement or not?
xxx.
Asked if developments
were not undertaken or completed for several years how much of a liability
would this have on local authorities.
xxxi.
Wondered if these
changes moved local authorities to a more development control (with much less
control) set up rather than a planning system.
xxxii.
Highlighted a typo on
question 9b on p37 which needed amending.
xxxiii.
Suggested the officer
had recommend the city council contribute to a national infrastructure levy and
asked:
i.
What financial effect
would this have as there was a large proportion of highly costed infrastructure
needs?
ii.
Whether the pooling
system which loose potential revenue to the council?
xxxiv.
Stated these proposals were a complete
overhaul of the planning process.
xxxv.
The council should lead on the
environmental issues; there should be criteria as to where development would
take place based on environmental rationale.
xxxvi.
Encouraged officer to strengthen the
argument that the democratic process and consultation with residents would be
lost; challenges should be permitted at all stages of the local plan process.
xxxvii.
Asked if there would be a green paper.
In response to the Joint Director of
Planning and Economic Development and the Planning Policy Manager said the
following:
i.
Thanked the committee
for all their comments and feedback.
ii.
Regarding viability
assessments when raising the threshold, believed there would be no requirement
to provide affordable housing under this scheme below the set
threshold. The developers would benefit from not having to make that
provision.
iii.
In terms of development
being granted and then not being built the conditions placed on the start of
the development which could alleviate some issues raised.
iv.
In
some cases speculative answers had been given in response to the
white paper, as officers could only use what was written in the
document.
v.
The
consultation argues that in the proposals, a plan led system would be
granting control communities setting what should happen in each area and what
design that development should take.
vi.
Would pick up all
comments regarding the Infrastructure Levy as further detail
was required on this would work.
vii.
Part of the broader
narrative is that practitioners’ views held both locally and
nationally to the white paper were that it had not
yet been fully formed. It did not fully address what it was trying to
achieve.
viii.
The white
paper says that the guidance outlined rigid, clear and transparent
requirements to be shaped by communities, but the amount of time the
Government would devote to shape those requirements in a local plan
process was considerably less time than local authorities had committed working
with communities; therefore could this be seen
as unrealistic.
ix.
Challenging
to define with certainty all the parameters to sustainable forms of
development to fit the city of Cambridge in the time frame recommended.
x.
The Government appeared
to be moving away the role of committees making decisions on a series of policy
judgements but towards a more prescribed set of
criteria. Preparing a book of criteria that would cover the diversity
of Cambridge with only twelve months to talk to the communities seemed too
ambitious.
xi.
As shown on p63 of the
agenda it had been made clear the changes to affordable housing was not
supported and would look to add the committee’s comments.
xii.
Was not offering to
give essential infrastructure spending to be spent nationally. But there may be
for large and sustainable projects issues around ‘gain share’ and local
contributions complimenting national contribution infrastructure investment.
xiii.
The plan making process
would identify what infrastructure was considered necessary where the funding
received would be allocated to.
xiv.
Did not believe that
green papers were part of the constitutional requirement to change legislation
and this would not be issued by Government.
The Committee resolved unanimously
to endorse the recommendations
The
Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the
Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No
conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Jonathan Dixon
The Council uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of developments on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. In line with the arrangements agreed by the Executive Councillor, the Council has invited proposals for improving play areas and open spaces within the city as part of its 2020 S106 funding round. A range of applications have been received and assessed against the S106 selection criteria . The report will summarises those applications and assessments and makes recommendations for S106 funding.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 29/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
To approve the allocation of S106 funding for various
projects as outlined in the officer’s report.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning
Policy and Open Spaces.
Agreed to allocated s106 funding to the following
projects, as amended, subject to the business case approval (see section 4 and appendix A of the Officers’ report for
project details).
|
Chesterton Rec
Ground wheel-sport facility (East Chesterton ward): an additional £20,000
(informal open space). |
|
N2 |
Five Trees open
space: wildflower and tree planting (East Chesterton): £5,000 (informal open
space) |
|
N3 |
Pearl Close play
area & open space improvements (East Chesterton): £2,900 (play) and
£3,000 (informal open space) |
|
E1 |
Tree planting in
open spaces in Coleridge ward: £13,000 (informal open space) |
|
S3 |
Nightingale Avenue
Rec footpath improvements (Queen Edith’s ward): an additional £10,000
(informal open space) |
|
S4 |
Landscaping for
new Nightingale Rec Ground Pavilion (Queen Edith’s): £10,000 (informal open
space) |
|
|
|
|
S6 |
Accordia open
space improvements: installation of drainage swales and biodiversity
information boards (Trumpington): £5,000 (informal open space) |
|
WC1 |
Parker’s Piece
tree planting (Market): provisional allocation until June 2022 of £9,900
(informal open space) towards the wider project costs (see paragraph 4.3c). |
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 Development Manager who reminded the committee that since
report had been published, it had become clear that one of the recommendations
(to fund the Trumpington Recreation Ground boundary landscaping proposal [S5])
using local S106 contributions) was not ready for consideration and had been
withdrawn for consideration.
Councillor Bird welcomed the recommendation for funding for the
Chesterton Rec Ground wheel-sport facility, the Five Trees open space:
wildflower and tree planting (East Chesterton), Pearl Close play area & open space improvements (East Chesterton)
and thanked officers for their hard work in bringing these schemes forward.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation
as amended to allocate S106 funding to the following eight projects below,
subject to business case approval (see section 4 and
appendix A of the officers’ report for project details):
|
Chesterton Rec Ground wheel-sport facility (East
Chesterton ward): an additional £20,000 (informal open space). |
|
N2 |
Five Trees open space: wildflower and tree planting
(East Chesterton): £5,000 (informal open space) |
|
N3 |
Pearl Close play area & open space improvements
(East Chesterton): £2,900 (play) and £3,000 (informal open space) |
|
E1 |
Tree planting in open spaces in Coleridge ward:
£13,000 (informal open space) |
|
S3 |
Nightingale Avenue Rec footpath improvements (Queen
Edith’s ward): an additional £10,000 (informal open space) |
|
S4 |
Landscaping for new Nightingale Rec Ground Pavilion
(Queen Edith’s): £10,000 (informal open space) |
|
|
|
|
S6 |
Accordia open space improvements: installation of
drainage swales and biodiversity information boards (Trumpington): £5,000
(informal open space) |
|
WC1 |
Parker’s Piece tree planting (Market): provisional
allocation until June 2022 of £9,900 (informal open space) towards the wider
project costs (see paragraph 4.3c). |
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Alistair Wilson
For information – not for decision.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report provided 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, recent audit
actions and fire safety.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Noted the importance of the programme in relation
to fire door installation and noted that Housing Associations were also doing
electrical testing, so everyone was in the same position regarding tenant works
following the covid-19 lockdown.
ii.
Noted that some leaseholders had replaced their
front doors themselves which may have been compliant with fire regulations at
the time they were installed and queried whether these would be ok or if they
would need to be replaced.
iii.
Asked whether priority was being given to those
tenants who had previously been required to shield to undertake their
outstanding gas servicing.
iv.
Asked if leaseholders refused to upgrade their fire
doors would that adversely affect/negate their contents insurance.
v.
Asked whether the fire safety works would be
completed on time given the delays incurred as a result of lockdown and asked
whether a wider pool of contractors were required in order to get the works
completed on time.
The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Leaseholders had been contacted regarding fire door
replacements and they had the ability to be able to order a replacement as part
of the programme if they wanted. 12% of leaseholders had asked for a quote and
20% of leaseholders had said that they did not require a quotation. Once the
details of the new Fire Safety Bill have been approved we will be in a better
position to understand the changes to requirements and enforcement powers.
ii.
There were 87 people who required a gas
service. The Council did not hold
information about whether these tenants have a requirement to shield or
self-isolate and officers were contacting all residents to try and work through
the outstanding services and arrange an appointment. Officers were working to Government guidance
and would make every effort to be able to access properties and would keep
records / risk assessments if they were unable to gain access to a property.
iii.
Officers agreed to investigate what the position
would be if leaseholders refused to upgrade their fire doors and the impact on
their insurance.
iv.
Confirmed that works were programmed until March
2021 and the current contractors had indicated they have capacity to undertake
the fire safety work and any delays would be because of either a further
lockdown or the ability to be able to access properties.
The Committee resolved unanimously 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.
Lead officer: Lynn Bradley
1. Housing Scrutiny
Committee are asked to delegate authority to the Strategic Director in regard
to any changes to the Tenancy Policy following the upcoming review of Local
Housing Allowance rent setting
2. To approve the Hoarding Policy
3. To approve the Rechargeable Works Policy
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
This report
presented the following Cambridge City Council (CCC) policies which had been
updated for the Housing Scrutiny Committee’s approval: Tenancy Policy
(2020-23), Rechargeable Works Policy (2020), Hoarding Policy (2020).
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved the Tenancy Policy (2020-23), Rechargeable Works Policy (2020)
and Hoarding Policy (2020) as attached to the officer’s report.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options
Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Policy and
Performance Officer (Housing Services).
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
The Committee welcomed
the clear policy on Hoarding, and noted the involvement and advice received
from Lulu Agate (Tenant rep) in compiling this report.
ii.
Asked when an enforced clearance would arise under
the Hoarding Policy and whether this was few and far between.
iii.
Asked what training an officer who made assessments
under the Hoarding Policy had and if referrals were done with the individual’s
consent.
iv.
Tenant representatives confirmed that there was
training available regarding hoarding as they had attended some training on hoarding.
v.
Asked whether there was any discretion regarding
the rechargeable works policy as tenants might consider some works to be urgent
and request an urgent call out and incur costs but the council may not consider
the works to be urgent.
vi.
Asked whether the policies would be publicised if
they were approved.
The Policy and Performance Officer (Housing
Services) and the Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Under the Hoarding Policy if the tenant was not
high risk then officers would work with the tenant for a 6-month period.
There was a
level of officer discretion before enforcement action was undertaken. If
however there were health and safety concerns then there would be a
multi-agency intervention and officers would then start enforcement.
ii.
A referral under the Hoarding Policy was usually
done at the same time as a safeguarding referral. Criteria for assessments were
set out in a County Council protocol and this protocol was widely used by other
local authorities.
iii.
There would be screening / triaging of emergency
works before works were undertaken.
iv.
Confirmed that if the policies were approved then
these would be publicised including in the ‘Open Door’ magazine.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Sally Norman
Allocation of £1,513,000 for the purchase of 7x new build affordable homes at The Mews, Histon Road.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report seeks approval for a capital budget to purchase 7 affordable
units from Laragh Homes, for rent as Council homes. These will consist of the
following: 6 x 2 bed, 4 person Flats and 1 x 2 bed, 4 person House
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved the purchase of 7 new Council homes at the Mews,
Histon Road and delegated authority to the Strategic Director to approve
contract terms with Laragh Homes/LLP in respect of this transaction.
ii.
Approve a total budget of £1,513,000 to enable the development of 7 homes at the Mews, Histon Road.
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.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
a)
That Members adopt the revised charging schedule and categories to be
introduced on 6th October 2020.
b) To agree that the pre-application charging scheme will be reviewed in 12
months’ time.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 29/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report referred to the Shared Planning Service commitment to review
and integrate its process for providing pre-application advice in the 2020/2021
Business Plan.
Having begun that process earlier in the year, approval was sought for
the proposed future arrangements for (including charges) for pre-application
advice. This service offer would sit alongside the statutory planning
application process (where fees and process are determined nationally) and
which was unaffected by these proposals.
Decision of the Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces.
i.
Agreed the
proposals for Cambridge City Council to introduce the revised pre-application
service offer and charging schedule set out in the Officer’s report for the
Cambridge City Council area from 2nd November 2020.
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 Joint Director of Planning and
Economic Development.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Felt that the
charges were too low for the quality of service received and could be higher.
ii.
The scaling of the
charges was disproportionate.
iii.
The fees did seem
to be minor compared to the private sector but noted it was important the
service needed to be accessible to all members of the public.
iv.
Asked as the fees
for smaller businesses had been reduced could the same be done for smaller
charities undertaking small developments.
v.
Queried why an
article 4 direction was not being charged for.
vi.
Noted there was no
fees for parish councils and asked if city councils need to be included.
vii.
DPA (Data
Protection Act) guidance should sought when officers were offering virtual
advice to developers / applicants as this could be sensitive and confidential;
should be made aware to developers this information could be shared under a
Freedom of Information request.
viii.
Exemption for
disabled people as stated in the scheme should also include invisible
disabilities.
ix.
Welcomed the
standardisation of costs across the two authorities.
x.
Fees should be
reviewed annually to ensure stable increments.
xi.
Asked was to the
local authority’s advantage for people to take pre-application advice.
In response to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development
said the following:
i.
One of the benefits
of pre application advice allowed the achievement of the objective by giving
early advice into a process. If an application were submitted without pre
application advice and required changing this could be time consuming,
introduce costs to the planning service and the applicant.
ii.
Recognised there
would be a range of people on various income streams applying for planning
permission and had retained the fifteen-minute free advice to assist those on
lower incomes.
iii.
Would work on the
definition of disability to ensure there were no disadvantages to some
individuals.
iv.
Would work with the
Executive Councillor to examine if small charities could qualify for a
reduction of costs as small businesses. Would liaise with the Chair and Spokes
on the wording of this clause; however, a position of judgement would be
retained in the final schedule dependent on the charity’s size of development
and costs
v.
There was no
comparable body to the parish council in Cambridge City.
vi.
Developments which
used Article 4 were exempt from a planning fee and it was for committee to
determine whether this exemption should be removed from the schedule
vii.
Guidance on DPA would
be provided for officers when offering advice virtually and for those who
accessed the virtual advice.
The Committee resolved by 8 votes 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.
Approve the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorise the Strategic Director (following consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award a contract to a contractor to carry out energy efficiency works and associated repair works to Council houses.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
As part of a programme of energy efficiency
improvements to the Council's housing stock it is planned to install external
wall insulation and solar panels to Council properties in the Arbury ward.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved
the use of the EEM solid wall insulation framework to directly call off and
award contract(s) to Cornerstone (East Anglia) Limited to carry out energy
efficiency improvements to Council dwellings. Phase 1 - Seventy properties in
20/21. Phase 2 - Seventy properties in 21/22
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 and the Asset Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked whether the energy
rating of the properties could be improved further and what percentage of the
energy ratings data was estimated and what percentage came from actual data.
ii.
Noted that due to the
fabric of the buildings, it was not easy to improve the energy efficiency of
the buildings but it was a challenge that could be met.
iii.
Similar works had been undertaken in East
Chesterton and residents were pleased with those works.
The Asset Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
It was hoped that the energy ratings of the
properties could be improved from a D rating to a B rating however this would
depend on the orientation of the properties and whether solar panels were
suitable to be installed. The Council
had approximately 3000 energy performance certificates (EPC ratings) which was
just under 50% of the housing stock.
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.
Lead officer: Will Barfield
Approval to dispose of a small block of HRA land in the City to allow development of the site.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding the disposal of HRA
land.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing
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 Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on
the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of
information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local
Government Act 1972
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Catherine Buckle
Regular update on the delivery of the 500 new council homes.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
This report provides 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 funding structure for the Combined Authority 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 Housing
Development.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
There was usually a shortage of accessible homes so
they were pleased that 5% of houses would be accessible homes.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
To approve high level masterplanning options prepared by consultants for the East Barnwell area, and approve further local stakeholder engagement. The work aims to develop and help deliver the Council's ambitions for the area as expressed in the Local Plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
This report sets out work that has been carried out
towards developing a masterplan for the East Barnwell area within Abbey Ward.
This work has been supported by the One Public Estate programme.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the progress on developing a masterplan for
East Barnwell and the Interim report.
ii.
Approved the development of further engagement
with stakeholders and the second stage consultation 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 Head of Housing
Development.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
This was a positive change in East Barnwell and was
well overdue, noted that there had been one round of consultation and would
encourage further consultation.
ii.
Noted that this development seemed to be looking
towards a different source of funding for regeneration compared to the Marleigh
development (which would develop 1300 new houses close by). Questioned what
redevelopment the East Barnwell community might see as a result of the Marleigh
development through s106 agreement funding.
Also noted that the McDonalds site would be difficult to acquire and
regenerate on Newmarket Road but asked officers to liaise with McDonalds.
iii.
Referred to p251 and p276 of the agenda which
contained an exert of the local plan detailing the area which would be
regenerated at the intersection of Newmarket Road and Barnwell Road. Questioned
whether some of the open space (bowling green, tennis court) was protected open
space as it appeared to be shown as brownfield land on one of the plans.
iv.
Queried whether the Marleigh development was within
the city council boundary.
v.
Questioned what parking provision would be put on
the site if garages were removed.
vi.
Asked for the open space to be fairly distributed
across the site and a commitment that the open space would be accessible and
close to the new development.
The Senior Housing Development Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
He had had some meetings with the developers of the
Marleigh development to try and ensure that the sites would be integrated but a
lot of the s106 provisions arising from the Marleigh development would be
delivered within the Marleigh development. There was some scope for additional
open space and how this was used.
Further discussions with the developer, residents and stakeholders could
be held to discuss how this could come together. He was aware of the transport issues
concerning McDonalds on Newmarket Road as these had arisen through discussions
with the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) and their Eastern Access Project.
Further discussion with stakeholders was required.
ii.
Part of the open space area referred to was
protected open space. Access to the open space was limited at the
moment. The policy provided for the
re-provision of open space, but consideration needed to be given to how the
open space could be re-configured to make better use of it. Feedback from residents about the
accessibility of the open space was important and would need further
consultation.
iii.
Confirmed that a small part of the Marleigh
development was within the city council boundary.
iv.
This was the starting point of the project for
change and regeneration. When the consultation was carried out there were
strong views about accessibility and the cost of public transport and concerns
about parking. These issues would have
to be addressed when a formal proposal was brought forward.
The Executive Councillor responded that this
was the start of the process and it was important that residents were involved
within the process. He asked the Senior Housing Development Manager to provide
the Committee with an update on the County Council’s proposals regarding the
community centre.
The Senior Housing Development Manager said
that they wanted to ensure that the community centre was delivered, they were
not looking to create a hurdle to slow down the provision of the community
centre. There were a number of challenges, but they had been working with the
Local Planning Authority and the County Council to develop a Statement of
Principles, which was a framework for development in the area.
The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared
by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Jim Pollard
To approve new build housing (estate regeneration) scheme at Colville Road. This is the third scheme in this area and is adjacent to the previous two.
The scheme requires a capital budget to progress up to planning application
stage and approval to commence consultation with tenants, leaseholders and
commercial tenants.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report seeks approval of a capital budget for the
scheme, based on the indicative capacity study which has been undertaken for
the site and the outline appraisals referenced in this report, and for the
delivery route to be adopted
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved that the scheme be brought forward with
an indicative capital budget of £11,103,200 to cover all site assembly,
construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees, to deliver a
scheme which meets the identified housing need in Cambridge City.
ii.
Authorised the Strategic Director in
consultation with the Executive Councillor for housing to approve variations to
the scheme including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes
outlined in this report.
iii.
Approved that, subject to Council approval of
the budget, delegated authority be given
to the Executive Cllr for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to
enable the site to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP)
subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the
Council.
iv.
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to
commence Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings on Leasehold properties to
be demolished to enable the development, should these be required.
v.
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to
serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.
vi.
Approved a delegation to the Section 151
Officer, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
Resources and the Executive Councillor for Housing, to approve the most
appropriate valuation basis, funding route and accounting treatment for the
value of the commercial units being provided as part of the development of
Colville 3.
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.
Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor Dryden commented:
i.
Supported the scheme and asked for a meeting to be
held with residents, particularly those whose homes were set to be demolished
if the recommendations were approved. Noted that officers had held meetings
with some of the businesses.
Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor Ashton commented:
i.
Thanked officers for their work on the project. Was
pleased that the development was solely for council housing and was not going
to be sold off for private development.
Expressed concerns on behalf of existing tenants about where they would
be moved to during the construction phase.
ii.
Shops were used in Cherry Hinton, there were no
vacant shop units on the High Street. Residents had expressed their concerns
about what would happen to them and he noted there were opportunities for the
shops to be relocated within Cherry Hinton. Asked for consideration to be given
to locating temporary portacabins on open space to keep local businesses in
Cherry Hinton.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Referred to page 290 of the agenda and noted that
the council was still not aiming for net zero carbon development.
The Head of Housing Development Agency said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Subject to the decision of the committee and
Executive Councillor, meetings could be arranged with residents and
consideration would be given to the most appropriate way to re-house residents
affected by the development.
ii.
Officers had been working with colleagues in Property
Services and consideration would be given to temporary facilities for
businesses to use.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Jim Pollard
To approve a capital budget to develop a new build housing scheme to planning submission stage. The scheme is based on the Orchard Park site recently acquired by CCC. The scheme includes Council rented units available for purchase by HRA.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report sought approval
for a capital budget to purchase 30 affordable units from Cambridge Investment
Partnership (CIP), to be let as Council rented homes. The report also set out the general fund
investment and potential returns on this investment and the key elements of the CIP development
proposal including a summary of the investment plan
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved the purchase of 30 new Council homes on the site at
the cost of £5,850,000 and include an overall budget in the HRA for the scheme
Orchard Park L2 of £6,207,000.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Housing and the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources
i.
Approved the indicative proposed investment plan for L2
outlined in confidential Appendix 3, with the high-level commitments associated
with the General Fund and HRA. The investment plan will be refined in line with
final project plans post planning permission determined and approved by the CIP
Board with the Councils funding built into the relevant budget setting 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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked that sufficient space was provided for cargo
bike parking and also to ensure there were car club spaces. Also questioned
biodiversity provision on the site.
ii.
Questioned the housing mix which included 5 x 1 bed
studio flats.
iii.
Asked if people with a Cambridge connection would
be able to live in the properties.
The Head of Housing Development
Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The bike stores were designed with some provision
for cargo bikes but she would need to check exactly how many spaces were
provided. Biodiversity had been
considered and they were looking to have sedum (green) roofs and to improve the
biodiversity provision of the open space. Two car club spaces were included but
if there was a higher demand then more could be put in.
ii.
There weren’t any studio flats in the current
programme but after consultation with the Head of Housing it was agreed that
some 1 bed studio flats might be appropriate here.
iii.
As the development was within the South
Cambridgeshire District Council boundary there would need to be an agreement
with them about nomination rights to the houses.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
for Housing approved the recommendation 2.1.
The Executive Councillor
for Finance and Resources approved the recommendation 2.2.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Jim Pollard
Approval of latest financial assumptions for the HRA financial forecasts, of any in year budgetary changes for the HRA and of the approach to setting the budget for 2021/21.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term
Financial Strategy (MTFS) provided an opportunity to review the assumptions
incorporated as part of the longer-term financial planning process,
recommending any changes in response to new legislative requirements,
variations in external economic factors and amendments to service delivery
methods, allowing incorporation into budgets and financial forecasts at the
earliest opportunity.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing (part 1):
i.
Approved the Housing Revenue Account Medium
Term Financial Strategy attached, to include all proposals for change in:
a)
Financial assumptions as detailed in Appendix B of
the document.
b)
2020/21 revenue budgets and future year forecasts
as introduced in Section 5, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and
the financial consequences of change and the need to respond to unavoidable
pressures, including the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, as introduced in
Section 5, detailed in Appendix D and D (1) of the document and summarised in
Appendices G (1) and G (2).
ii.
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to be
in a position to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner
status with Homes England.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing (part 2) to recommend to Council to:
iv.
Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the
Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of
Devolution Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs
Allowance, Section 106 Funding and HRA borrowing.
v.
Extend the existing delegated authority to the Strategic
Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve
use of Council land as sites for rough sleeper next steps POD’s on an
individual basis based on the criteria as set out in the Housing Development
Options for Homeless People report to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January
2020.
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:
i.
Corrected an error in the report on pages 87 and
126 where the void assumption had been increased from 1% to 1.2% in the earlier
modelling but this had been returned to the previous 1% but had not been
corrected within the text in the report.
ii.
Referred to p133 of the agenda and appendix E which
showed that extra resource had been allocated for fire door investment in
relation to the committee’s discussion regarding the estates and facilities
service review and compliance update. (See minute reference 20/31/HSC).
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Noted that the white paper on planning may have an
impact on affordable housing in the future.
ii.
Queried the use of the consumer price index (CPI)
within the report and noted that the implications of the covid-19 pandemic
could impact assumptions for future years.
iii.
Noted that reserves had been used to fill the gap
where there were rent arrears to avoid the council having to consider cutting
services to tenants. Asked whether rent
arrears had increased over the last 6 months.
iv.
Queried what a budget virement was and asked if a
list of definitions for acronyms could be provided to assist in understanding
details in financial reports.
The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Rent arrears had been extrapolated up until the end
of the year, if any assumptions were needed in respect for future years impact,
this would be picked up in the January 2021 Housing Revenue Account Budget Setting
Report.
ii.
The Council was governed by a rent standard and
were only allowed to increase rent up to CPI plus 1% measured using CPI at the
preceding September. If the rate of the
CPI in September 2020 was different to that assumed then this would have a direct
impact on the income assumptions made within the MTFS. The impact of the
covid-19 pandemic had meant that more people had been forced to claim benefits
however she felt that prudent assumptions had been made in respect of income
for the current year. Officers were
actively working with tenants to ensure that they claimed the benefits that
they were entitled to. The sums
incorporated into the MTFS assume that the council build houses in the new
programme to Passivhaus standards, but the ability to do this would be
dependent upon the constraints of each site as it is identified and brought
forward for decision. If the Council were to build to higher standards
initially then the council would not be able to deliver the number of
affordable houses that they hoped to build. There is however, a clear
aspiration to move to build to net zero carbon over the life of the programme,
again dependent on site constraints.
iii.
Rent arrears had increased by £500,000 over the
past 6 months however the rate of increase had stabilised recently. The
adjustment made to the MTFS was prudent, but a further full lockdown could have
an additional impact.
iv.
A budget virement was when money was moved or
reallocated from one budget to another within the same financial year, with
officers having delegated authority to do this in some cases. Any capital budget virements are shown in the
MTFS for transparency. Agreed an acronyms definition section would be included
within the January Budget Setting Report.
The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse recommendations 2.1 and
2.2.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations 2.3 -
2.5.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Julia Hovells
1. Approve the awards recommended for 2020 S106 Community Facilities funding subject to project appraisal and signed grant agreements.
2. Note updates and recommendations on existing projects.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 12/11/2020
Effective from: 01/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Council uses S106 contributions
paid by developers to mitigate the impact of developments on facilities and
amenities in Cambridge. In line with the arrangements for annual generic S106
funding rounds, agreed by the Executive Councillor in March 2019, the Council
invited grant applications from community groups for improvements to their
community facilities, which could be made available for wider community use, as
part of the 2020 S106 funding round.
In view of the Covid-19
lockdown, applications for the 2020 round were invited over an extended period
(from mid-March to the end of July). Six have been received and assessed
against the Council’s S106 selection criteria. The Officer’s report outlined
the applications and officer assessments and recommends four community facilities
S106 grants, plus a provisional funding allocation for a grant proposal to be
developed in more detail.
Alongside the 2020 generic
S106 funding round, the Officer’s report also took stock of the need to
increase outdoor sports S106 funding levels for a couple of sports pavilions in
the city where extra community facilities S106 allocations are proposed as
well.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
Agreed to:
i.
The following S106 community
facilities grants and funding, detailed in paragraphs 4.1-4.2 and Appendices A
and B of the Officer’s report, subject to:
· planning
and building control requirements being satisfactorily met;
· business
case approval;
· signed
community grant agreement, securing appropriate community use of the
facilities; and
· a
review of relevant funding allocations if any of these S106-funded projects
cannot progress to the implementation stage within 18 months (that is, by the
end of March 2022).
|
Facility (and ward) |
Purpose |
Award
|
2.1.1 |
Nightingale Community Garden (Queen Edith’s) |
Outside covered informal kitchen and activity area |
£8,650 grant |
2.1.2 |
Nightingale Pavilion (Queen Edith’s) |
Multi-purpose community room, storage, kitchen & equipment |
£20,000 costs |
2.1.3 |
Chesterton Pavilion (East Chesterton) |
Storage facilities for meeting space and equipment |
£20,000 costs |
2.1.4 |
Notts Own Scout Hut, Marmora Road (Romsey) |
Kitchen and toilet improvements |
£40,000 grant |
ii.
Provisionally allocate up to
£100,000 for a possible community facilities improvement grant to St James’
Church, Wulfstan Way (Queen Edith’s ward) until the report on the 2021 S106
funding round when the project proposals will come back to this committee for
further consideration. (Paragraph 4.2 of the Officer’s report refers).
iii.
Allocate an additional £60,000 of
outdoor sports S106 contributions for constructing and equipping the new
pavilion at Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground in Queen Edith’s ward (alongside
the additional £20,000 of community facility S106 funding mentioned in 2.1.2
above), subject to amended business case approval. (See paragraph 4.4-4.6 of
the Officer’s report).
iv.
Allocate an additional £40,000 of
outdoor sports S106 contributions for constructing and equipping the new
pavilion at Chesterton Recreation Ground in East Chesterton (alongside the
£20,000 of community facility S106 funding mentioned in 2.1.3 above), subject
to amended business case approval. (See paragraphs 4.7-4.8 of the Officer’s
report).
v.
Instruct officers to review the
progress of the East Barnwell Community Centre project in Abbey ward (currently
allocated £255,000) and the steps that may be needed to ensure that those S106
contributions can be used on time, and report back to this scrutiny committee
by June 2021. (Paragraph 4.5 of the Officer’s report refers).
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
Engagement Officer.
The Community Funding and Engagement Officer said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
In view of the Covid-19 lockdown, the application
period for the 2020 funding round had been extended. It was envisaged that the
arrangement for the 2021 round would revert to the normal timescales.
ii.
Officers had offered support to projects listed in
the report before committee. They recommended allocating funding as indicated.
If projects were not eligible, they were signposted to other funding streams.
The Urban Growth Project Manager said that,
given the reduced generic S106 funding levels and the need to invite community
facility improvement applications only from those parts of the city where the
S106 funding was available, the small number of applications received was to be
expected. Further targeting of applications from relevant wards would continue in
the 2021 round.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Jackie Hanson
In recognition of the difficult trading conditions and to
help sustain General and Sunday market occupancy figures and a viable city
centre market, the Executive Councillor is recommended:
- To apply a 25% discount to all General and Sunday Market traders for each of the deferred monthly rental invoices (June/ July/ August and September 2020) and issue a combined invoice for this four month deferred period in October, 2020.
- To continue with the discounted standard pitch rate of £10/ day, Monday-Friday (as per 11th June urgent decision); and introduce an additional discounted standard pitch rate of £25/ day, Saturday and Sunday; and premium pitch rate of £15/ day, Monday-Friday; and £30/ day, Saturday and Sunday, with effect from 1st October to 31st December, 2020; and any further extension subject to review.
- To waiver the ‘casual’ trader premium charge of £5/ day until the end of the financial year (31st March, 2021) with the aim of encouraging ‘casual’ traders to take on daily available vacant pitches to maximise market occupancy rates. The corresponding recommended standard or premium pitch fee rates, as detailed in 2.2 above, will continue to be applied to ‘casual’ traders.
- To extend the ‘relinquishing of license’ measure (ie. removal of the four week notice period condition to relinquish licence, introduced on 23rd March, 2020), until the 30th November, 2020.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 12/11/2020
Effective from: 01/10/2020
Decision:
The Secretary of the
Cambridge Market Traders Association addressed the committee as set out below.
i.
Market
traders were happy that the council was looking into ways to reduce the
financial burden during the current situation. Reports in the press and
their experience showed that interventions from both the government and
the council could sometimes be very uneven in their effects. The
Cambridge Market Traders Association hoped councillors were aware that
COVID has affected some market sectors more than others.
ii.
People
whose trade focusses on tourists have seen trade fall by up to 90%. Therefore,
any use of deferments and pay-back processes over longer periods would extend
financial pain for many months and possibly years. It is hard to save, when you
have fixed costs and limited income. In principle, would the scrutiny committee
be amenable to schemes where rent/debt is written off, the precise details of
which can be worked out later, for cases where market traders can demonstrate
reduced financial circumstances through presenting accounts or other evidence.
iii.
Many of
the assistance schemes brought forward both by the council and the government
have a qualification that if you have accepted help from elsewhere, you would
not get any help under a new scheme. So
if a trader receives a modest amount of support from one scheme, it then
prevents them from accessing support from many of the other schemes, and this
has blighted the effect of many of the Government and Council introduced
schemes, and made them effectively a form of empty gesturing. The Council say
they are supporting people but the number that can access it is limited. Can
Market Traders be assured that such a qualification would not be included in
the current scheme and under any packages that you vote to bring forward in the
future?
iv.
Queried if
a rebate could be factored into costs to help reduce them.
The Head of Environmental Services
responded:
i.
The City Council had a repayment
plan available for traders to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
ii.
The City Council wanted the market
to be viable and to support traders.
iii.
Undertook to take the queries away
and liaise with colleagues, plus the Executive Councillor, so a response could
be given after this meeting.
iv.
Noted that the City Council’s
finances were under pressure, but there were no qualifications on support
offered to traders. Was unable to comment on Central Government schemes.
The Secretary of the
Cambridge Market Traders Association said he would forward copies of
correspondence to date to the Head of Environmental Services for information.
Matter for
Decision
On 11 June 2020 the Council
recorded an urgent decision to introduce market trader Covid-19 impact business
support measures, under paragraph 2 of section 9, Council Procedure Rules.
In recognition of the
continuing impact of Covid-19 on the trading conditions being faced by the
Council’s General and Sunday Market traders and the need to sustain a viable
city centre market, as a key factor to the city centre ‘high streets’ economic
recovery, the Council is proposing extending the programme of support measures
from 1 October to 31 December, 2020.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre
In recognition of the
difficult trading conditions and to help sustain General and Sunday market
occupancy figures and a viable city centre market, the Executive Councillor
agreed to:
i.
Apply a 25% discount to all
General and Sunday Market traders for each of the deferred monthly rental
invoices (June/July/August and September 2020) and issue a combined invoice for
this four-month deferred period in October 2020.
ii.
Continue
with the discounted standard pitch rate of £10/ day, Monday-Friday (as per 11
June urgent decision); and introduce an additional discounted standard pitch
rate of £25/ day, Saturday and Sunday; and premium pitch rate of £15/ day,
Monday-Friday; and £30/ day, Saturday and Sunday, with effect from 1 October to
31 December, 2020; and any further extension subject to review.
iii.
Waive
the ‘casual’ trader premium charge of £5/ day until the end of the financial
year (31 March 2021) with the aim of encouraging ‘casual’ traders to take on
daily available vacant pitches to maximise market occupancy rates. The corresponding recommended standard or
premium pitch fee rates, as detailed in 2.2 above, would continue to be applied
to ‘casual’ traders.
iv.
Extend the ‘relinquishing of
license’ measure (ie. removal of the four-week notice period condition to
relinquish licence, introduced on 23 March 2020), until the 30 November 2020.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Environmental Services.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Queried if communication channels were working
effectively between the council and market traders given feedback from the
Secretary of the Cambridge Market Traders Association.
ii.
Asked the Head of Environmental Services for his
view of the mood on the ground regarding the report recommendations.
The Head of Environmental Services said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Would communicate the market pitch payment plan
with traders.
ii.
There appeared to be communication issues between
the council and market traders. Channels that were used to date:
a. A weekly bulletin
to all traders.
b. Traders were offered
a surgery with officers.
c. Officers were
visible on the market.
d. Officers had an
engagement plan with traders regarding the market square development to shape
the design concept.
e. Officers liaised
with the trade body representatives.
iii.
Undertook to liaise with the Market Team to improve
communication channels with traders.
iv.
Market stall occupancy was 68% now. It was 90%
pre-covid. Figures could be provided to Councillors after the meeting.
v.
Officers had held discussions with Cambridge Market Traders Association. They had some
insights into traders’ financial losses and which products were particularly
affected eg food.
vi.
Casual trade pitches were promoted through the
weekly bulletin to traders and advertised through social and news media
channels.
The Executive
Councillor said:
i.
The Market Team had sent a number of surveys to
market traders and followed these up with phone calls to test the:
a.
Impact of COVID-19.
b.
Position now.
ii.
The market square redesign project hoped to
generate a diverse market open seven days a week in future.
iii.
The Head of Environmental Services and his Market
Team were doing what they could to support traders.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Tim Jones, Joel Carré
- To approve the
principles and broad approach for a new Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026.
- To approve public consultation on the principles and approach.
- To consider progress in delivering the Council's existing Climate Change
Strategy during 2019/20.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 12/11/2020
Effective from: 01/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Council has had three
climate change strategies since 2008, the most of recent of which covers the period
from April 2016 to March 2021. The strategies set out the Council’s approach to
reducing its own carbon emissions; supporting residents, businesses and
organisations in Cambridge to reduce their emissions; and helping the city
adapt to the predicted changes in climate.
The Officer’s report
provided an update on progress in delivering key actions in the Climate Change
Strategy during 2019/20.
It also set out a framework
for a revised Climate Change Strategy covering the period from 2021-2026, ahead
of public consultation in autumn 2020. It proposed a revised strategic approach
that builds on what the Council has achieved to date but sets out new ambition
for working with residents, businesses and communities in the context of the
Climate Emergency.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre
Approved the proposed
framework for the revised Climate Change Strategy for 2021-2026 for public
consultation.
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 Strategy and Partnerships
Manager.
The Committee raised the following queries in response to the report:
i.
What is the view on our current 2050 net zero
carbon target for the city?
ii.
When would the City Council produce its own
roadmaps to decarbonise the organisation, to help establish reasonable target
timescales?
iii.
What was the council doing about the issues around
flood risk, rivers and chalk streams?
iv.
Requested more detail regarding the aim of the
public consultation, and to what degree that consultation would affect the overall
strategy. The councillor asked whether the consultation is planned to be a
public engagement exercise or may affect the detail of the strategy.
The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
The aspiration was for the city to be net zero by
2050, broadly in line with UN goals. When declaring a climate emergency in
2019, the City Council called upon the government, businesses and stakeholders
to take action to meet this target by an earlier date. Part of the strategy
development would be to review that aspiration. they cannot currently commit to
a date until returning to committee in March.
ii.
We would be developing a new carbon management
plan, relating to buildings, fleet and services, including how best to achieve
a net zero carbon aim. This was part of a road map to decarbonise the city.
iv.
The primary purpose of the public consultation and workshops
would be to give residents the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on
their expectations of the city council as part of the Climate Change Strategy, but also to receive
feedback on their expectations for other organisations, including Cambridgeshire
County Council, GCP and the Combined Authority.
Additionally, asking for suggestions on how best to work collaboratively
with residents and businesses. The Council was open to advice from experts such
as Cambridge Zero, ARU and Cambridge environmental groups. Councillors could
signpost people to contact through the consultation process. The intention was
to be as extensive as possible by using digital channels.
v.
The cost of retrofitting housing was being reviewed
through the design guide. Details would come back to committee in the January
2021 meeting cycle. This would cover [possible] carbon reduction measures and
costs [if they were not implemented, or we did not build to net zero standards
now]. The Council was looking at setting high standards for its house building
program.
vi.
Officers were looking at when net zero housing
policy for private homes could be adopted through the Local Plan, so the net
zero standard could be applied to council and privately owned dwellings in the
city.
vii.
Central Government promised significant changes
that could affect City Council policies in future.
viii.
The council was producing a greenhouse gas
emissions report coving buildings it owned or paid the energy bills for. The
council owned the fabric of its housing stock, but did not pay the energy bills
for them, or commercial buildings, so they would not be covered by the report.
The Executive
Councillor said in response to members questions:
i.
The net zero strategy would be
part of the engagement the council has with residents. There were also options over how reductions
were planned, whether a constant gradual reduction, or using carbon budgets and
making larger changes sooner.
ii.
Hoped something would come out of
the Cambridgeshire Climate Commission related to the city and county that may
set out how to achieve net zero. Also as
mentioned in the report, the council would be using Climate View to measure
emissions from different sectors in the city, to see what projects can reduce
those emissions and build up a picture of where we were and where to focus
efforts.
iii.
We do have areas of risk from
flooding, though not to the same degree as other areas of the country, but we
do have issues of drought and water shortage. Councillor Thornburrow
established a cross party, cross boundary conference looking into water
resource and particularly chalk streams. Water gathering from the aquifer has
now been added to evidence gathering for the new Local Plan, to assess the
extent of the problem.
iv.
The Shared Planning Service were
using the Local Plan to seek the highest possible sustainable standards from
developments.
The Head of
Corporate Strategy said in response to members questions:
i.
The council would have had larger
plans for public consultation had it not been for the coronavirus issue.
ii.
The Climate Change Charter set out
what stakeholders, residents and Central Government could do to mitigate
climate change.
iii.
Cambridge Zero and the City
Council were working in an innovative partnership to share expertise.
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.
Lead officer: David Kidston
To approve:
- Changes to 2020/21 General Fund revenue and capital budgets to address
financial pressures resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic; and
- An interim update to the General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 24/09/2020
Effective from: 06/07/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report presented
an overview of the impact of the Coronavirus emergency in the Spring of 2020 on
Cambridge City Council’s budget for 2020/21. It set out how estimates had been
made and the uncertainties within those estimates. It lists the financial
support that central government has provided to the council and proposes
several actions that the council can take to balance its budget in 2020/21.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:
i.
Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis
on the council’s finances.
ii.
Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and
capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s
report.
iii.
Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set
out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.
iv.
Note the revised savings requirements identified
in Section 8 of the officer’s report.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Asked what priorities were being set and what
the areas were that the council might stop spending on.
ii.
Questioned if the council was looking to make
cuts before they were required. What processes were in place to reverse these
cuts if government funding came through to the council.
iii.
Questioned what the process for was reviewing
the reserve target if required.
iv.
Questioned if funding had been cut in the right
areas.
v.
Stated it was clear why some projects had been
cancelled, others had been set as lower priority or cut and do not need to be
completed this year. However, there needed to be a clear definition between the
two as it was not clear for all the projects referenced, the reason why this
decision had been taken and by who. This information was required to undertake
accurate scrutiny before the next meeting of full council.
vi.
It was important the public sector invested and
spent finances to support the local economy especially as there was a prospect
of additional government funding designed to support local authorities’ loss of
income. The council were able to do just this.
vii.
The council had stopped work at a time when the
community and local economy needed it most, if the projects stopped it could be
too late to reverse the decision.
viii.
Noted there was a few partnerships working projects
(notably the Greater Cambridge Partnership) where funding cuts had been
made. Questioned if these projects had
been postponed as those partners had decided they could not be delivered due to
COVID-19, or had they been negotiated with both parties or was it the council’s
decision.
ix.
Asked for the status on the youth liaison
officer.
The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the
following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Items that had been retained in the budget were
anti-poverty, climate change, biodiversity, homelessness to maintain these
services during this difficult time.
ii.
There had been items which had been deferred
until the following year as the work could not be carried out during the
pandemic; other deferred items had been retained in the budget while others
would be considered in the new year if financially viable.
iii.
The next round of government funding which had
recently been announced amounted to £500 million for local authorities to cover
additional expenditure which met certain criteria. There would not be
assistance with property income losses.
iv.
With
regards to car parking, the council would have to pay the first 5% of the
losses and the government three quarters of the remainder. This could give
approximately £2 million if the council met all conditions, however, detailed
guidance was not yet available.
v.
Funding from government received on homelessness
amounted to £24,750 (additional cost to the council was £1.2million).
vi.
In total a £1.3million grant had been received
to date.
vii.
If government funding were more than
anticipated, it would be possible to review the council’s reserves and adjust
the figures again.
viii.
Stated there were far more imponderables on the
income side and reminded the committee there would be no assistance with the
commercial property incomes. There was a variety of fees across the council
which needed to be recovered across the council. It was uncertain if these
costs would recover from government and the council would have to pay the first
5%.
ix.
Projects postponed were capital schemes funded
from revenue, therefore these could be moved back and forth from one year to
the next without much issue if the work could be completed.
x.
Acknowledged there were some climate change and
biodiversity items which had been deferred but much of these works could not be
restarted this year. The doubling of the wildflower meadows should already be
completed.
xi.
The council had planned to spend £100,000 on its
tree programme, but this funding had been spread over a longer period.
xii.
As the government had agreed a further tranche
of funding to the GCP and the council did not have the financial resources
available, it seemed sensible the contribution to the GCP could be reduced
without hindering the work they were undertaking.
xiii.
The amount of money that the council allocated
to the GCP was related to the new homes bonus which had been reduced.
xiv.
Could not provide a response to the query
regarding the youth liaison officer but would ask that this was provided
outside of the meeting.
The Committee unanimously resolved to:
i.
Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis
on the council’s finances.
The Committee resolved 4 votes to
0 to:
ii.
Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and
capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s
report.
The Committee unanimously resolved
to:
iii.
Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set
out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.
The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:
iv.
Note the revised savings requirements identified
in Section 8 of the officer’s report.
The
Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts
of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations
Granted)
No
conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
(i) Recommend to Council to
approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21 as
detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2019/20 to
2020/21 as detailed in report appendix.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 24/09/2020
Effective from: 06/07/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report presented a
summary of the 2019/20 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for all
portfolios, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was
reported and variances from budgets were highlighted. Specific requests to carry forward funding from
budget underspends in 2019/20 were reported.
This
was the first year that one combined General Fund outturn report covering all
portfolios was produced for scrutiny at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny
Committee
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to
recommend to council to:
i.
Approve carry forward
requests totalling £1,070,060 revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21, as
detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report.
ii.
Carry forward requests of £27,634k capital
resources from 2019/20 to 2020/21 to fund rephased net capital spending, as
detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s report.
iii.
To fund the overspend of two capital schemes –
Lammas Land Car Parking and Barnwell Business Park remedial projects totalling
£29,757 from reserves.
iv. Transfer the
Bateman Street tree replacement underspend of £17k to the Environmental
Improvements programme – South.
v.
Transfer the underspend of £24k on Grafton East car
park essential roof repair project to Structural Holding Repairs & Lift
Refurbishment - Queen Anne project which is renamed Car Park Structural Holding
Repairs.
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.
It was important part to note the carry forwards in
Appendix C, particularly reference 4, tourism cost centre, regarding Visit
Cambridge and Beyond. There was reference to a report being prepared for the
end of June which had not been seen and questioned if there were further
financial costs that the committee should be aware of.
ii.
Requested information to the carry forward for the
refit carbon reduction projects and queried if this had been delayed from the
previous year.
iii.
Asked for an update on the vacancy for the cycling
and walking officer.
iv.
Requested further information on the reason for
large variances for the Crematorium (Appendix A p184) and asked what was
creating the greater loss, the impact of the closure of the A14 or the increase competition in the
general area.
v.
Asked if officers would appraise the performance of
Cambridge Live as it was difficult to evaluate the accounts which were no
longer separate now the organisation was back under the remit of the council.
vi.
Questioned what the sum of money was the council
had allocated to deal with the original bailout of Cambridge Live and where on
the officer’s report was this shown,
vii.
Enquired if an explanation on the significant
overspend regarding Environment Improvements (p136) could be provided.
viii.
Asked if the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources would comment on the 57.5% failure rate to deliver on the capital
programme.
ix.
Paid credit to garage services and car parking
services.
x.
Welcomed the improvement under the refuse and
recycling collection and the surplus by the Bereavement Services and Town Hall
lettings.
xi.
Questioned why there was areas of overspend and
underspend in the open spaces’ portfolio.
The Head of Finance and Strategic Director said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
The carry forward for the refit carbon reduction would have been
carried for a purpose.
ii.
A detailed answer would be given outside of the
meeting on the Visit Cambridge and Beyond report and Cycling and Walking
Officer as this could not be provided.
iii.
Referenced p144 of the agenda pack provided a
response to the Environment Improvements question. This confirmed a lack of
recharging income on officer’s time against a budget which required reviewing
as it had been set higher than the potential income that was possible.
iv.
Suggested the staff (environment improvements) in
the team were not sufficient to generate the income
suggested in the budget. This was a significant imbalance and would be
investigated further in the budget process.
v.
Under Culture and Communities, p143, the following
headings - Corn Exchange and Guildhall, City Events and Folk festival and
Cambridge Live when added together represented Cambridge Live that was the
external organisation. The variances added
together showed a figure of £100,000 overspend.
vi.
Reminded the committee that Cambridge Live was
taken over by the council at the start of the year with a considerable amount
of work required to be done with the organisation.
vii.
Work had been undertaken by officers to change the
structure of Cambridge Live which would help to bring down the deficit. The
COVID-19 pandemic had severely impacted on this work and the finances required
additional attention. Officers were wating to find out what funding was
available to support Cambridge Live.
viii.
£750,000 had been allocated to cover the cost of
bringing Cambridge Live back into the council.
Dealing with the deficit on the balance sheet which came into the
council and developing structures to improve ways of running the organisation,
legal advice, accountancy advice and audit. The money had almost been spent.
ix.
Before COVID-19 the Culture and Community Manager
was confident that Cambridge Live was ‘back on track’.
x.
Noted the request for the breakdown of how the
£750,000 had been spent and what was left and would be given outside of the
meeting.
xi.
The crematorium had been significantly impacted by
the upgrade of the A14 which had contributed to three quarters of the loss
revenue. There was an ongoing claim for loss of income regarding the A14
upgrade.
xii.
Prior to COVID-19 officers had put together a work
plan to compete with the new competition, offering a low-cost funeral service
and the introduction of a café on site which would increase income and match
the competition.
xiii.
£13million of the £27million underspend was in CIP
loans with £2.8million in bonds; all of which was for development and outside
the council’s control. If these figures were taken out of the underspend, the
total was still significant but not as large at first glance.
xiv.
There were variables in the open spaces budget each
with a specific reason as referenced on p144 of the agenda pack; different
businesses had been impacted differently by COVID-19.
The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resource said the following:
i.
The original budget for Environment Improvements
was higher and there had been an underspend. Could not comment why it had been
reduced as much as it had.
ii.
Further information on Cambridge Live could be read
on p142 of the agenda pack. The folk festival did not have the ticket sales
anticipated when the council took over and the festival would not be taking
place this year.
iii.
Agreed it was not satisfactory that there was an
underspend on capital and this needed to be looked into
further.
iv.
Expressed thanks to the finance department for compiling
such a comprehensive report while all working from home.
The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
Recommend the report to Council, which includes the Council's actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2019/20.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 24/09/2020
Effective from: 06/07/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Council was required by
regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce an annual
treasury report reviewing treasury management activities and the actual
prudential and treasury indicators for each financial year.
This report met the requirements
of both the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (the Code) and the
CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential
Code) in respect of 2018/19. Both these publications have been revised by CIPFA
and references to these documents are to the 2017 Editions.
During the 2019/20 the
minimum requirements were that Council should receive:
- An annual strategy in
advance of the year
- A mid-year treasury
update report and;
- An annual review
following the end of the year describing the activity compared to the strategy.
In line with the Code of
Practice on Treasury Management all treasury management reports have been
presented to Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and to Full Council.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to
recommend to Council to:
i.
Approve
the report with the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for
2019/20
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the 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.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
To reduce the size of the
service, following a reducing in benefits workload arising from introduction of
Universal Credit
To consult staff on options.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 24/09/2020
Effective from: 06/07/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The introduction of
Universal Credit meant that new working-age claimants, or claimants who have
certain specified changes in circumstances, no longer claim Housing Benefit
from the Council, but claim Universal Credit (UC) from the Department for Work
and Pensions (DWP), which includes an amount for housing costs.
The report brought forward
recommendations following a review of the Revenues and Benefits service in the
light of this change.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
To restructure the Revenues and Benefits service,
as detailed in the officer’s
of the 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 Strategic Director.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Queried what if any impact the changes would have
on staff; would staff be TUPE’d (Transfer of
Undertakings Protection of Employment) across.
ii.
Requested reassurance
that staff would be supported during this period.
iii.
Asked if the council could be sure that standards
would not drop supporting the vulnerable residents in the city.
iv.
Indicated that the
decision was inevitable
v.
Acknowledged the hard
work and dedicated staff that the council had and expressed disappointment that
the changes would have on them.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Staff would not be TUPE’d
as the Department of Working Pensions (DWP) had hired additional staff to
undertake the additional work. Therefore, there could be potential
redundancies.
ii.
When roles were redundant the council did try to
redeploy staff within the council and would work with staff to look at the
opportunities available.
iii.
Staff would be consulted and supported throughout
the process.
iv.
The Council did not have the power to redeploy
staff to external agencies.
v.
The work to support vulnerable people with their
housing cost would be dealt with by the DWP through the universal credit
scheme.
vi.
The council had a strategic interest to ensure that
residents had accessed their benefits, offering financial advice through
inclusion workers and council funding to external agencies such as citizens
advice bureau.
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.
Lead officer: Suzanne Hemingway
To consider the proposed Cambridge City Council
Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.
To strengthen and build on the current successes of the
Council’s Apprenticeship Scheme, by broadening the types of apprenticeships
available to existing employees and new apprentice recruits.
For Council services to plan for and utilise apprenticeships
more to support succession planning, recruiting to hard-to-fill vacancies, and
attracting more younger people to the work for the Council.
To consider a pilot programme beginning in 2020/21 which would see the transference of up to 10% p.a. (approx. £12,000) of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit organisations.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 24/09/2020
Effective from: 06/07/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report proposed a new
revised Cambridge City Council ‘Apprenticeship Strategy 2020’ to replace the
existing Apprenticeship Strategy approved at the Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee in March 2017.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Approved the proposed measures for a revised
Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.
ii.
Agreed to consider a new provision for the
transference of up to 10% p.a. to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit
organisations as a pilot during 2020/21. This could be achieved by either
working directly with external organisations or through the exiting schemes
such as the Cambridge & Peterborough’s Apprenticeship Levy Pooling Service
which supports local business to take on apprentices.
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 Organisational Development Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in
response to the report:
i.
Asked how easy it was to find apprentices for these
schemes particularly at entry level.
ii.
Welcomed the move away from using the levy on
management apprenticeships.
iii.
Apprenticeships were going to be difficult for
people to find, particularly school leavers in the future, especially in the
current conditions.
iv.
Believed over the next two years the council’s
focus on the use of apprenticeships should be coupled with recruitment rather
than internal development. The priority for the community at large was for
people to enter the labour market. If there was any levy left the remainder
could be put into the levy pool and provide support for SME business,
charitable and non-profit organisations who had a recruitment plan for
sustainable employment.
v.
Queried when the absolute deadline was to a make a
final decision regarding the apprenticeship strategy?
The Organisational Development Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Would expect several applicants for each
apprenticeship, particularly given the current climate of the job market that
COVID-19 had caused.
ii.
The council’s focus was in three parts, the levy
transfer, supporting existing staff and new recruits. No level had been put on
support for new recruits and existing staff.
iii.
The Government allowed 25% of the total levy to be
transferred annually, approximately £30,000 could be transferable. The proposal is to transfer 10% approx.
£12,000 p.a.
iv.
The Council pays £120,000 to £100,000 into the
apprenticeship levy annually which lasts two years. This is a rolling programme
with each month’s payment expiring after 24 months.
v.
It would be best to make the decision as soon as
possible so that the funds could be transferred.
The Executive
Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following comments:
i.
That the
apprenticeship levy was for training and not for apprenticeship themselves.
Recognising this, the committee should think about the impact on the voluntary
sector, SME’s and non-profit organisations who could make use of the levy.
ii.
Consideration
had been given to put 25% immediately into this sector but felt emphasis should
be for the city council to develop its own apprentices first. This would allow
those organisations the opportunity to develop apprenticeship if appropriate or
express an interest. Salary costs would also have to be picked up by the
businesses as the levy did not cover this cost.
iii.
Believed
there had an issue in the past in finding the appropriate training scheme for
SME’s.
iv.
The work
that the levy had been proposed would see an increase in manual trades that
traditionally had not been offered and was what the apprenticeship scheme was
for. The scheme would be reviewed on a regular basis it could be possible that
the transference of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local businesses,
charitable and not for profit organisations could be increased in future.
Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Dalzell seconded an additional
recommendation:
NOTE the report and proposals
RECOMMEND a rethink of the proposed strategy applicable to apprentice
starts over the next two years in the light of the post pandemic depression,
with a view to emphasising the use of apprenticeships to improve recruitment
offers, potentially sharing an increased surplus from the council with local
SMEs, charitable and Not For Profit organisations who provide sustainable,
recruitment-based business plans
AGREE a modified version of the strategy through the procedure for an
urgent decision
The additional
recommendation was lost by 2 votes to 4.
The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Vince Webb
Shared Service Annual reports for 2019/20 for approval by Exec Cllr.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 24/09/2020
Effective from: 06/07/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report summarised the performance for the 3Cs
ICT, Legal Shared Services and the Greater Cambridge Shared Internal Audit
Service during 2019/20.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources
i.
Noted the content of the
annual reports.
ii. Noted the requirement
for renewal of the 3Cs services partnership agreement the principle variations
planned
iii. Delegated
authority to the Chief Executive and Strategic Director to finalise and agree
the renewed partnership agreement by September 2020, in consultation with
Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Strategic Director.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i. Asked
if consideration had been given to greater shared scrutiny between the
authorities, such as meeting virtually. There had been recently been a couple
of ICT outages and suggested it could have been resolved more efficiently if
all stake holders had been involved.
ii. Enquired
why the city council’s consumption of legal services was higher than South
Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
There had
been a previous proposal for a shared scrutiny committee. However, there were
complications for agreeing the overall decision-making process in line with
each authorities’ constitution and the number of member allocations. Therefore,
it had been decided not to pursue this further.
ii.
The level
and complexity of the services delivered by the city council was currently
greater than the other two local authorities therefore more advice and support
was required from legal services when dealing with issues such as commercial
portfolios.
The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources made the
following comments:
i.
Echoed the technical difficulties that had
occurred when investigating a greater scrutiny committee; the executive
councillor and scrutiny model used by the City Council was not compatible with
the other local authorities.
ii.
Officers across the local authorities had
regular debate and communication on the business plans and services. This
worked well and there was no need to change.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive
Councillor.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 24/09/2020
Effective from: 06/07/2020
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report provided an update on the activities of the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February
2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships
Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of
the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3
June 2020.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive
presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.
Matter for Decision
The report provided an update on the activities of the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February
2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of
the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive
presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Agreed the Mayor’s approach to the transport
projects in relation to the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) was not
positive for public accountability or public understanding of the issues that
were involved which was regrettable.
ii.
The GCP had just completed their first five
years of project delivery and had recently been awarded the next tranche of
government funding, therefore the GCP clearly the right organisation to
undertake the transport project work.
iii.
Asked if the capital grants scheme had been
widely advertised and if the criteria to apply for a grant was clear. It was
vital there was transparency to show where and how public money had been allocated,
particularly as funds were being dispersed into the private sector.
iv.
Questioned if the Mayor understood the need for
affordable housing in Cambridge, any delivery was welcome.
v.
Highlighted an article in the local press
regarding affordable housing being delivered by the Combined Authority Mayor.
It also referenced that he had negotiated £100 million as part of the
devolution deal. The council had also taken part in the negotiations and
believed a proportion of funding had been allocated to the city for affordable
housing. Questioned how the income stream was allocated.
vi.
A recent Savills report highlighted the lack of affordable
housing in the city; the median house price to median income ratio was 13 times
the average income, compared with the national average of 7.8.
vii.
Queried the £40million rolling fund the Combined
Authority had, which the same newspaper article referred to.
viii.
Asked how the Mayor decided what the funding
criteria was for strategic projects as this did not appear to be clear. Provided the example of Lancaster Way
Roundabout on the outskirts of Ely and noted there were projects that required
more urgent works.
ix.
Queried the Mayor’s declarations of interests at
meetings at they did not seem to be consistent.
x.
Requested an update on the CAM metro policy.
xi.
Asked for an update on Alconbury Weald as had
read the lease was being surrendered.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and External
Partnerships and the Strategic Director said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Understood there had been a widespread publicity
campaign regarding the grant scheme for the first round. Comments made by the
committee overlapped the concern expressed outside of the committee regarding
the governance of the business board. It was important for the board to remain
accountable and to report on their spending.
ii.
Having reviewed the grant applications these had
been submitted by a diverse selection of businesses.
iii.
The grants awarded were to those organisations
who needed the funding to protect jobs.
iv.
The capital grant funding had been linked to the
previous growth hub funding in terms of innovation specifically linked to
COVID-19, shared by the economic sub-groups and had been promoted very
strongly.
v.
Acknowledged the hard work and support that had
been undertaken and given during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Combined
Authority.
vi.
With regards to the CAM metro it did feel that
the Mayor was trying to create ‘banana skins’. The Mayor’s recent actions and
comments were not compatible with the Local Transport Plan agreed at the GCP
January meeting.
vii.
Suggested the Mayor could be invited to a future
meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee.
viii.
The Alconbury Weald lease was expensive and
unnecessary, the Mayor proposed to relocate but no future strategy had been
provided where this would be.
ix.
The revolving fund of up to £40million could be
used for projects which would achieve an outcome and bring a return.
x.
£10million of the revolving fund had been allocated
to a development on Histon Road on the former squash
club site, four of the nine units would be affordable homes (£100,000 homes).
Up to one thousand people had registered an interest in this scheme.
xi.
Believed that more could be achieved with the
revolving fund.
xii.
Questioned the allocation of funding of projects
and if the best outcome had been achieved; would suggest working with the
committee to look in detail at the work going forward.
xiii.
Suggested that members read the annual finance
report to look at the money spent and what had been delivered.
The Committee resolved unanimously to note the
report.
The
Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Antoinette Jackson
To consider the draft Pay Policy Statement 2020/2021.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Decision published: 18/09/2020
Effective from: 26/08/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE
CITY COUNCIL
Officer Record of Decision
What decision(s) has been taken: |
To
implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local
Authorities Pay Award for 2020-21. |
Who
made the decision: |
Head of Human Resources |
Date
decision made: |
26
August 2020 |
Matter for Decision /Wards affected |
Decision delegated from
Civic Affairs Committee |
Reason(s) for the decision including
any background papers considered Any alternative options considered and rejected: |
To
implement the nationally agreed pay award for chief executives following
receipt of notification by circular from the Joint Negotiating Committee for
Chief Executives of Local Authorities dated 24 August 2020. The
pay award for the chief executive level post is determined by national level
collective bargaining between the national employers and trade unions. Once
agreed at a national level the City Council implements the pay award in
accordance with the terms of staff contracts of employment. |
|
|
Conflicts of interest and dispensations
granted by the Chief Executive: |
None. |
Other Comments: |
This decision
is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs
Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows: To
implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates
of salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and
other employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the
exercise of a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is
taken in pursuance of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human
Resources and a record of that advice be made available to the public. |
Reference: |
20/Civ/1 |
Contact for further
information: |
Deborah
Simpson, Head of Human Resources. |
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Decision published: 18/09/2020
Effective from: 26/08/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE
CITY COUNCIL
Officer Record of Decision
What decision(s) has been taken: |
To implement the National Joint Council Pay Award for 2020-21 |
Who
made the decision: |
Head of Human Resources |
Date
decision made: |
26
August 2020 |
Matter for Decision /Wards affected |
Decision delegated from
Civic Affairs Committee |
Reason(s)
for the decision including any background papers considered Any alternative options considered and rejected: |
To
implement the nationally agreed pay award for staff on Bands 1-11 following
receipt of notification by circular from the National Joint Council for Local
Government Services dated 24 August 2020. Pay
awards for staff on Bands 1-11 are agreed by national level collective
bargaining between the national employers and trade unions. Once agreed at a
national level the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with
the terms of staff contracts of employment. |
|
|
Conflicts of interest and dispensations
granted by the Chief Executive: |
None. |
Other Comments: |
This decision
is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs
Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows: To
implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates
of salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and
other employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the
exercise of a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is
taken in pursuance of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human
Resources and a record of that advice be made available to the public. |
Reference: |
20/Civ/2 |
Contact for further
information: |
Deborah
Simpson, Head of Human Resources. |
.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Decision published: 18/09/2020
Effective from: 26/08/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE
CITY COUNCIL
Officer Record of Decision
What decision(s) has been taken: |
To implement a pay award for employees on Cambridge Live terms and
conditions with effect from 1 April 2020 and a minimum pay rate of £10.00 per
hour. |
Who
made the decision: |
Head of Human Resources, following consultation with the Chief Executive
and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources. |
Date
decision made: |
7 September
2020 |
Matter for Decision /Wards affected |
Decision delegated from
Civic Affairs Committee and Council |
Reason(s)
for the decision including any background papers considered Any alternative options considered and rejected: |
To
implement a pay award of 2.75% to employees of Cambridge City Council who are
on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment with effect from 1 April
2020. Following
the transfer of staff from Cambridge Live to the Council on 1 April 2019
under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations)
we have two sets of employment terms and conditions. Civic
Affairs Committee in January 2020 and Council in February 2020 agreed that
with effect from 1 April 2020 a pay award mechanism would be introduced for
employees on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment. This is to be
based on comparison to the NJC pay award. Following receipt of notification
by circular from the National Joint Council for Local Government Services of
the NJC pay award of 2.75% on all pay points, we will now implement a 2.75%
pay award to the salary points for employees on Cambridge Live terms and
conditions. The
Council is an accredited Real Living Wage Employer and pays a Cambridge
Weighting which is paid as a pay supplement to bring the minimum council pay
rate to £10.00 per hour. This is paid as a supplement in addition to the Real
Living Wage, currently £9.30 per hour to bring the minimum hourly rate to
£10.00. It is proposed that at the
same time as implementing the pay award and back pay to 1 April, now is the
most appropriate time to introduce the Cambridge Weighting for employees on
Cambridge Live terms and conditions. To
apply the Cambridge Weighting of a minimum pay rate of £10.00 per hour, with
effect from 1 April 2020 to employees on Cambridge Live terms and conditions
of employment. There are 37 employees who will become in scope of the
Cambridge Weighting. Budgetary
provision has been made in the 2020/21 financial year. |
|
Link
to Civic Affairs Report: |
Conflicts of interest and dispensations
granted by the Chief Executive: |
None. |
Other Comments: |
This decision
is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs
Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows and the agreement of
Council on 25 February 2020: Civic
Affairs: To
implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates
of salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and
other employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the
exercise of a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is taken
in pursuance of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human
Resources and a record of that advice be made available to the public. Council 25
February 2020: Introduce a pay award mechanism with effect from
1 April 2020 for staff on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment,
based on comparison to the NJC pay award and authority is delegated to the
Head of Human Resources to implement any future pay awards, following
consultation with the Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Finance
and Resources. |
Reference: |
20/Civ/3 |
Contact for further
information: |
Deborah
Simpson, Head of Human Resources. |
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Decision published: 18/09/2020
Effective from: 26/08/2020
Decision:
CAMBRIDGE
CITY COUNCIL
Officer Record of Decision
What decision(s) has been taken: |
To
implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local
Authorities Pay Award for 2020-21. |
Who
made the decision: |
Chief Executive |
Date decision
made: |
01 September
2020 |
Matter for Decision /Wards affected |
Decision delegated from
Civic Affairs Committee |
Reason(s) for the decision including
any background papers considered Any alternative options considered and rejected: |
To
implement the nationally agreed pay award for chief officers following
receipt of notification by circular from the Joint Negotiating Committee for
Chief Officers of Local Authorities dated 24 August 2020. The
pay award for the chief officer level posts (Strategic Directors and Heads of
Service on HOS grade) is determined by national level collective bargaining
between the national employers and trade unions. Once agreed at a national
level the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with the terms
of staff contracts of employment. |
|
|
Conflicts of interest and dispensations
granted by the Chief Executive: |
The Chief
Executive is exercising this decision as the Head of Human Resources has a
personal interest in this pay award. |
Other Comments: |
This decision
is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs
Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows: To
implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates of
salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and
other employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the
exercise of a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is
taken in pursuance of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human
Resources and a record of that advice be made available to the public. |
Reference: |
20/Civ/4 |
Contact for further
information: |
Antoinette
Jackson, Chief Executive |
Lead officer: Deborah Simpson