To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 9 October meeting of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        To provide an update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 October, 29 November and 20 December 2017.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive.

 

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

     i.        Referred to the Rapid Transport paper, it was due to be scrutinised the following week but the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee had still not yet received it. Asked whether it should be in the public domain.

    ii.        Made reference to section 4.3 of the report, asked whether the Mayor’s position on the Business Board would be as an observer or would have voting rights.

   iii.        Section 4.5 of the report detailed the make-up of the Business Board, asked how small the business would be and could it include shops.

  iv.        Section 4.6 of the report referred to the LEP, asked about the current status of the LEP.

   v.        Expressed support for an independent business board but raised concern over the process of appointing members with fears of a lack of transparency.

  vi.        Referred to the Chair of the LEP/Business Board and asked what their voting rights would be on the Combined Authority (CA).

 vii.        Queried why the Business Board had voting rights if they had no budget.

viii.        Made reference to associate membership and asked how the difference in footprint between the LEP and CA would impact its relationship.

  ix.        Sought clarification on whether another mayoral election would need to be held if there was a desire to widen the footprint of the CA.

   x.        Asked if the £100 million housing funding grant was targeted at providing housing in high cost areas across the geography.

 

The Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Affirmed support for scrutiny and transparency of CA decisions. Referred to the Rapid Transport paper, speculated that the original plan was for it to come to the CA and Greater Cambridge Partnership Board meeting at end of January.

    ii.        Stated that without the Terms of Reference to hand they could not confirm the voting status of the Mayor on the Business Board but they recalled that he would be able to vote.

   iii.        Stated that shops were likely to meet the criteria of being a small Business but no decision about Board membership had been made yet.

  iv.        The LEP would now become the Business Board. Support was still there for an independent business voice but there was scepticism surrounding the way the two had been merged.

   v.        The Business Board could be representative and independent; ultimately if it was not, it would be subservient and would fail.

  vi.        Confirmed that the Chair of the Business Board would have prescribed voting rights on the Combined Authority Board.

 vii.        Highlighted that although the Business Board did not have a budget, it would have some powers and would be set up as a company. It could also receive funding from the CA.

viii.        The devolution agreement and constitution of the CA allowed members to veto the introduction of any neighbouring authorities to join the CA. If there was a desire to expand, a governance review would have to be undertaken and this would involve a fresh mayoral election. Consent may need to be given by the Secretary of State.

  ix.        There was support for surrounding authorities to contribute to discussion on strategic plans but not to have a vote.

   x.        The Leader stated that he was not aware of any formal criteria regarding the geographical location of housing built with the devolution funding. So far the allocation had been based upon which area could achieve the most with the money. South Cambridgeshire had received over 40% of the allocation in the first phase.

 

The Committee noted the update.

Matter for Decision

 

The report detailed the budget proposals relating to this portfolio which were included in the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2018/19 which would be considered at the following meetings:

 

Date                           Committee             Comments

22 January 2018     Strategy &               Consider proposals / recommendations Resources              from all Scrutiny Committees in relation to their portfolios

25 January 2018     The Executive       Budget amendment may be presented

12 February 2018    Strategy &               Consider any further amendments Resources              including opposition proposals

22 February 2018    Council                   Approves General Fund Budget and sets Council Tax

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

 

Review of Charges:

 

a)  Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A to this report.

 

Revenue:

b)  Considered the revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B.

 

Capital:

c)   Considered the capital budget proposals as shown in Appendix C.

d)    Adjusted capital funding for item 2 (c).

 

 

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 Officers to expand on budget proposal C4117 with regard to timings and process of mooring allocation.

    ii.        Referred to budget proposal B4068, asked how proportionality between the three Authorities works with regard to council contribution and digital output.

 

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

     i.        Confirmed that 7 mooring spaces would be available at Riverside, the design was in the process of being developed in consultation with Cam Boaters. They were planning to go to tender in the spring with a view to begin the work in summer 2018.

    ii.        Stated that proportionality between the three Authorities worked on the basis of how much resource each individual Authority put in initially. All three strategies were at different stages.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report outlined details of the budget proposals relating to this portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2018/19 which would be considered at the following meetings:

 

Date                           Committee             Comments

22 January 2018     Strategy &               Consider proposals / recommendations Resources              from all Scrutiny Committees in relation to their portfolios

25 January 2018     The Executive       Budget amendment may be presented

12 February 2018    Strategy &               Consider any further amendments Resources              including opposition proposals

22 February 2018    Council                   Approves General Fund Budget and sets Council Tax

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

 

Review of Charges:

a)   Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A to this report.

 

Revenue:

b)   Considered the revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B.

 

Capital:

c)   Considered the capital budget proposals as shown in Appendix C.

d)   Adjusted capital funding for item 2 (c).

 

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.        Sought clarification regarding revenue proposal B4037, asked why the work was previously funded by the PCC.

    ii.        Referred to revenue proposal B4040 and asked why the base level of the Cambridge Weighting budget didn’t decrease as expected.

   iii.        Referred to revenue proposal C4041 and raised concern over the amount of CCTV cameras that were beyond repair. Queried whether a number of the cameras had been replaced when the Shared Service with Huntingdonshire District Council was initiated.

 

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

     i.        Referred to revenue proposal B4037 and confirmed that the funding was a composite of many different initatives, one of which was PCC which was no longer available. Last year’s funding was part of a 1 year bid pending a review of the service which had since been undertaken.

    ii.        Referred to revenue proposal B4040 and confirmed that pay parity increased with inflation. If more posts were on pay band 1 and 2 the figure would increase. The figures would balance out in the future, we would also be required to move the pay scales.  

   iii.        Confirmed that a survey of CCTV cameras had been undertaken, some had issues and due to their age it was felt prudent to replace them all to ensure quality and reliability. The future approach would allow for a programme of maintenance.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

To review the Council’s use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Matter for Decision

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommended that Councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Leader and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation and Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 23rd January 2017.

 

The City Council had not used surveillance or other investigatory powers regulated by RIPA since February 2010. This report set out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

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

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

   iii.        Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 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 made no comments in response to the report from the Head of Legal.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

The Executive Councillor to recommend this report to Council, including Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council is required by regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce a Treasury Management, Investment and Capital Strategy.

 

CIPFA had recently consulted on changes to the Prudential Code and the Treasury Management Code. The most notable of these changes  was  the  requirement  to  produce  an  annual  Capital  Strategy which was provided at Appendix A to the report.

 

The  DCLG  have  also  consulted  on  changes  to  the  Investment Guidance and Minimum Revenue Provision Guidance and the consultation  closed  on  22  December. The revised guidance is expected to be issued early in 2018 and to apply for financial years commencing on or after 1 April 2018.  The report therefore reflected the new requirements.  The most notable change was the requirement to expand the Investment Strategy to non-financial assets such as investments in property.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources agreed:

     i.        To recommend the report to Council including the estimated Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2017/18 to 2020/21, inclusive, as set out in Appendix D.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

The Committee referred to the Non-Financial Asset Performance Indicators and asked whether the assets in the Cambridge Housing Company or Mill Road Depot were included.

 

The Head of Finance said the following in response to the  question:

     i.        Confirmed that the Cambridge City Housing Company Limited (CCHC) was not encompassed within the Non-Financial Asset Performance Indicators but the current loan given to the CCHC by the council was included in it. The loan needed for the development phase of Mill Road Depot development was also included within it but has not yet been transferred.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

To agree to continue the current Council Tax Reduction Scheme framework.

Matter for Decision

From April 2013, local authorities across England were given the power to devise their own systems of Council Tax Support for working-age adults. It replaced the national system of the Council Tax Benefit which ensured that the poorest households received help to pay Council Tax.

 

The current local scheme met the Council’s commitment to protect as many people as possible from any decrease in the level of Council Tax Reduction support.

 

The purpose of the report was to undertake the annual review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and to decide whether the Scheme should be revised, replaced or continued for the financial year 2018-2019.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

     i.        Agreed to continue the current Council Tax Reduction Scheme framework with changes in applicable amounts and premiums as defined within the local scheme which supported low-paid workers already struggling to cope with stagnant wages, rising living costs and on-going Welfare Reforms that impacted on tax credits and other in-work support.

    ii.        Agreed to a significant review of the current scheme during spring 2018 to reflect the rollout of Universal Credit Full Service, to include a review of Local Council Tax Discounts and Premiums.

 

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 Revenues and Benefits.

 

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

     i.        Sought clarification regarding how the scheme would work with the introduction of Universal Credit.

    ii.        Asked if Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had given any indication of when the funding for Universal Credit was likely to be received.

 

The Head of Revenues and Benefits and Benefit Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        They were mindful of the roll out of Universal Credit, however the date to introduce Universal Credit had already moved once which could happen again. This highlighted the difficulty of rolling out a complex project against others which have fluid deadlines.

    ii.        Confirmed that DWP had not given any indication about funding, they had planned to monitor the progress of other authorities first. DWP had agreed to inform software suppliers 6 months in advance of the start date so that would be some form of indicator.

   iii.        Any changes to the scheme would require consultation first.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report outlined that a decision was needed to allow the Cambridge Junction capital project to move to the next stage.

 

A Joint Project Board had been formed between the Council and Cambridge Junction to facilitate agreement of project drivers and outcomes. The report considered a high level feasibility and detailed options assessment carried out by external consultants. As the Council owned the freehold of the site, officers also considered the wider property issues and opportunities provided by any redevelopment scheme. An arts and cultural infrastructure audit had been commissioned in order to provide an evidence base of existing and future needs for professional cultural infrastructure, and to provide underpinning evidence for an options assessment.

 

The options assessment looked specifically at Cambridge Junction assessed a range of options from ‘do nothing’ through to ‘complete redevelopment of the site’.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Noted the findings from the Arts and Cultural Infrastructure Audit.

    ii.        Noted the findings of the options assessment work.

   iii.        Approved progression to a detailed study on Option 3 – a partial redevelopment - as the preferred recommendation for redevelopment of Cambridge Junction.

  iv.        The detailed study on option 3 would be considered within a framework of an outline site wide masterplan to ensure that:

a)   The full impacts of the phase 1 study on the wider freehold site were taken into account.

b)   Alternative options were considered at this stage should option 3 be undeliverable.

c)   The Council was able to ensure best value optimisation of its assets on the site.

d)   The work would support a potential first stage capital bid to Arts Council England including completion of more detailed work up to RIBA stage 1.

 

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 Culture and Community Manager.

 

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

     i.        Asked what financial consideration had been given to the Junction in terms of bridging the gap caused by redevelopment.

    ii.        Welcomed the opportunity of redevelopment. Referred to section 3.6 of the report and asked if the audit had been subject to analysis.

 

The Culture and Community Manager and Head of Property Services said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Confirmed that the Junction had stable finances, they had been working closely with the Arts Council who were their biggest funder so they were confident that the redevelopment would make a positive and sustainable impact on their finances.

    ii.        Stated that the proposal wasn’t just to increase performance capacity, there was high demand for rehearsal/education space and start up facilities.

 

The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation confirmed that discussions had been ongoing for 18 months; this was a positive opportunity which could lead to further development in Junction 1 in the future.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

 

Matter for Decision

The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) included the detailed revenue bids and savings and capital proposals and set out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and budget finalisation being considered. The report reflected recommendations that would be made to The Executive on 25 January 2018 and then to Council, for consideration at its meeting on 22 February 2018.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to the Executive:

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets: [Section 5, page 31 refers]

a)   Agreed recommendations for submission to the Executive in respect of:

·        Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix C (a) and Saving

shown in Appendix C (b).

·        Bids  to  be  funded  from  External  or  Earmarked  Funds  as  shown  in Appendix C (c).

·        Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix C (d).

 

b)   To recommend to Council formally confirming delegation to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which would be set out in Appendix A (a).

 

c)   To recommend to Council the level of Council Tax for 2018/19 as set out in Section 4 [page 28 refers].

 

Noted that the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel would meet on 31 January 2018   to   consider   the   precept   proposed   by   the   Police   and   Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority would meet on 8 February 2018 and Cambridgeshire County Council would meet on 9 February 2018 to consider the amounts in precepts to be issued to the City Council for the year 2018/19.

 

Other Revenue:

 

d) To recommended to Council delegation to the Head of Finance authority to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation  of  support  service  and  central  costs,  in  accordance  with  the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

 

e) To recommended to Council the setting up an earmarked fund - the “GF development fund” [with the remit as page 27 refers].   The council would provide loans to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP), of which it was a member, to support the development of the former council depot on Mill Road. The proposals and resulting interest income were covered in more detail in Section 5. It was proposed to retain income from this and other CIP developments in an earmarked reserve reflecting uncertainty in both timings and quantum, and to provide a contingency fund reflecting the potential risks in this scheme and future schemes under development.

 

Capital: [Section 7, page 37 refers]

 

f) Recommend to Council the proposals outlined in Appendix E (a) for inclusion in  the  Capital  Plan,  including  any  additional  use  of  revenue  resources required.

 

g) Recommended to Council the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix E (d), the Funding as set out in Section 7, page 40 and note the Projects Under Development list set out in Appendix E (e).

 

General Fund Reserves:

 

h) Noted the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 8, page 45 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 made not comments in response to the report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action.

 

The Planning Enforcement Officer referred to the addendum sheet that corrected typographical errors relating to job titles:

·        “Director of Planning and Economic Development” replaced “Head of Planning Services”.

·        “Head of Legal Practice” replaced “Head of Legal Services”.

 

Address: 60 Nuns Way.

 

Details of Alleged Breaches of Planning Control: Without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to three separate units of residential accommodation at the premises.

 

The report sought authority to:

     i.        Authorise an enforcement notice under S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there has been a breach of planning control within the last four years, namely without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to three separate units of residential accommodation at the premises, specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance set out in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.4, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.5 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.        Authorise the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to draft and issue the enforcement notices.

   iii.        Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice.

 

A Representative of the person affected addressed the Committee.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The Owner had not received the enforcement letter as it was sent to the wrong address.

    ii.        The Owner asked if cooking equipment could be left in place and was unhappy about putting the internal door back into the garage.

   iii.        The Owner would respond to the enforcement notice as required.

 

 The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to authorise enforcement action.

The Committee received a report requesting authorisation to take formal enforcement action.

 

The Planning Enforcement Officer referred to the addendum sheet that corrected typographical errors relating to job titles:

·        “Director of Planning and Economic Development” replaced “Head of Planning Services”.

·        “Head of Legal Practice” replaced “Head of Legal Services”.

 

Address: Florian House and Roman House, Severn Place.

 

Details of Alleged Breaches of Planning Control: Without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling houses to short-term visitor accommodation (sui generis) at the premises.

 

The report sought authority to:

     i.        Authorise enforcement notices for each apartment under S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) alleging that there has been a breach of planning control within the last ten years, namely without planning permission:

·        The unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to short-term visitor accommodation lets (sui generis) at flats 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Roman House.

·        The unauthorised change of use from C3 dwelling house to short-term visitor accommodation lets (sui generis) at flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Florian House.

·        Specifying the steps to comply and the period for compliance for each apartment set out in paragraphs 9.2 to 9.4, for the reasons contained in paragraph 9.5 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.        Authorise the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to draft and issue the enforcement notices.

   iii.        Delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Economic Development (after consultation with the Head of Legal Practice) to exercise the Council’s powers to take further action in the event of noncompliance with the enforcement notice.

 

Mr Brown (Agent) addressed the Committee.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Did not accept that there had been a breach of control.

    ii.        C3 residential use had been given to the buildings.

   iii.        Officers were concentrating on the length of stay instead of the principle of building use ie the building was being used for residential purposes through short term lets.

  iv.        There were no complaints from neighbours.

   v.        If Councillors accepted the Officer’s recommendation to take enforcement action, a grace period was requested for the property owner to take action before enforcement action was taken.

 

Councillor Bick (Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Spoke in support of the Officer’s recommendation to take enforcement action.

    ii.        The thirteen units should be for long term resident’s use not short term lets.

   iii.        There was a need for short term accommodation in the city, but not on this development.

  iv.        Any change of use for the site needed to go through formal consideration by Committee after an official application had been made.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to accept the officer recommendation to authorise enforcement action.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of two storey side extension, part single/part two storey rear extension and rear dormer following demolition of existing rear extension, conservatory and side lean-to.

 

Councillor Abbott (East Chesterton Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Referred to objections raised by the Conservation Team.

     ii.          Specific concerns:

a.    Impact on neighbours’ properties.

b.    The design is overbearing and out of character with the street and Conservation Area.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for conversion of existing dwellinghouse to form 2no 2bed flats, 2no 1 bed flats, following a two storey front and side, part two, part single storey rear extensions. Bike and bin storage to the rear.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a new three storey building containing two selfcontained flats, bin and bike store to the rear of 84 Ditton Walk. Replacement of existing single storey extension, including 4 rooflights, bin and bike store, landscaping and fencing to 84 Ditton Walk.

 

The Senior Planner updated his report with a pre-committee amendment to his recommendation:

 

The drawing number referred to in condition 16 should be changed from ‘1068/04 REV B’ to ‘1068/04 REV C’.

 

Condition 20 (cycle parking) should be re-worded as follows:

 

“No development shall commence until details of facilities for the covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The approved facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage of bicycles.

 

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/10 and 8/6)”

 

Councillor Johnson (Abbey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Residents of 78 and 80 Ditton Walk had asked him to speak on their behalf.

    ii.        Referred to representations set out in section 7 of the Officer’s report. Specific concerns raised:

a.   Sewerage arrangements.

b.   The application would exacerbate existing on street parking and traffic flow issues. Expressed road safety concerns as a result of this.

c.   The application would be out of scale with the area and too high which could lead to overlooking.

 

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to control/ensure access to car parking and the bin store.

 

The Principal Planner said condition 20 (above) could be reworded to incorporate the amendment.

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers subject to condition 20 being re-worded as follows:

 

“No development shall commence until details of facilities for the covered, secured parking of bicycles for use in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing.  The approved facilities shall be provided and retained thereafter in accordance with the approved details before use of the development commences.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision for the secure storage of bicycles. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/10 and 8/6)”

 

Councillor Blencowe withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear facing dormer, alterations to fenestrations, the addition of guarding to the rear and the conversion of existing dwelling into two flats (amended description).

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for section 73 permission.

 

The application sought approval to vary condition 1 of planning permission 15/0924/FUL (Part two storey part single storey rear and side extensions, incorporating rear balcony, following demolition of existing garage and part demolition of existing house. Roof extension incorporating rear dormers and balcony and raising ridge height) to allow for amended plans to be passed showing amendments to external appearance including privacy screens to external balconies, balustrades to the rear balcony, solar panel on roof, alterations to approved window sizes, new velux windows and new internal door to utility room.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Fendon Close.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Referred to a complaint made to the Local Government Ombudsman.

    ii.        Raised the following specific concerns:

a.   Felt had not been given sufficient time to raise objections.

b.   Took issue with the height of the building and rear wall.

c.   The property could become a house in multiple occupation in future.

d.   Took issue with the details submitted by the Applicant and suggested they were erroneous.

e. That the current ballustrades did not benefit from planning permission.

   iii.        Asked for details on the height and dimensions of the application. Stated these had previously been requested but not supplied from the Planning Department.

 

  iv.        Asked for details on the height and dimensions of the application. Stated these had previously been requested but not supplied from the Planning Department.

 

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

 

Councillor Holland proposed two amendments to the Officer’s recommendation for a:

     i.        Full length screen on the balcony.

 

The Principal Planner said condition 2 could be reworded to incorporate the amendment.

 

This amendment was carried by 3 votes to 3 and on the Chair’s casting vote.

 

    ii.        Landscaping informative.

 

The Principal Planner said the boundary condition could be reworded to incorporate the amendment.

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for section 73 permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers with delegated powers to amend condition no. 2 to require details of full height screen to balcony and condition no. 4 to require submission of a scheme to include boundary planting.

The Committee received an application for retrospective section 73 permission.

 

The application sought approval to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission 14/0888/FUL (Proposed two storey house to rear of 8 Cheney Way (with access from Long Reach Road), following demolition of the existing garage) to allow an increase in height of the dwelling.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for retrospective section 73 permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing garage. Erection of attached dwelling and extension to existing house.

 

Ms Hobolm (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Councillor Hipkin withdrew from the meeting after the decision on this item and Councillor Smart took the Chair.

 

Councillor Holland joined as Councillor Hipkin’s Alternate.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a two storey side extension, single storey front and single storey side and rear extensions. A roof extension incorporating rear dormer is also proposed. The extension is proposed to be used as 2 no. 1 bedroom flats. The host dwelling will increase in size from a 3 no bedroom property to a 4 no bedroom property with a study.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of a single two storey 4-bed dwelling.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of an existing dwelling and the development of a single new building containing 3no 1bed flats and 1no studio.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for removal of glass pyramid structure to roof of existing leisure centre, re-cladding of the facades and erection of single storey extension (net gain of 10no additional bedrooms and leisure facilities).

 

The Senior Planner reported a further representation received from the Federation of Cambridge Residents Association which raised no new issues and updated her report with a

pre-committee amendment:

 

Additional condition:

 

17. Prior to first occupation of the hotel bedrooms hereby permitted, the replacement leisure facility shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and shall be available for members other than resident guests of the hotel to use in accordance with a membership system.

 

Reason: To guard against the loss of the leisure facility in accordance with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 6/1.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Wordsworth Grove.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Various residents associations objected to the application.

    ii.        The Hotel had made seven planning applications since 2010, most had been refused.

   iii.        The application did not meet Local Plan criteria.

  iv.        Extending and cladding the application would harm the character of the area.

   v.        Specific objections:

·        Building on the riverfront.

·        Loss of views of the area.

·        Design, scale and massing.

 

Ms O’Gorman (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Bick (Market Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application on behalf of Councillor Cantrill (Newnham Ward Councillor).

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The application was sited in a quintessential / historic part of Cambridge.

    ii.        Referred to Councillor Cantrill’s input into previous applications.

   iii.        Planning permission had been refused in 2013 based on the provision of leisure facilities. The Senior Planner’s said the current provision was not different but the table on P305 of the Officer’s report showed there would be less. Councillor Cantrill expressed concern over the apparent loss of facilities and suggested Local Plan policy 6/4 should be defended.

  iv.        The 10m addition to the river frontage was concerning. This would impact on views in the Conservation Area as referenced by the Planning Inspector in an earlier application. The extension would have a negative impact on the setting, sense of place and character of the (sensitive) area.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the amended conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for erection of three 2xbed houses, along with cycle parking and hard and soft landscaping.

 

The Senior Planner updated his report by stating he recommended ‘Approval’ subject to conditions, and consultation with Network Rail.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Cavendish Road.

 

The representation covered the following objections:

     i.        Three houses being built in a back garden in a Conservation Area would be out of keeping with the character of the area.

    ii.        Suggested the proposal contravened Cambridge Local Plan 2006 section 3.10 and category 3.30, plus policy 52 in the draft 2014 Local Plan.

   iii.        Raised concerns about:

·        Over development of site.

·        Overcrowding.

·        Loss of privacy.

·        Traffic flow and parking.

·        Drainage.

  iv.        Residents were prepared to accept two houses on site due to the need for more housing in the area. Three would be too many and impact on residents’ amenities.

 

Ms Brown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Baigent (Romsey Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application. He stated to the Committee:

·        He lived in Cavendish Road.

·        He had been notified of the development as a local resident, but was unaffected by it.

·        He was speaking as a Ward Councillor and expressing the views of his constituents.

 

The representation covered the following objections:

     i.        Romsey was high density development in style.

    ii.        Took issue with the application as it was over development of site that would have a negative impact on the area.

   iii.        Planning permission had been given previously for two houses on site after a third was withdrawn as a result of residents’ protests.

  iv.        Residents felt the developer had broken trust by reverting back to a three housing development. Residents had not objected to a two house development as a compromise towards housing need.

   v.        Suggested the development contravened Local Plan policies and its form was out of character with the area.

  vi.        The front of the development faced onto six car parking spaces. These were required as a result of planning permission given in 1991.

 

The Committee:

 

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

 

Unanimously resolved to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason and subject to no formal objection being raised by Network Rail:

 

The proposed development which has a greater footprint and mass than the approved scheme, and which sub-divides the site into three separate residential curtilages, would have a harmful impact on the character of the area, which forms part of the Mill Road Conservation Area, represent an overdevelopment of the site and result in a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupiers contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 3/4, 3/10 and 4/11.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing 2 storey house and replacement with 2 one beds flats and 3 two bed flats in a one and two storey building.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the Grade II listed Cambridge Union Society. Construction of replacement facade, reinstatement and refurbishment of historic features and internal and external access and refurbishment works including enlargement of existing cafe (use class A3) and re-opening of 'Footlight's' entertainment space (sui generis). Demolition of squash courts and un-listed 3-5 Round Church Street in the conservation area. Construction of new link building for access and ancillary uses for the Union Society. Construction of adjacent new building with ground floor restaurant (use class A3) with 45 room post-graduate student accommodation above (use class C2) together with basement storage and services.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers and completion of the S106 agreement.

 

The Committee received an application for listed building consent.

 

The application sought approval for Demolition of ancillary buildings and removal of 1930's facade at the Grade II listed Cambridge Union Society. Construction of replacement facade, reinstatement and refurbishment of historic features and internal and external access and refurbishment works including enlargement of existing cafe (use class A3) and re-opening of 'Footlight's' entertainment space (sui generis). Demolition of squash courts and un-listed 3-5 Round Church Street in the conservation area. Construction of new link building for access and ancillary uses for the Union Society. Construction of adjacent new building with ground floor restaurant (use class A3) with 45 room post-graduate student accommodation above (use class C2) together with basement storage and services.

 

Bill Bailey, Bursar for the Cambridge Union Society (on behalf of the applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to grant the application for listed building consent in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for construction of 14 x 3 bedroom houses, formation of access, landscaping, garden areas, drainage, parking and supporting infrastructure, following demolition of 308 Coldham’s Lane. Front porch and single storey rear extension to 306 Coldham’s Lane.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet and a late representation from Councillor Baigent.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Matthew Danish on behalf of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        The proposed Coldham’s Lane access route would give priority to vehicles on the footpath.

    ii.        Safety concerns about the number of vehicles crossing the footpath.

   iii.        Proposal contrary to 8.3 and 8.11 of the Local Plan.

  iv.        Junction would be unsafe for visually impaired pedestrians.

 

Tim Waller (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers and completion of an s.106 agreement.

 

INFORMATIVE: Additional informative requiring details of visibility splays to be incorporated into the details submitted to discharge the boundary treatment condition.

The Committee received an application for conversion and change of use.

 

The application sought approval for conversion of Whichcote House from student accommodation to provide 11no. C3 (dwellinghouse) units, along with car and cycle parking and associated landscaping.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for change of use and conversion permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers and completion of an s.106 agreement.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a new block to rear containing three 3xbed residential units with roof terraces following demolition of existing retail storage space at first floor and changes to the external appearance of the existing elevations along with revised access arrangements from Perne Road, courtyard at first floor level, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping.

 

The Committee:

 

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

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and replacement with a residential redevelopment consisting of one two-bedroom unit, seven one-bedroom units and six studio units. There are also landscaping, access, car and cycle parking works proposed to accommodate this development.

 

The Committee noted the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee received a neutral representation regarding the application from Matthew Danish on behalf of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

     i.        Do not object to the plan but feel that is should have given greater considered Greer Cambridgeshire Partnership’s future plans for this area.

    ii.        Cyclists needed greater visibility and changes needed to allow this would not be onerous.

   iii.        The entrance route to the cycle store was likely to be blocked by parked cars and would be hard to access.

  iv.        A small dropped kerb to the Lovell Road side of the side would solve this problem.

 

Colin Brown (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

The Committee agreed that Matthew Danish’s suggestions had merit and suggested that the visibility splay could be addressed with an informative.

 

Further discussions with the County Council Highways department would be needed regarding the dropped kerb.

 

The Chair of the Committee, Councillor Hipkin, addressed the Committee to clarify his position regarding impartiality. He reminded those present that his role as Chair required him to be impartial and fair when allowing members of the Planning Committee to address the meeting. However, he was entitled and expected to fully express his own views regarding applications under consideration.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers plus additional informatives and completion of the S106 agreement.

 

INFORMATIVE: When discharging conditions 27 (hard and soft landscaping) and 28 (boundary treatment) efforts should be made to increase the visibility splay compared to that shown on the approved drawing so as to improve visibility of cyclists on the highway”

 

INFORMATIVE: When undertaking works to the public highway with the Highway Authority it is recommended that the dropped kerb on Lovell Road, or a suitable replacement dropped kerb, is provided/ retained to make it easier for cyclists to enter and leave the application site.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Record of Executive Decision

 

HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (HRA) BUDGET SETTING REPORT (BSR) 2018/19

 

Decision of:	The Leader of the Council, Councillor Lewis Herbert
Reference:	18/URGENCY/HS/1
Date of decision:	31 January 2018	Recorded on:	31 January 2018
Decision Type:	Key Decision
Matter for Decision:	The Leader is asked to take decisions in respect of both housing rents and service charges and the Housing Revenue Account revenue budget.
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	Following deliberation at the Housing Scrutiny Committee (17/01/18), the Executive Councillor for Housing took a view on a key decision which materially differed to that of the Housing Scrutiny Committee.  Under 2.5 of Part 4D Executive Procedure Rules of the Council's Constitution, the matter was referred to the Leader of the Council for Decision.   The draft minutes from Housing Scrutiny Committee (17/01/18) record that the Housing Scrutiny Committee supported the Liberal Democrat amendments (Part One of the recommendation A to L) by 7 votes to 5 votes. The Housing Scrutiny Committee then supported the Labour recommendations (Part Two of the recommendation M to V) set out on in the minutes.   The Leader of the Council was requested to make a decision, either as set out in the HRA BSR covering report (January 2018) final or as set out in the Liberal Democrat  alternative HRA BSR covering report.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	Review of Rents and Charges   a)      Approve that council dwellings rents for all social rented properties be reduced by 1%, in line with legislative requirements, introduced as part of the Welfare Reform and Work Act, with effect from 2nd April 2018. This equates to an average rent reduction at the time of writing this report of £1.00 per week on a 52 week basis.   b)      Approve that affordable rents are reviewed in line with rent legislation, to ensure that the rents charged are no more than 80% of market rent, with this figure then reduced by the 1% per annum, as with social housing. Local policy is to cap affordable rents at the Local Housing Allowance level, which will result in rent variations in line with any changes notified to the authority in this level.   c)      Approve that rents for shared ownership are reviewed and amended from April 2018, in line with the specific requirements within the lease for each property.   d)      Approve new garage and parking space charges for 2018/19, in line with the report presented to Housing Scrutiny Committee as part of this committee cycle, as summarised in Section 3 of the HRA Budget Setting Report   e)      Approve the proposed service charges for Housing Revenue Account services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.   f)       Approve the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2018/19, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.   g)      Approve that caretaking, building cleaning, estate services, grounds maintenance, temporary housing premises and utilities, sheltered scheme premises and utilities, digital television aerial, flat cleaning and catering charges continue to be recovered at full cost, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September 2017 (3%) plus 1%, wherever possible.   h)      Approve that service charges for gas maintenance, door entry systems, lifts and electrical and mechanical maintenance are increased in an attempt recover full estimated costs, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September 2017 (3%) plus 1%, equivalent to an increase of 4% in total, wherever possible.   Revenue – HRA   Revised Budget 2017/18:   i)        Approve with any amendments, the Revised Budget identified in Section 4 of the HRA Budget Setting Report, which reflects a net reduction in the use of HRA reserves for 2017/18 of £52,810.   Budget 2018/19:   j)        Approve with any amendments, any Non-Cash Limit items identified in Section 4 of the HRA Budget Setting Report or shown in Appendix D (1) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.   k)       Approve with any amendments, any Savings, Increased Income, Unavoidable Revenue Pressures and Reduced Income proposals, as shown in Appendix D (1) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.     l)        Approve the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised in the Housing Revenue Account Summary Forecast 2017/18 to 2022/23 shown in Appendix J of the HRA Budget Setting Report.   Under Part 2 of the agenda: Recommend to Council   Treasury Management   m)     Recognise the decision taken in 2017/18 to defer the review of the current approach to treasury management, which requires 25% of the value of the housing debt to be set-aside by the point at which the loan portfolio matures until after it is clear whether or not the policy to introduce a levy in respect of the sale of higher value voids will be implemented.   Housing Capital   n)      Approval of capital bids, shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, to include the replacement of the estate service champion vehicle, recognition of increased costs for the replacement of the housing management information system and the refurbishment / reconfiguration works at Ditchburn Place, and to recognise additional investment in Disabled Facilities Grants in line with anticipated grant awarded through the Better Care Fund via the County Council.   o)      Approval of the latest Decent Homes Programme, to include updated allocation and timing of decent homes expenditure for new build dwellings, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.   p)      Approval of the latest budget sums, profiling and associated financing for new build schemes including the scheme approved at Mill Road by Strategy & Resources, based upon the latest cost information from the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) or direct procurements, as detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report   q)      Incorporation into the Housing Capital Investment Plan, a Section 106 affordable housing contribution of £1,750,000, to be used as funding towards the delivery of affordable housing within the city, by the HRA.    r)       Approval to earmark additional resource of £2,151,000 towards the cost of a denser re-development at Akeman Street, in advance of the revised scheme being presented to Housing Scrutiny Committee in March 2018 for formal decision. This will allow the scheme to proceed should the CIP tendered cost fall within the approved cost envelope or allowable contract parameters.   s)      Approval of the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix K of the HRA Budget Setting Report.   General   t)       Approval of delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer,          to approve an in year increase in the budget for disabled facilities grants, in direct relation to any increase in the capital grant funding for this purpose, as received from the County Council through the Better Care Fund.   u)       Approval of delegation to the Strategic Director to review and amend the level of fees charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for disabled facilities grants and repair assistance grants, in line with any decisions s made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board.   v)      Approval of delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down resource from the ear-marked reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the purpose of open market property acquisition or new build housing development, should the need arise, in order to meet quarterly deadlines for the use of retained right to buy receipts.
Reasons for the decision:	The reasons for the decision are as set out in the HRA BSR report to Housing Scrutiny Committee (17.1.18). In addition to this, the Leader noted the following reasons for decision:   -      in respect of rent-setting, the Council’s policy to set rents for new Council homes at the Local Housing Allowance level (including service charges) ensures low income families are eligible for help with rent where needed, but also maintains an income-stream for the Council to maintain its homes and build new ones. Council tenants have indicated (in the last survey) that new Council house building is their top priority; it is a very high priority for the Council, and we are committed to a business plan that will allow us to continue building new homes. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrat proposal to reduce rents for those in larger properties would have meant that families in two-bed homes would pay more rent than those living in a three-bed home next door, regardless of their family size, income or other circumstances. This is not equitable. -      In respect of support for tenants who are affected by the introduction of Universal Credit, we agree with the Opposition that there are reasons to be concerned about the impact on many people, and for this reason we are proposing a package of support and advice to be funded through the General Fund, and available to all claimants, not only those who hold Council tenancies. In this way, we are offering equal support and advice to all those who need it, regardless of tenure. Our housing staff will closely monitor the impact on our tenants, and if further support is needed, we will review this: we have resources within the Housing Transformation Fund which will be made available if additional support is required. -      With regard to the suggestion that additional funding be put into estate improvements, we agree that the removal of the estate improvement funds from the budget (as a result of government rent reductions in 2015 – check) has increased pressure on these areas. We already have over £1M of capital funding in the budget for communal and external spaces in 2018/19, but we will further commit to ensuring that we make available enough surveying resource to complete the programme of estate inspections that has been begun in the current year. We will identify any underspends estate improvements and Housing Transformation in the current year which could be used to help to escalate the programme in 2018.  No changes to be budget are needed to do this, and our staff will ensure ward councillors and local residents representatives continue to be engaged in prioritising the work for their local areas. -      With regard to repairs for vulnerable tenants: our report on repairs has been delayed as the officer data analysis is not complete. We have committed to ensuring that our services support vulnerable people, and we will review any proposals in a future report, to ensure that vulnerable tenants (including those in sheltered schemes) are not disadvantaged.
Scrutiny consideration:	As described above the matter was scrutinized at Housing Scrutiny Committee on 17.1.18. The Leader of the Council endorsed the recommendations of the Officer as set out in the substantive report.
Report:	The report and amendment are published here: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=414&MId=3278&Ver=4
Conflicts of interest:	None
Comments:	This decision was published on 31 January 2018 and the Housing Scrutiny Committee and Executive Councillor for Housing were advised.