To continue to work with the key partnerships so that together the Council and its partners can address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge, to the overall benefit of citizens; and to enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Matter for Decision

 

The Officer’s report set out funding to Cambridge Investment Partnership for the Purchase of Land

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

 i. Approve Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously agreed to exclude the public after considering that the public interest was outweighed by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable committee debate of the officer report.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The Officer’s report set out funding to Cambridge Investment Partnership for the Purchase of Land

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

 i. Approve Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously agreed to exclude the public after considering that the public interest was outweighed by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable committee debate of the officer report.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

 

By the time this report was received by the Strategy and Resources Committee on Monday 27th March, the 4DW Phase One trial, which included the Shared Planning Service, would be nearing its completion. The Officer’s report provides a brief insight into the first two months of the trial including KPI performance for the Shared Planning Service (which was as much data as was available up to the report deadline date). The report also sets out the next stage of the process, in terms of final evaluation of the trial.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources, Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader:

 

      i.          Note the report and agreed the decision option highlighted in 3.11 for the next stage of the process; a special meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee will meet and debate the issues to inform a decision the Executive Councillor would make on 15th May.

     ii.          Provide any feedback thought relevant to the Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire District Council.

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire District Council introduced the report.

 

The Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire District Council said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          The data in appendix 2 of the Officer’s report (the Pulse survey) was more of a temperature check. The data that they would be using to measure health and wellbeing would be a survey run by Robertson Cooper Ltd, an external agency. It would be a 120-question survey. The survey would be launched later this week and it will be open for 3 weeks.

     ii.          There were surveys for people who were specifically not in the trial to ask what the impact was in consequence of people participating in the trial. Apart from Waste Services there were few people not involved in the trial.

   iii.          The main driver behind trialling the 4-day week was concerns about recruitment. South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC), prior to the trial was carrying over £2 million in employment agency costs as staff turnover was high, which is costly and disruptive. Though could not reasonably expect to get rid of all agency costs, could reasonably expect to get rid of much of those costs which would reduce the cost of services for taxpayers. Therefore, it was in SCDC’s interests to make those sorts of savings and efficiencies rather than cutting or reducing services.

   iv.          No decisions have been made regarding extending the trial at this point. Officers would be providing data and evidence to SCDC Cabinet and to Cambridge City Council Scrutiny Committee. Both Councils would make their decision based on that data and evidence.

    v.          Recruitment was a key issue. The reason for extending the trial for a year was that SCDC could not measure the impact on recruitment in 3 months. The reason the trial did not start with a year was that it was too risky, as this was the first trial in the public sector of the 4-day week. Started with 3 months to see if SCDC could run functionally and see if the performance could be kept up for that time. If trial extended a year would have better data regarding recruitment and retention.

   vi.          It was always the plan to do a 3-month trial to see if performance was maintained.

 vii.          The health and wellbeing survey being launched would identify which service employees belonged to. Therefore, there would be data from people working in the planning service, how they fed back in August 2023 and how they were feeding back in March 2023 as a comparison.

viii.          There would be questions about whether people were able to complete their work in 4 days. Staff would be asked if they wished to be included in the trial if it was extended. Those who do not wish to continue in the trail and wish to work a 5-day week are welcome to do so. Staff who wanted to continue on a 4-day week but are struggling with workload would be provided with support to help them manage their workload.

   ix.          Employees could opt out of the trial is they so wish.

    x.          The planning service had vastly improved its service in the last year.

   xi.          The SCDC Chief Executive agreed that quality of work in the planning service must be maintained during the trial.

 xii.          During the past 6 months SCDC had done more transformation than in the last 3 and a half years combined. The reason was that people want to be more productive, as they were now invested in this process and want the trial to be successful.

xiii.           It was SCDC policy to respond to residents within 14 working days. This would not be affected if an employee had a non-working day on a Friday, so they did not respond to a resident until the following Monday.

xiv.          It would have been preferable to trial waste services first, but it was a much more complicated to do. This was due to doing a round optimisation exercise which was complex and had taken several months.

xv.          Would be able to provide KPI’s regarding processing times for planning applications from before the trial began and during the trial.

xvi.          Staff could choose any day they wished to off at the beginning of the trial. During the trial SCDC realised that it is easier to choose either a Monday or a Friday as a non-working day and have Tuesday-Thursday as core working days. It was still to be determined if this was what would remain in place going forward.

xvii.          No-one specifically requested a 4-day working week. This was an idea put forward by the Chief Executive of SCDC based on discussions with colleagues regarding staff recruitment and retention.

xviii.          Stated that salary was not always the most important factor in recruiting and retention. Based on her conversations SCDC Chief Executive has discovered that quality of life and work/life balance was just as important.

The Committee noted the report.

 

The Committee resolved (4-0 with 2 abstentions) to endorse the recommendations.:

 

      i.          That a special meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee could meet and debate the issues to inform a decision the Executive Councillor would make on 15th May.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader 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 Council has an existing General Fund Asset Management Plan approved in 2019. It was good practice to review such Plans every 5 years or so to reflect changes that have occurred since. There have been changes to property owned, how assets would be utilised post Covid and how they will be used in future as part of the Council’s wider ‘Our Cambridge’ business transformation programme so a review is timely. The Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26 had set a net zero carbon target for its buildings included in its Greenhouse Gas report. The government’s Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards also requires that leased out/commercial property achieve an Energy Performance Certificate of at least ‘B’ by 2030. The Asset Management Plan sets out how the Council will manage its General Fund assets, is updated to reflect the current environmental performance of properties and how this will be improved to meet the targets as set out above.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources, Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader:

 

·       Approve the Asset Management Plan as attached at Appendix A; and

·       Agree the proposed approach to identifying works, seeking funding and delivery to meet environmental targets by 2030 as set out in the Asset Management Plan and this report.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Head of Property Services introduced the report.

 

Head of Property Services, Assistant Chief Executive and Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          Some of the data in the report was historic data, advised that Assistant Chief Executive could provide updated data.

     ii.          The Assistant Chief Executive stated Parkside Pool had historically been the biggest emitter of carbon. Officers successfully applied to the Public Sector Decarbonisation Fund a couple of years ago and that work was completed last summer. Therefore, the data on emissions from Parkside Pool does not reflect these completed works. Members should expect to see a significant reduction is emissions from Parkside Pools when years data is published. This should be available at the October 2023 Environment and Communities Scrutiny Meeting. 

   iii.          Regarding office accommodations, officers brought a report to S&R Committee in October 2022 outlining the council’s approach. There was still demand in Cambridge for office space. Recognised there was a surplus of office accommodation at the Council. Currently most staff were based at Mandela House since COVID 19, but it was still not being fully utilised. Refurbishment to the Guildhall will take time. The council had let the ground floor to Allia who were now using and managing that space. This was helping with overhead costs in respect to the building. Going forward the council would need approximately 40% of the space that it had used historically. The Guildhall would need to be refurbished and fit for purpose when staff moved back. A project team would be working on how this could be accomplished.

   iv.          Environmental improvements would need to be undertaken with the refurbishment of the Guildhall. The district heat network would be important to this process. It was difficult to improve the performance of the Guildhall building. It was difficult to install ground source heat pumps due to its location. There were solar panels on the roof of the Guildhall but probably not enough room to install air source heat pumps. Part of the process would be how to make improvement to a listed building such as the Guildhall, to produce environmental savings and also generate income from spaces that the council did not utilise.

    v.          When reviews were done regarding Ditton Lane shops, officers would take into consideration access and crime prevention if refurbishment was considered.

 

The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader 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 recommend to Council to  approve in principle, the carry forward of estimated revenue budget amounts from 2022/23 to 2023/24.

Matter for Decision

 

This report presents details of any anticipated variances from budgets, where resources are requested to be carried forward into the 2023/24 financial year in order to undertake or complete activities which were originally intended to take place in 2022/23.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources, Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader:

 

·       Agree the provisional carry forward requests, totalling £351,070 as detailed in Appendix A, are recommended to Council to approve, subject to the final outturn position.

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Head of Finance introduced the report.

 

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

 

      i.          Justification of why funds were not spent were listed in the report as it goes through each item.

      ii.          Had discussions with the University of Cambridge regarding the Mill Lane redevelopment proposal. Officers were discussing how this may be incorporated with their wider scheme. This had not progressed at this moment. Would continue to work with the University to see when they wish to proceed, as officers believe they would in the future.

The scrutiny committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation and Non-Statutory Deputy Leader 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.

 

No decision to be made. To be noted only.

Matter for Decision

To give Members an opportunity to ask questions about the officer’s progress with applications for the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) projects, this report provided an overview of the projects, (for which the Director for Planning and Economic Development has delegated authority) together with a high-level programme for the projects.

The GCP projects covered by the delegation were as follows:

      i.          Cambourne to Cambridge Rapid Transport Route (C2C) public transport corridor project.

     ii.          Cambridge South-East Transport Route (CSET) public transport corridor project Phase 2.

   iii.          Cambridge Eastern Access public transport corridor project.

   iv.          Waterbeach to Cambridge public transport corridor project.

    v.          Greater Cambridge Greenways (various routes).

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

 

      i.          Noted the update report in respect of the GCP projects identified in criteria (i) to (v) of Paragraph 1.3 of the Officer’s report (as shown above).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

In response to Member’s comments and questions the Strategic Sites Delivery Manager and the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.          The Shared Services response and input was determined by the project programmes that were being led by the GCP which were at various stages.

     ii.          The dialogue at pre-application stage was not publicly available. These conversations were based around technical advice around planning matters/evidence resting with the Planning Authority. GCP was the project promoter and drew upon SPS advice as required.

   iii.          Conversations involving planning policy officers working on the emerging Local Plan had been held. The LPA had referred GCP to its technical studies on the Local Plan and assisted with understanding and interpretation. 

   iv.          In terms of the Waterbeach to Cambridge public transport corridor project there was a phase one series of interventions that were required before 1600 dwellings approximately had been completed. Officers could not confirm whether the Waterbeach Public Transport Corridor was part of those phase 1 works but would advise further. Until there was a substantive number of residents, the trip effects and the transport mitigation were not required immediately. However, the cycleway enhancements along the A10 had been completed (one part of the mitigation proposals).

    v.          Noted the statements read out by Councillor Copley on the projects referenced in the Officer’s report.

   vi.          Welcomed members views, whether individually or collectively on these projects, which would be taken into consideration as part of the preparation of the Council’s responses

 vii.          The Council’s formal position at the point of statutory consultation would be formed either through the Out of Cycle decision process, approved by the Executive Councillor, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes or if possible through the Committee – but timelines for responses are fixed and not within the Control of the Council.

viii.          Noted the comment that shared space cycle/pedestrian facilities were not favoured by members - there should be separate pedestrian and cycles ways with clear signage

   ix.          Welcomed the comments that good bridle ways should also be considered.

 

The Committee

 

      i.          By a show of hands (6 votes to 0) to note the update report in respect of the GCP projects identified in criteria (i) to (v) of Paragraph 1.3 of the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor thanked Councillor S Smith for chairing the committee during the municipal year 2022/23, who had been rigorous in their reading of the emerging Local Plan and committee items. Members appreciated all the input made as Chair.

 

The Chair thanked all Members for their work for the Committee.

 

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 referred to combining the enforcement policies of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council into one united Compliance Policy for Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Services.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

 

      i.          Adopted the unified Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Compliance Policy.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

In response from comments from the Committee, the Assistant Director for Planning and Building Quality and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

 

i.          The policy centred upon the Planning Legislation and the policy included all the available provisions within the Planning Acts. There was other non-planning legislation which had not been referred to within the policy, but this did not stop officers from considering with colleagues other legislation where appropriate to address compliance matters.

ii.          Where an investigation identified a breach of planning control had occurred, the Town and Country Planning Act provided a range of measures that could be taken by the officers as outlined in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

iii.          A review of the Councils planning portal was being undertaken to identify ways to improve labelling/identification of applications and the mapping systems to support complainants in the early stages of the process.

iv.          Had expected a larger response to the public consultation than the nine received. The consultation had been published on various platforms, circulated to all members and other interested parties and the deadline for response had been extended.  Hard copies had also been made available for written responses on request.

v.          The enforcement policy EQIA had regard to potential effects on those with protected characteristics. The action and emphasis aimed to ensure a consistent approach based on material planning considerations.

vi.          The Shared Planning Service (SPS) did not currently collect data on enforcement and protected characteristics due to General Data Protection Regulations.  But would look to see if there could be some form of monitoring which could be undertaken.

vii.          Could not comment on individual cases but would be happy to discuss with members outside of the meeting.

viii.          Each case was treated individually. Early intervention was key, which was what officers want to achieve.

ix.          When made aware of planning breaches the objective would be for officers to work with the relevant parties to reach a resolution by consent rather than using formal enforcement measures.

x.          Where there was a sense that the applicant was deliberately breaching planning permission or simply did not engage with the compliance process, the policy would allow the service to move more quickly to undertake formal action.

xi.          With the new system in place, if enforcement breaches were reported on the electronic e-form this automatically created a case in the back-office system and can be allocated to an officer to deal with and respond to on a timely basis.

xii.          If the service had concluded it was not expedient to undertake enforcement, then that would be the decision unless new evidence had been put forward.  The enforcement of planning breaches is discretionary and the decision to determine whether action is taken or not rests with officers based upon the evidence in each case.

xiii.          Service standards relating to time scales for response and actions are included but the government is currently consulting on national performance measures for enforcement. The Compliance Policy provided for five working days to respond upon receipt of high priority cases, with ten- and twenty-day response times for medium and low priority cases. 

xiv.          Enforcement notices and other formal enforcement actions were shown on the Council’s planning portal. Work was being undertaken to enter historic information from both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire on to the portal.

xv.          Another new feature of the Council’s planning portal would be the automatic update of information on the compliance issue the individual had submitted online. This would supply the name of an allocated officer and updates when any work or changes had been made.

xvi.          Members of the public could also register on the planning portal to receive notifications of new planning information in a defined search area to help them stay informed.

 

The Committee

 

Unanimously endorsed the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor and Chair thanked the Assistant Director Planning and Building Quality and the team for all hard work and the improvements that had been made.

 

The Executive Councillor highlighted the considerate contractor scheme which she hoped contractors would sign up to; this allowed residents to work with contractors at an early stage, and Ward Councillors to raise issues.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety

Agreed to continue to work with partners within the framework of the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership, identifying local priorities and taking action to make a positive difference to the safety of communities in the city.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Equalities, Anti-Poverty and Wellbeing

Agreed to continue to work with the Health and Wellbeing Board, and engage with the Integrated Care, and its sub-system to ensure that public agencies and others came together to address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge City and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens are heard, as the system developed.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities on behalf of the Strategy Officer.

 

The Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Clinical factors only affected twenty percent of people’s health. This (partnership working) was an opportunity to work on the social determinants of health such as housing.

     ii.          Joining up with colleagues has led to funding for heating and health, community group engagement, joined up working with partner organisations to improve peoples’ health.

   iii.          Officers were looking to expand on this in future to develop a Health Equality Partnership. Historically there had not been an opportunity to join up to provide an integrated care system.

   iv.          How health provision fitted into the planning process was one part of how the Health Equality Partnership/Strategy aligned with other strategies and city population growth.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“2014 Act”) gave local authorities the power to make Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs).

 

The Cambridge City Council Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden at Ditchburn Place, Cambridge Public Spaces Protection Order 2016 was due to lapse on 31st May 2023. This PSPO prohibited consuming alcohol or having an open container of alcohol in possession within the areas shown shaded red on the Order (see Appendix A-C of the Officer’s report). At the time the PSPO was introduced, these areas were the focus of complaints for anti-social drinking of alcohol.

 

Before the orders lapse, Cambridge City Council must decide to either: a) extend the period of the order for up to three years, b) vary the order or c) discharge the order.

 

As per legislation this decision should be informed by consultation with:

      i.          The Police and Crime Commissioner,

     ii.          Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the local policing body),

   iii.          Relevant community representatives,

   iv.          Ward Councillors, and

    v.          The owner/occupier of land the PSPO covers.

 

In addition to these groups, the Council sought the views of local people via the Council’s Citizen Lab consultation platform. 61 people completed the consultation. The consultation questions could be found in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

The Council also collaborated with the University of Cambridge whose Geography students completed 300 in-person surveys with the public on ASB and public spaces.

 

The evidence and consultation results have been used to inform consideration about whether to a) renew the PSPO; b) vary it; or c) discharge it and adopt a new approach to addressing alcohol related ASB. The report highlighted why options a) and b) were not recommended and how option c) is proposed to be implemented, as summarised in 3.18 of the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety

Discharged the PSPO and adopted a new approach to addressing alcohol related ASB.

 

The new approach would involve:

 

      i.          A proactive and preventative council presence on the current PSPO sites through weekly patrols.

     ii.          Better engagement and education with street drinkers, support services and local interest groups.

   iii.          A greater ability to gather intelligence on alcohol related ASB, which will be used as evidence for enforcement action, such as Criminal Behaviour Orders.

 

Discharge was recommended on the grounds of:

   iv.          A significant reduction in reports of anti-social drinking of alcohol on the sites covered by the PSPO. In 2022, the police and council received only 2 reports each.

    v.          Low frequency of incidents identified in the consultation. 36 consultation respondents had witnessed anti-social drinking in the past 12 months. Of these who had witnessed anti-social drinking, almost half witnessed this 10 times or less (an average of less than once per month).

   vi.          65% (194 of 300) respondents to the University of Cambridge’s in person surveys did not list alcohol as a core problem facing public spaces in Cambridge.

 vii.          80% of consultation respondents (49 people) supported the Council and Police managing anti-social drinking of alcohol as outlined in 2.1 – 2.3 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Safety Manager.

 

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

      i.          Welcomed a joined up approach with partners to address street drinking, not just a punitive approach.

     ii.          Queried work the Street Life Officer had undertaken.

 

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

      i.          The Street Life Officer engaged with street drinkers, and they supported proposals in the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Officers regularly engaged with the street life community and their support services such as Jimmy’s (shelter).

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report made recommendations on the approval and adoption of a Litter Strategy for Cambridge City (set out in detail at Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

 

The Strategy was recommended for approval and adoption following extensive research and stakeholder engagement, including a public survey, focus group and series of officer task and finish groups.

 

The Strategy reflected public consultation results and identified areas for strategic action that included:

      i.          Effective litter disposal infrastructure provision.

     ii.          Awareness raising and education.

   iii.          Enforcement.

   iv.          Collaboration and partnership working.

    v.          Civic pride and social responsibility.

 

The Strategy was intended to support positive change in behaviours, make it easy to dispose of litter, continue with enforcement activity, when it is proportionate and reasonable to do so, maximise the productivity of streets and open spaces waste management service and minimise the volume of litter.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment, Climate Change and Biodiversity

      i.          Approved the adoption and use of the proposed ‘Litter Strategy for Cambridge’ (ref. Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Instructed Officers to format the Strategy for publication and to prepare a Communication Plan to support its adoption and implementation.

 

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, Streets & Open Spaces.

 

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

      i.          Officers were undertaking a number of initiatives. Examples:

a.    Working with the Keep Britain Tidy Campaign.

b.    Different bins were provided for general waste and recycling.

c.    Providing labels on bins listing how to dispose of waste responsibly.

d.    Checking bins were in appropriate locations ie where people would use them instead of fly tipping.

     ii.          No particular enforcement action was required regarding litter at present. CCTV could be used to catch culprits if required.

   iii.          Litter was not always recyclable but the aim to do so could be included in Litter Strategy Policy LS2.

   iv.          The Development Manager was working with the Waste Team on recycling policies to separate wate received into different streams (for reuse/sale) even if depositors did not. General waste and recycling bins were located together in tandem, but people usually put rubbish in the closest bin regardless of whether it was the most appropriate.

    v.          Noted that Central Government proposed six different collection types in future. This would feed into the Litter Strategy.

 

The Executive Councillor said the City Council:

      i.          Collected bins but recycling was undertaken by the County Council. If the Recycling Policy changed in future eg separating glass from paper, more bins may need to be provided and collected.

     ii.          Was engaging partners such as RECAPP about the Central Government Waste and Resources Strategy. The City Council wanted to implement a deposit return scheme but not all partners wanted to. The Central Government Strategy would impact on the City Council Litter Strategy and Waste Strategy.

 

Councillors requested a change to the report text (recommendations unaffected). Councillor Howard proposed to add the following text to those in the Officer’s report:

 

Litter Strategy (page 53) Policy LS2

 

To continue to build a knowledge base and understanding around litter and sources of litter to inform, direct, and drive all service activity and maximise our effectiveness.

We will:

 Continue our work with Greater Cambridge Shared Waste service to examine the causes of littering, including fly tipping, and so help us find solutions to deal with problems at source.

 Create campaigns and encourage businesses to design their products and packaging in ways which will reduce public waste, including reuse before recycling recyclable by default and stating clear methods of disposal.

 Ensure and support more recycling with media campaigns.

 Work with partners in the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service to design bin infrastructure on new development sites.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amendment.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

On 27 January 2022 the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food & Community Wellbeing (after scrutiny) approved a Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP), which included Newnham and Arbury as the two herbicide free wards and the introduction of up to 12 herbicide free streets.

 

The Council’s declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency (18th July 2019) included a commitment to reducing and removing the need to use herbicides on highway verges, roads, and pavements, and to find viable and effective alternatives, and this was reflected in the development and application of the HRP.

 

The Council’s passing of a Herbicide Motion (ref. 21/32/CNlc - 22nd July 2021) included a commitment to undertake a range of tasks and actions to reduce the reliance on herbicide, as a means of managing unwanted vegetation on public property asset within the city.

 

The Officer’s report gave updates on the work completed on the HRP to date, including an evaluation of the two herbicide free wards and the herbicide free street scheme; and made recommendations on the further reduction in the use of herbicides in the city’s public realm.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice & Community Development

      i.          Approved the expansion of the Herbicide Reduction Plan to include two additional herbicide free wards for 2023 - West Chesterton and Trumpington, (and continuation with Newnham and Arbury herbicide free wards from 2022).

     ii.          Approved the continuation and further development of the ‘Happy Bee Street Scheme’.

   iii.          Noted the decision of the County Council on their use of herbicides in the city and to assist them with their new approach (paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4 of the Officer’s report).

   iv.          Noted the decision of the County Council to change the grass cutting specifications in the city (paragraphs 3.5 to 3.7 of the Officer’s report).

    v.          Supported the development of a collaborative communication plan as detailed in Section 5 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 Development Manager, Streets & Open Spaces.

 

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

      i.          Complaints referred to the:

a.    Early stage of the trial where herbicide was applied by a third party who was unaware of the herbicide free trial.

b.    Appearance of the area when people were unaware the trial was underway and thought the area was untidy.

     ii.          The scheme showed how much potential the Happy Bee scheme had for the Council. There was interest in more streets joining the scheme. The Council would provide appropriate personal protective equipment to participants.

   iii.          There was a risk of accessibility around the city as wet vegetation could block/overhang pavements in open spaces causing hazards. Weeds in gutters were another issue as channels needed to be kept clear. The City Council was working with the County Council to keep channels clear.

   iv.          A Working Group had looked at rolling out the herbicide free trial across all wards, but selected just two, due to conditions such as road surfaces. The trial was limited to two wards to avoid negative impact around peoples’ homes eg perception of lack of maintenance which may lead to fly tipping.

    v.          Referred to Appendices A and B in the Officer’s report for details of actions taken and their effectiveness.

   vi.          The trial would determine how to proceed in other areas. Some DEFRA guidance was expected in 2024.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Cambridge City Council

Record of Executive Decision

Response to Government Consultation: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy

Decision of: Councillor Katie Thornburrow, Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure

Reference: 23/URGENCY/P&T/04

Date of decision: 19/02/23

Date Published on website: 07/03/23

Decision Type: Non-Key

Matter for Decision: To agree the response to the Government Consultation: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy

Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options): The Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) is seeking views on how they might develop new and revise current national planning policy to support their wider objectives. Collation of feedback is via an open consultation on the changes to the text revisions of the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with these revisions seeking quick amendment to these sections. However, the consultation also discusses the potential scope of a future consultation on the NPPF, proposes other policy and legislation and includes policy and legislation related to other primary legislation and topics.

Many of the proposals link to national policy changes coming through the content Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) which is likely to gain royal assent spring 2023.

 

Consultation closes on 2 March 2023 and further information can be viewed on the DLUHC webpage for the consultation document: HYPERLINK- https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/levelling-up-and-regeneration-bill-reforms-to-national-planning-policy

 

Response to the consultation

 

Feedback is requested via submission of written responses to 58 questions included within the document; the councils’ response is set out in Appendix 1 with responses proposed for many of the questions but not all. Within the draft response many of the proposals, such as changes to 5-year housing land supply requirements, revisions to the opening chapters and specific changes to paragraph text of the framework are supported. However, the draft response also expresses concerns around some areas such as the transitionary arrangements for plan making and the approach to national development management policies.

 

Note that the response is proposed to be joint by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, subject to each council’s individual decision sign of process. 

 

Alternative options

The alternative options available are:

·       Agree to submit the response in Appendix 1, with possible minor amendments

·       Agree an alternative on no response.

The Council could choose to not respond to consultation, but if no response is made by GCSP, DLUHC would not be made aware of the Council’s views on the proposed changes to the NPPF being consulted on through the consultation.

Executive Councillor’s decision: Approved the response to the consultation on Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy as set out in Appendix 1.

 

Delegated authority is given to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development to agree any minor amendments to the response in order to finalise the joint response.

Reasons for the decision: The proposed response addresses issues raised by the consultation.

Scrutiny consideration: The Chair and Spokespersons of Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report: Appendix 1 – Council’s Response to Government Consultation: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy

Conflict of interest: None

Comments: Councillor S Davies made the following comments in response: This seems like a solid piece of work. I have a couple of observations:

Q48: given the risk this poses; I felt the response could be even more strongly worded

Q53: surprised to see n/a. Given my interests, you won't be surprised to hear that I believe better (and better funded) community engagement (including but not limited to formal consultation and Neighbourhood Plans) is key to delivering Mission 9 'Pride in Place'. Many long-term residents in Cambridge are feeling increasingly detached/alienated from 'their' place as the discussion around changes to, for example, the Beehive and the Grafton Centre, demonstrates. This is something which the planning regime can and should be addressing. A useful specific change would be requiring improvements to the public visibility of planning applications, moving beyond the laminated A4 sheet on the lamp post to something more legible, such as the format used by the City of Vancouver.

Response to comments: In response to Cllr. Davies’ point, the response to Q.48 was strengthened. Cllr. Davies’ points highlighting the importance of community engagement were integrated into the Council’s response to Q.53.  It was felt by the Lead Member that Cllr. Davies’ suggestion to improving the advertising of applications would be more appropriately dealt with under the next review of the Statement of Community Involvement rather than this consultation.

Record of Executive Decision

 

Approval of funding for the construction of Cherry Hinton Hub.

 

Decision of: Councillor Davey, Executive Councillor for Finance Resources and Transformation

 

Reference: 23/URGENCY/S&R/07

 

Date of decision: 03/04/2024        Date Published on website: 04/04/23

 

Decision Type: Key

 

Matter for Decision: Approval of funding for the construction of Cherry Hinton Hub (planning ref: 19/1713/FUL)

 

Why the Decision had to be made (and any alternative options): A provisional sum for the Cherry Hinton Hub scheme was included in the Feb 2023 Budget Setting Report. Officers were aware that there would be insufficient time to complete RIBA stage 3 and 4 design work and to prepare a detailed Bill of Quantities and so the provisional sum was based on a scheme estimate from the appointed contractor.

 

A detailed Bill of Quantities from the contractor was then received 17^th March 2023, but this was too late to achieve the 10^th March 2023 final report deadline for the next Strategy and Resources Committee on 27^th March 2023.

 

Two risks for the council now mean that an out of cycle decision is required before any future scrutiny committees or as part of the council’s next standard budget setting process:

 

1.    Construction regulation changes are due to come into force on 15^th June 2023 and will mean additional cost from; changes to the building fabric specification; redesign work to accommodate the fabric changes; cost reappraisal work.

2.    The time delay from completing the new regulation works will mean that planning approval will lapse before contracting can be completed and the contractor mobilised to start on site. This in turn will mean additional costs are incurred from the impact of inflation (9.4% currently) while a new planning approval is obtained (this originally took 12 months)

 

The estimated cost impact if these two risks are not mitigated through the implementation of an urgent decision out of cycle decision, is an estimate £150 - £200k additional capital funding requirement which would create a £991,518 funding gap to be able to implement the scheme, rather than a gap of £841,518 if we implement before 15^th June 2023.

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision: Approval of £841,518 funding for Cherry Hinton Hub.

 

Reason for the decision: As detailed in the Officers supporting briefing report Document Out of Cycle Decision - Approval of funding for the construction of Cherry Hinton Hub - Cambridge Council

 

Scrutiny Consideration: The Chair and Spokespersons of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

 

Conflict of interest: None

 

Comments: Part 4C section 6.1 of the Councils Constitution, permits decisions to be taken which are outside of the budget framework if the decision is:

1. a matter of urgency (this is correct)
2. it is not practical to convene a quorate meeting of the Council, (this is correct); and
3. the Chair of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee agrees the matter is of urgency (the Chair agreed).

 

The next available Strategy and Resources Committee is 3^rd July 2023 which is too late. The next available ordinary Full Council meeting is 25^th May which is too late to completing contracting and achieve a start on site by 15^th June 2023 ahead of construction regulation changes and planning approval lapsing.

 

The decision will be reported back to S&R Committee on 3^rd July 2023, and Full Council on 25^th May 2023.

 

Spokes Councillors also raised questions:

 

Cllr Naomi Bennett raised concerns about transport links to the proposed hub and was particularly interested in buses and a safe walking path accessible by power chairs, mobility scooters and prams. Also acknowledged concerns which had been raised by cyclists.

 

Response

 

The County Council as a statutory planning consultee were responsible for providing the bus services and were also responsible for highways safety issues. Confirmed that the County Council submitted no comments or requirements for offsite highways improvements in relation to the Hub scheme.

The new hub would be located right in the centre of Cherry Hinton and was intended to provide direct access to new community facilities for Cherry Hinton residents who lived within a 15 minute walk-time catchment. There was currently no vehicular parking on site for the library, and this would remain unchanged, with the expectation that most people who used the hub and the community café would arrive on foot or by bike, to reduce congestion and improve air quality, health and road safety.  At the front of the building there would remain a blue-badge parking space and the hub scheme included new cycle parking proposals in line with LPA requirements (13 visitors and 3 staff spaces, with dedicated extra-wide stand for cargo bike). Pedestrian access to the library would be maintained from the High Street, with the new main entrance angled towards the primary junction to Colville Road. In order to maintain the internal level with the existing library premises, an external ramp / sloping footpath was proposed along the west elevation.

 

Question(s) from Cllr Tim Bick:

 

(1) Wanted to understand the difference to the built form if the development was carried out after changes in building regulations were introduced.

(2) Asked who would take on the management and running costs of the completed facility. 

 

Response

 

In summary, additional time and cost would be incurred for the redesign.

A rough estimate included:

Revisions required

Mechanically:

•            Additional PV panels

•            Relooking at Part L and BRUKL calculations/modelling

•            Time spent on redesigning some mechanical & electrical aspects          

Electrically:

•            New lighting design

•            Split metered distribution board

Architecturally:

•            Time spent on redesigning some architectural build-up as a result of the calculations/modelling done by mechanical, electrical and plumbing team.

 

The Community Hub will be managed by the Cherry Hinton Community Benefit Society. The County Library service will operate from the building.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the approved housing programme.

    ii.         Noted the inclusion into the new build delivery programme of housing to serve the needs of Afghan and Ukrainian Refugees, part funded through DLUHC, as per the out of cycle decision approved by the executive council in February 2023.

 

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

      i.         In response to a query regarding the Mill Road development noted that there was a 12-month defect rectification period and the properties would also benefit from a 12 year NHBC guarantee.

    ii.         In response to a query about the St Thomas Road scheme advised that the responses from the consultation were being reviewed and discussions were taking place with Planning Officers about Open Space requirements and how this land could be adapted and still delivered as a net zero carbon scheme.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report presented the outcome of the options appraisal that had been carried out in accordance with the decision taken at Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2022 on the future of Hanover Court and Princess Court.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the redevelopment of Hanover Court and Princess Court (Option 4 in the Options Analysis).

ii.             Approved that delegated authority be given to the Executive Councillor 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. Development would be through the transfer of the site to CIP and the purchase of completed affordable homes from CIP.

iii.            Delegated Authority to the Strategic Director acting on behalf of the Council as the landowner to enter into and complete any planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which is required by the Council in its capacity as the local planning authority, pursuant to the planning application for the development of the site.

iv.           Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, Chair and Spokes to approve variations to the affordable housing units to be purchased including the number of units and mix of property types, sizes and tenure.

v.             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.

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

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.         There were 82 tenants at the start of the process and 55 tenants had moved or were in the process of moving. It was anticipated that the remaining tenants may need further help and support to move. There were 45 leaseholders and 22 were in the process of moving. Half of the leaseholders who remained were resident leaseholders. 

    ii.         Subject to discussions with the Planning Department, expected there to be between 40-60% provision of affordable housing on site.

   iii.         The timeframe within the Regeneration Policy for commencing compulsory purchase proceedings was 3 months from the date of the decision however each case would be considered on its own merits.

 

Councillor Porrer requested an amendment to recommendation 2.4 to include the Chair and Spokes as part of the consultation (additional text underlined).

Authorise the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, Chair and Spokes to approve variations to the affordable housing units to be purchased including the number of units and mix of property types, sizes and tenure.

 

The amendment was agreed unanimously.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 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.

This report provides officer recommendations for the consideration of the committee and seeks approval by the Executive Councillor for the proposed development and associated budget.

Matter for Decision

The report sought approval for the delivery of a further 4 pod homes at an identified site on Hills Avenue, Queen Edith Ward, to be delivered by the Council in partnership with It Takes A City (“ITAC”).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the use of the land at the corner of Hills Avenue and Baldock Way as a site for delivery of modular (pod) housing to serve former rough sleepers.

ii.              Approved that a budget of £25,000 be allocated out of the approved new build housing budget to support the delivery of the Hills Avenue Pod housing scheme.

iii.             Delegated authority to the Head of Property Services in consultation with the Assistant Head of Finance to approve the terms of lease to a third-party charitable organisation.

 

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 Housing Services Manager (Housing Advice), Head of Housing and Programme Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Modular housing was meant to provide a landing stage for people who found themselves homeless. It was anticipated that this type of housing may be used for up to a 2-year period; it was not intended to provide a permanent home. Some people could stay longer as each case was determined on a person’s individual circumstances. 

    ii.         The selection process for modular housing was undertaken by a Panel comprising Council officers and representatives from Jimmy’s and It Takes a City.

   iii.         Each person allocated a modular home would have their own dedicated support worker.

  iv.         Noted that the use of the site as a community garden was on a short-term basis and the site had been ear marked for development. Would try and off-set biodiversity net gain on adjacent sites and retain trees on the site as far as this was possible.

    v.         There were no plans for a sexually segregated modular home site.

  vi.         Acknowledged that modular housing was movable if this became necessary or desirable in the future.

 vii.         Noted that an update on this project could be included within a future Housing First report.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report presented details of anticipated variances from budgets, where resources were requested to be carried forward into the 2023/24 financial year in order to undertake or complete activities anticipated to have taken place in 2022/23.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Agreed the provisional carry forward requests, totalling £440,840 as detailed in Appendix A, subject to the final outturn position.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to a Member’s question:

      i.         The delay with the Water Conservation Project was due to a member of staff leaving and a procurement exercise being carried out. The request to carry forward funding was to allow the project to conclude. The Net Zero Retrofit Project Officer was now undertaking the work with consultants. An interim report was expected at Easter with a final report two weeks later. It was hoped that water conservation trialling measures would be started in May.

 

The Committee resolved by 10 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.

Matter for Decision

The report provides an update on the compliance related activities delivered within the Estates & Facilities Team, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing, and fire safety work.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the progress of the service review and compliance related work detailed within the report.

    ii.         Noted the status of the compliance dashboard with reference to Electrical Inspection Condition Reports.

 

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 Property Compliance and Risk Manager.

 

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

      i.         With reference to the table in paragraph 3.2 of the report advised that compliance with fire safety regulations required a fire risk assessment to be carried out. Actions arising from risk assessments would be subject to a programme of works. Regular meetings with Heads of Service took place to discuss these.

    ii.         Confirmed that a letter was proposed to be sent to neighbouring properties where damp, mould and condensation (DMC) had been identified to raise awareness about DMC. The proposed wording for the letters would be circulated for comment to tenant / leaseholder representatives as well as councillors on the Housing Scrutiny Committee.

   iii.         If a tenant reported a leak in their property, this would be responded to as an urgent repair. If the leak also caused DMC but this wasn’t reported by the tenant, this should be picked up by the operative when they undertook their visit and would be passed to the Condensation Team to respond to.

  iv.         Agreed to check the script provided to the Customer Services Team to see if there was a prompt / question about DMC when a leak was reported to try to join up and improve the service provided to tenants.

    v.         Work undertaken on DMC was being met within existing resources. If it was found that this work could not be undertaken within existing resources, the matter would be discussed with the Executive Councillor and a budget bid would need to be made. 

 

The Committee resolved by 9 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.

1. To agree to extend the councils contract for management services if required by Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT), until 31 March 2024
2. To note that the council’s management and operation of Storey’s Field Centre will end 31 March 2024 and that eight Council employed posts will then transfer under a TUPE arrangement, to a new operator appointed by Storey’s Field Centre Trust

Matter for Decision

The Storey’s Field Centre (SFC) on the Eddington Development in the Northwest of the City, opened to the public in February 2018 and has been managed and operated by the City Council under a contract for services with the Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT) since June 2016.

 

At some point the intended model for operating the new centre was changed from direct management by the Trust, to a contract for services. It was agreed that the Council would, in the first instance, enter a five-year services contract to operate the centre, partly to contribute community centre management expertise, but also to support establishment of the new centre to be able to meet the needs of a new community in a key city growth area. It was always the Council’s intention for this to be a medium-term arrangement, to support the newly formed Trust until a centre manager and team had been recruited, trained and a centre programme had been established.

 

At the request of SFCT the council’s contract for services has been extended twice, to give the Trust time to review the future direction of the centre, and to complete a procurement process to appoint a new operator. The current contract for services is due to end 31st March 2023.

 

SFCT undertook an open procurement process in July 2022 to seek a new operator, however, this was unsuccessful.

 

The recommendation made in the Officer’s report was for the council to make a further extension to its contract for services with SFCT for 12 months until 31st March 2024, for the following reasons:

a.    For SFCT to assess the first procurement process and have sufficient time to complete a second tender process if required.

b.    For SFCT to review and agree the future direction for the centre.

c.    To give the SFCT staff team greater certainty regarding their ongoing employment.

 

At the end of the contract term on 31st March 2024, the Council Community Services team would focus on working collaboratively with SFCT and The University to ensure a joined-up programme across community facilities in the local area and that requirements in the Section 106 agreement were met.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development

      i.         Agreed to extend the councils contract for management services if required by Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT), until 31 March 2024.

    ii.         Noted that the council’s management and operation of Storey’s Field Centre will end 31 March 2024 and that eight Council employed posts may then transfer under a TUPE arrangement, to a new operator.

 

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 Project Manager.

 

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

      i.         The City Council were working closely with Cambridge University to reach a sustainable future for the Storey’s Field Centre.

    ii.         The City Council were working with Storey’s Field Centre Trust due to s106 obligations. No details had been given about a new contract operator.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The plant-based food motion passed at full Council in May 2022, required officers to:

      i.         Explore a wide variety of catering options for civic events (including consideration of social enterprises) and bring a costed report of fully plant-based catering options for civic events to a future Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee.

    ii.         Investigate the practicalities of using civic events to promote and showcase plant-based food options, alongside displayed information about the climate benefits and relative cost of different protein/food sources.

 

Following the motion, the Officer’s report provided a detailed, costed assessment of fully plant-based catering options and part plant-based options which could be served at future civic events.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development

Agreed:

      i.         All future civic events will promote plant-based food by always providing some plant-based food options and plant-based milks as standard (where reasonably possible).

    ii.         ‘Catering at Annual Full Council meeting in 2023 will consist of 75% plant-based options. This will increase to 100% plant-based in 2024, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.’

   iii.         Catering at all other civic events in 2023 (apart from the Annual Full Council meeting) will consist of 25% plant-based options with the remaining 75% made up of vegetarian and meat and dairy options. This will increase to 50% plant-based options in 2024, 75% in 2025, and 100% in 2026, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.

  iv.         The Council will no longer procure and serve beef and lamb at civic events due to their reported impact on greenhouse gas emissions and will reduce the amount of pork procured for civic events.

    v.         The Council will endeavour to procure services from social enterprises for civic events, providing that they are available and can offer the services required.

  vi.         The Council will use the Plant-Based Foods Association definition of plant-based food: foods made from plants that contain no animal derived ingredients.

 

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 Climate Change Officer.

 

The Climate Change Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The Council would keep advertising/promoting the reasons why it would provide plant based food at events ie trying to lower the Council’s carbon footprint.

    ii.         Officers would monitor the amount of food eaten at events to ascertain the take up of plant based food (compared to other types) and seek comments from delegates.

   iii.         Plant based food would be introduced in a phased approach so people could become used to it. The Council did not want to contribute to food waste by providing food event delegates did not wish to eat.

  iv.         Food providers were legally obliged to clearly label food, be mindful of food allergies and avoid contamination of food. Therefore it was not practicable to mix plant based food in with other types so people would eat it without noticing it was plant based food instead of meat/dairy etc.

 

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

 

Proposer: Councillor Holloway

Seconder: Councillor Pounds

 

‘Catering at Annual Full Council meeting in 2023 will consist of 75% 50% plant-based options. This will increase to 100% 75% plant-based in 2024, and 100% plant-based in 2025, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.’

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

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

 

Proposer: Councillor Copley

Seconder: Councillor Hauk

 

‘Catering at Annual Full Council meeting in 2023 will consist of 100% 75% 50% plant-based options. This will increase to 100% 75% plant-based in 2024, and 100% plant-based in 2025, providing that the majority of plant-based choices are consumed at events and that suppliers can fulfil this requirement and at the same cost as non-plant based foods.’

 

The amendment was lost by 4 votes to 3.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation as originally amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve in principle the proposal to review, extend and vary the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for dog control across the city and authorise officers to carry out consultation as required.

Matter for Decision

The Public Spaces Protection Order (Dog Control) 2017 (“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2023, having been successfully reviewed and extended for three years in 2020. At any point before expiry of the Order, the Council can vary or extend it by up to three years if they consider it is necessary to prevent the original behaviour (for which it was introduced) from occurring or recurring.

 

The Officer’s report revisited the terms of the current Order (Appendix A), and asked the Executive Councillor to approve, in principle, the proposal to extend and vary the Order in respect of dog control (including dog fouling, dog exclusion, seasonal dog on leads requirements, means to pick up faeces, dogs on leads and restriction on number of dogs requirements) within Cambridge, in the form set out at Appendix B and the locations set out in Appendix C; and to authorise officers to publicise the proposed orders and to consult, as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“The Act”).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development

      i.         Approved the proposal to extend and vary the Order for dog control within Cambridge in the form set out at Appendix B and the locations set out in Appendix C; and

    ii.         Authorised officers to publicise the proposed Order, as set out in Appendix B and C of the Officer’s report, and to carry out consultation as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

 

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 Engagement and Enforcement Manager.

 

The Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         A Public Spaces Protection Order would only be implemented after consultation to ascertain what the public wanted. Details on the consultation process were set out on P66-67 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.         A Public Spaces Protection Order would be in place for up to 3 years. It could be reviewed or renewed any time. Officers tended to review how a Public Spaces Protection Order was working in order to recommend amendments for the next one.

   iii.         Public Spaces Protection Orders were considered for all City Council owned open spaces. If one was considered necessary Officers would observe an area, then write reports using public comments as evidence to ensure recommendations reflected how people wanted the area to be used.

  iv.         People could report issues to the Police or City Council via its webform. Noted Councillor suggestion to list website details as posters in areas covered by Public Spaces Protection Orders so people could see the areas affected.

    v.         The Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager did not recommend implementing a Public Spaces Protection Order or ‘dogs on lead restriction’ for unfenced open areas as there was no clear barrier to enforce/separate where a dog should not go.

  vi.         There had been no complaints about dogs in Lammas Land since 2017 so the Public Spaces Protection Order had been removed from play areas in this location.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Committee received the annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It provided an overview of the process, eligibility criteria, budget and applications received with recommendations for 2023-24 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Equalities, Anti-Poverty and Wellbeing

Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2023-24, as set out in Appendix 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2023 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager.

 

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

      i.         Evaluation of recent grant rounds had been omitted due to Covid lockdown pressures. Details about the 2021-22 Annual Report were included in the Officer’s report. Councillors were invited to give feedback on information they would find helpful to include in future Annual Reports.

    ii.         Applications were judged on their own merits. Funding was not issued to applicants who did not meet criteria or provided insufficient information.

   iii.         Small grant funding was piloted as an initiative to support small groups who were new to the funding bidding process.

  iv.         The City Council were keen to explore how they could support charities and small groups in the long term but were limited by (available) City Council finances. Community Services were looking at options such as multiple bidding windows for funding instead of an annual one.

    v.         A number of stakeholder groups were involved in the small grant application question design to ensure they were fit for purpose and understandable for Applicants. The funding scheme was widely promoted to encourage take up. Officers were investigating alternative/additional ways in future. Officers used their knowledge to signpost Applicants to alternative funding sources if they did not meet City Council criteria.

 

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.

The Head of Finance introduced the General Fund Budget Setting Report (BSR) 2023/24. It was noted that a public consultation on the draft BSR had been carried out following approval of the draft BSR at the 8 December 2022 Executive meeting. A summary of the public consultation responses was included as Appendix B to the BSR covering report.

 

Following scrutiny of the draft budget at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee, the BSR had been updated for the Executive meeting to reflect:

-       the provisional and final financial settlements which provided an additional £2 million funding;

-       business rate collection surplus; although these numbers are still provisional and subject to further work;

-       changes to budget proposals;

o   S5110 Bus Subsidises saving had been removed

o   URP5012 Increase in Member allowances

o   S5118 Closing some Public Conveniences – Quayside toilets had been removed from the budget saving proposal.

o   B5144 Contribution to Energy Costs Earmarked Reserve added

-       a change from a use of reserves of £2.9 million to a contribution to reserves of £2.5 million and accompanying narrative; 

-       inclusion of Head of Finance’s section 25 report.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance Resources and Transformation outlined the context for changes made to the BSR following the public consultation. 

 

The Executive spoke to areas of change within the BSR and also explained why particular savings within the BSR had been retained. Opposition Councillors were then invited to ask questions.

 

Councillor Bick expressed concern with the budgetary process followed at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee regarding amendments to the BSR.

 

In response to Opposition Councillors questions, the Executive made the following comments:

i.      Noted that a number of factors were feeding into the transformation programme, this included the Senior Management review, the development of the Operational Hub and the decision regarding the Guildhall.

ii.    Noted that feedback from the public consultation emphasised the priority attached to maintaining essential public services. Discussions would need to take place with staff about how core services could be improved through the transformation process.

iii.   A summary of the outturn forecast for the general fund was included within section 4 of the BSR (page 40 of the agenda).

iv.  With reference to budget proposal URP 5012 – Increase in Member Allowances – advised that this was a technical response to give effect to a decision which had been made at Full Council to increase member allowances in accordance with the rate of the national living wage. It was felt appropriate to do this to open up representative democracy to all.

v.    With reference to budget proposal S5117 – Vacant Posts removal – advised that this budget proposal was part of a cross council process which looked at posts which had been vacant for a long period of time.

vi.  With reference to budget proposal S5143 Environmental Services – reduction in staffing - advised that the new staffing arrangements with 6 Environmental Enforcement Officers working in pairs worked well. Noted that the Council’s response to fly tipping involved not only Enforcement Officers but also officers from the Streets and Open Spaces Team and the Waste Team. It was anticipated that a new ICT system would assist people to report instances of fly tipping.

vii. With reference to budget proposal S5139 – Streets and Open Spaces Recruitment Freeze – advised that the council had struggled to recruit into certain roles (rapid response, LG driver and general operative) in the Streets and Open Spaces Team. The Council had undertaken an open day at the Depot, which had resulted in the successful employment of two new employees. As part of the transformation process, felt it was sensible to review the need for certain roles where the council had struggled to recruit people into them. Noted that market occupancy rates were back to pre-pandemic levels on a Friday and Saturday, but occupancy rates mid-week were still challenging. Noted some market traders had retired following the pandemic. To try and increase market stall occupancy rates, the Council had been advertising market stalls on the radio and were also trying to support new young market traders.

viii.        Budget proposal S5118 – closing some public conveniences – advised that the costs to clean and maintain public conveniences were increasing and the council needed to ensure that toilets were available in a good, clean and safe condition. Options had been explored to increase the price of coin operated toilets to 50p or to introduce card payment options but these options would introduce costs which would negate savings made on the cleaning / maintenance of toilets.   

ix.  Budget proposal S5102 – cancel big weekend city event –there was a perception that there were a lot of opportunities for sponsorship of events but unfortunately following the covid pandemic, commercial sponsorship was not available in the same way as it was previously.  Consideration was being given to including the Mela in an expanded ‘music in the park’ event. The council was looking to enhance events which took place in local communities. 

x.    Budget proposal S5113 – it was hoped that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority would fund the bus subsidies in the future.

 

The Executive resolved unanimously to recommend Council to:

        i.       Approve

• Revenue Pressures and Bids shown in Appendix C(b) and Savings shown in Appendix C(c) in the BSR.

 

• Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix C(d) in the BSR.

 

• Bids to be funded from External Funding sources as shown in Appendix C(e) in the BSR.

      ii.        Confirm delegation to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which is set out in Appendix A(a) in the BSR.

    iii.        Approve the level of Council Tax for 2023/24 as set out in Appendix A (b) (to follow for Council) and Section 2, page 2.

    iv.       Delegate to the Head of Finance authority to finalise changes relating to any further 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).

      v.       Approve proposals outlined in Appendix D(a) in the BSR for inclusion in the Capital Plan.

    vi.       Subject to (v) above, approve the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix D(c) in the BSR and the Funding as set out in Section 5, page 17.

  vii.        Note the impact of revenue budget approvals and the resulting contribution to reserves [Section 6, page 21].

 viii.        Create an Energy Cost Earmarked Reserve as set out in Section 6, page 21.

    ix.       Note the resulting level of reserves [Section 6, page 21].

      x.       Note the Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Report included in Section 8 of the BSR.

    xi.       Note the schedule of proposed fees and charges for 2023/24 in Appendix F of the BSR

Matter for Decision

The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) found there was fault by the Council “but not causing injustice”, in relation to how the Council investigated a noise complaint from a large item of commercial equipment within the city.

 

The LGO found the Council at fault for how it initially investigated the noise complaint, which it determined to not be a statutory nuisance. However, this did not cause the complainant a personal injustice, as the Council subsequently acted without fault in its further noise investigation work relating to the commercial equipment; and which came to the same conclusion, ie it was not a statutory noise nuisance.

 

There was no legal definition of a statutory noise nuisance, but further general information on this subject matter may be found in the footnote below.

 

The LGO also formally accepted that all the identified service improvement actions, offered by the Council to the complainant, had been fully actioned by the Council.

 

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

Noted the findings of the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman in respect of this case and the actions taken by the Council in response to these findings.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

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

      i.         This was the first complaint against the Noise Complaint Service referred to the LGO, or upheld by LGO.

    ii.         The Noise Complaint Service received several complaints which officers triaged to ascertain if they were statutory noise issues that the Council could take action against. The Council were unable to take action against other noise types.

   iii.         The complaints received by Environmental Service were generally because people were unhappy about something affecting them, not because they were unhappy with the Noise Complaint Service.

  iv.         Officers usually visited on their own noise sources that were the subject of a complaint. A colleague was taken if the situation became more serious and a second opinion was required. A second officer was not requested by the (lone) officer investigating the noise in this complaint.

    v.         It was down to an Officer’s professional opinion if noise was designated as a statutory nuisance or not.

 

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.

Matter for Decision: To agree the response to Anglian Water’s Draft Water Resources Management Plan

Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options): The purpose of this decision is to agree the response to Anglian Water’s Draft Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP), set out at Appendix 1 to this decision.  This is proposed to be a joint response with South Cambridgeshire District Council.

Appendix 1 can be viewed at the link below:

Document Meeting 27.06.23: ROD: Response to Consultation on Anglian Waters Draft Water Resources Management Plan - Cambridge Council

 

Anglian Water are carrying out consultation on their draft WRMP between 22nd December 2022 and 29th March 2023.  All water companies produce a WRMP every five years, and this sets out how they will ensure resilient water supplies to their customers over the next 25 years.

 

The Greater Cambridge area is covered by the Cambridge Water supply area, and a response to that plan which was recently published in being prepared.

 

However, given the Anglian water supply area adjoins Greater Cambridge, and it references measures being applied by Cambridge Water in particular the Fens Reservoir and the earlier bulk water transfer it is considered a response is merited.

 

Anglian Water’s WRMP sets out the challenges faced in the plan period including the impacts of climate change, population growth associated with development in the area, planning for drought resilience and the requirement to leave more water in the environment. In order to balance water supply and demand, and it sets out the measures Anglian Water propose to offset this deficit, which are in line with Water Resources East’s Regional Water Resources Plan.  A three-tiered approach is proposed:

·      Demand management, including reducing leakage, universal metering and use of smart meters

·      Two new raw water storage reservoirs – Fens Reservoir to be developed in partnership with Cambridge Water and South Lincolnshire Reservoir

·      Utilising other sources of water, such as water reuse, desalination and transfers

 

The proposed joint response to the consultation in Appendix 1 is based upon the response the Councils previously made to the Regional Water Resources Plan.

 

The comments request that Anglian Water continues to work cooperatively with Cambridge Water, given the constrained nature of the Cambridge Water supply area.  Anglian Water’s final WRMP will need to take into account issues arising from the consultation on Cambridge Water’s draft Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) and their resulting final WRMP and vice versa

 

They are also supportive of the measures proposed to provide additional supply of water to Cambridge Water including a proposed time limited transfer from Anglian Water to Cambridge Water and the joint development of the Fens Reservoir.  These proposals are essential to reduce reliance on the abstraction of water from the chalk aquifer in Greater Cambridge which is having a detrimental environmental impact to the chalk streams, and which will also support future housing and economic development.  The proposed comments are additionally supportive of demand management measures to make better use of the water available through water efficiency, leakage control, smart metering and re-use of water.

 

Alternative options

The alternative options available are: The alternative options are:

·      Agree to submit the response in Appendix 1, with possible minor amendments

·      Agree an alternative response

·      Agree not to respond to the consultation

To not submit a consultation response, would miss an opportunity to put forward the Council’s views to Anglian Water in support of measures which will increase supply to Cambridge Water enabling reductions in abstraction causing harm to the environment and to enable housing and economic development.

The Executive Councillor’s decision: To confirm that the consultation response set out in Appendix 1 (attached)  of this decision should be made to Anglian Water’s draft Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP).

Delegated authority is given to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development to agree any minor amendments to the response in order to finalise the joint response.

Reasons for the decision: To provide the views of Cambridge City Council on the draft WRMP because future water resources which will be a key issue for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan

Scrutiny consideration: The Chair and Spokespersons of Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report: Appendix 1 – Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council response to the Anglian Water’s Draft Water Resources Management Plan

Conflict of interest: None

Comments:

Councillor S Smith endorsed the proposed response to the consultation. In addition to labelling the water consumption of white goods, would add a request for AW to lobby Government to require water usage controls on electric power and rain showers.

In response the Principal Planning Policy Officer advised that the Government’s proposals also include labelling water using products such as taps, showers, toilets in addition to white goods such as dishwashers and washing machines.  The comment about water usage controls on electric power and rain showers has been included within the response to Anglian Water.

Councillor Porrer raised the following points regarding the importance of grey water reuse and rain water harvesting, not only for residential development but also for commercial sites, particularly as we know that we are seeing more lab-based uses coming forward, as well as office space.  Would hope that this is clear in our response and that the government and water strategies are encouraged to push for more greywater reuse and rain harvesting on all larger and commercial sites to mitigate against increase water use, particularly as there may be higher water needs for some lab-based usages.

In response the Principal Planning Policy Officer advised the Anglian Water plans includes a section where we are being supportive of demand management measures set out in the draft WRMP, including water efficiency and reuse which would cover rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling.  We have not distinguished between household and non-household specifically but are supportive of measures for both types of uses, which would include commercial uses.  An amendment has been made to the response to make it clearer that the response is in relation to both residential and non-residential developments.

This response is for the Anglian Water area, which is the adjoining area.  Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire are supplied by Cambridge Water.  We are going to be putting together a response to the Cambridge Water draft Water Resources Management Plan (which has a deadline of 19^th May).  We will make sure we highlight your points in this response about commercial sites including lab-based usage, which is particularly pertinent in Greater Cambridge.

Councillor Bennett advised that a separate response had been submitted by Green Party to the consultation.

 

 

Matter for Decision: To agree the response to the Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation

Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):

 

Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) is consulting on a Sustainability Appraisal Scoping report between 1^st February and 15^th March 2023.

 

The consultation marks an initial consultation by HDC at the start of preparing a new Local Plan. In relation to this, HDC is also concurrently consulting on its Statement of Community Involvement. Officers are not recommending that the Councils make a response to that document.

 

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is systematic process for assessing the extent to which the emerging plan will help to achieve sustainable development. It is an opportunity to consider ways by which the plan can contribute to improvements in economic, environmental and social conditions, as well as a means of identifying and mitigating any potential adverse effects that the plan might otherwise have. Completing the SA process helps meet legal requirements that Local Plans are subject to.

 

The first stage of producing the plan is a scoping stage, which the  Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report relates to. This is necessary to propose and agree the way that the plan is to be drawn up including the methodology for the SA process and to collect together the necessary information to produce the plan. A thorough understanding of the context of existing plans and policies and of the current baseline situation is needed in order to be able to predict the effects the plan may have, and to identify key issues that will need to be addressed.

 

The Scoping Report:

·      Identifies relevant plans programmes and strategies – to establish how the plan is affected by outside factors, to suggest ideas for how any constraints can be addressed, and to help identify environmental protection objectives

·      Collects baseline information - to provide an evidence base for environmental impacts, prediction of what will happen without the plan as well as what effects it could have, monitoring and to help in the development of SA objectives.

·      Draws upon the above two elements to identify key sustainability issues and problems; and

·      Draws on all of the above elements to identify SA objectives and supporting decision aiding questions, which together provide a means by which the sustainability performance of the plan and alternatives can be assessed.

 

Prior to this open consultation, Huntingdonshire District Council has consulted key environmental bodies comprising the Environment Agency, Natural England and Historic England regarding the Scoping Report. Their comments are published at appendix 2 to the Scoping Report.

 

Officers have drafted a proposed brief response to the consultation focused on water supply issues.

 

Response to the consultation

 

It is proposed that the response is joint with South Cambridgeshire District Council, which will separately be considering the response.

The proposed response can be found in Appendix A of this report.

The proposed consultation response focuses solely on the need for the Scoping Report to more fully recognise the significance and severity of the water supply challenge as being an issue relevant to preparation of a new Huntingdonshire Local Plan. This echoes the response of the Environment Agency to the Scoping Report.

Alternative options

The alternative options available are:

1.             Agree to submit the response in Appendix A, with possible minor amendments

2.             Agree an alternative response.

Executive Councillor’s decision: To submit the response in Appendix A: Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation 2023 – response by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

 

Reasons for the decision: The proposed response addresses issues raised by the consultation.

 

Scrutiny consideration: The Chair and Spokespersons of Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report: Appendix A: Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation 2023 – response by Cambridge City

Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

 

Conflict of interest: None

 

Comments: None were made by the Chair and Opposition Spokes.

 

Appendix A: Huntingdonshire Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report consultation 2023 – response by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

The Councils would like to raise one specific issue regarding the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping report regarding water supply.

In broad terms we echo the views expressed in the Environment Agency’s response to the Scoping Report, regarding the need to more fully recognise the significance and severity of the water supply challenge as being an issue relevant to preparation of a new Huntingdonshire Local Plan. As set out in our Greater Cambridge Local Plan Development Strategy Update from January 2023, provision of a sustainable future water supply is a very substantial challenge for our emerging Local Plan and we consider that many of the underlying issues are likely to relevant to Huntingdonshire. We would strongly suggest this issue should be more fully recognised in the document, including in the Sustainability Issues, SA Objective, and decision aiding questions.

We have no further comments to make regarding the document.