Decisions

Matter for Decision

A review of Customer Services has been carried out to identify the right service model for the future.  The report sets out the findings and recommendations from the review

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.               Approved the changes to Customer Services provision detailed in the body of the report, including, where necessary, introducing a revised staffing structure.

ii.             Delegated to the Head of Transformation the work to implement these changes, noting that the staff restructure is subject to consultation with staff and unions and engagement with tenant representatives on issues affecting the Council’s tenants and leaseholders, and that the changes will be signed off by the Leader in accordance with the Council’s Organisational Change policy.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Transformation.

 

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

      i.         The report proposed the removal of the cashier service from Mandela House and Arbury Road, the member asked how spread out and accessible the Paypoint and Post Office services are for tenants and residents to make payments. Also asked for a timescale when the website would be updated to accommodate the provision of more services online.

    ii.         Asked how support would be provided to residents to help them access the online services.

   iii.         Referred to page 56 of the agenda pack which detailed an analysis of complaints via different types of contact.  Face to face contact had the best review at 80% customer satisfaction rate compared to email which had a 50% satisfaction rate. Asked how it could be ensured that the council did not get complaints about customer service as a result of the proposed changes to the service. Noted that there were increases in complaints against other services when new technology was rolled out.

  iv.         Acknowledged that the council needed to facilitate residents being able to access services online but questioned if a person with an urgent and / or complex query would be able to speak with someone rather than having to engage with the council online only and that this was an option available to members of the public early on rather than as the last option.

 

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

      i.         Alternative locations for making payments to the city council were widely spread out across the city this included high street banks, post offices and shops with Paypoint services (there were approximately 25-30 locations within the city). Acknowledged that some customers will need assistance to transition to the new online services and that measures had been put in place since the early stages of lockdown. The council was in the soft launch phrase of its customer portal and some services had had online options for some time (for example council tax and benefits). The website would be updated in the next few weeks so that customers could navigate to services online better.

    ii.         Customer Services Officers would be trained to be able to offer support to residents to help them access services online. This could either be on the telephone or by face to face appointment.  Assistance could include signposting people to the portal, helping residents to set up a customer portal account or an email address and asking questions to draw out what the barriers were for residents being able to access services online. The trial stage detailed in the report would be a good intelligence gathering exercise to understand barriers for people being able to access services online.

   iii.         Referred to page 56 of the agenda and the table showing the GovMetric feedback. The highest volume of negative feedback was provided by website feedback but she advised that sometimes negative feedback can be more about the advice provided and not the way in which it was provided and therefore caution needed to be exercised when considering feedback via the website. She wanted to ensure that the same high quality of service could be provided to customers via a new way and customer feedback and insight would be taken into account in the new design.

  iv.         Would be happy to provide a further briefing to members on concerns raised regarding the detail of the review. A set of criteria had been agreed to try and identify customers who may require additional assistance. A trial period was proposed to see how customers responded to the proposed changes and to allow time for a staff consultation and to ensure that resources met demand.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

To approve new build housing (estate regeneration) scheme at Colville Road. This is the third scheme in this area and is adjacent to the previous two.

The scheme requires a capital budget to progress up to planning application stage and approval to commence consultation with tenants, leaseholders and commercial tenants.

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved that the scheme be brought forward with an indicative capital budget of £11,103,200 to cover all site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees, to deliver a scheme which meets the identified housing need in Cambridge City.

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

iii.            Approved that, subject to Council approval of the budget,  delegated authority be given to the Executive Cllr for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to enable the site to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council.

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

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

vi.           Approved a delegation to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Strategy and Resources and the Executive Councillor for Housing, to approve the most appropriate valuation basis, funding route and accounting treatment for the value of the commercial units being provided as part of the development of Colville 3.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor Dryden commented:

i.               Supported the scheme and asked for a meeting to be held with residents, particularly those whose homes were set to be demolished if the recommendations were approved. Noted that officers had held meetings with some of the businesses.

 

Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor Ashton commented:

i.               Thanked officers for their work on the project. Was pleased that the development was solely for council housing and was not going to be sold off for private development.  Expressed concerns on behalf of existing tenants about where they would be moved to during the construction phase.

ii.             Shops were used in Cherry Hinton, there were no vacant shop units on the High Street. Residents had expressed their concerns about what would happen to them and he noted there were opportunities for the shops to be relocated within Cherry Hinton. Asked for consideration to be given to locating temporary portacabins on open space to keep local businesses in Cherry Hinton.

 

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

      i.         Referred to page 290 of the agenda and noted that the council was still not aiming for net zero carbon development.

 

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

      i.         Subject to the decision of the committee and Executive Councillor, meetings could be arranged with residents and consideration would be given to the most appropriate way to re-house residents affected by the development.

    ii.         Officers had been working with colleagues in Property Services and consideration would be given to temporary facilities for businesses to use.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision 

The report informed Cambridge City Council’s response to the Government's White Paper, Planning for the Future Consultation, and the Changes to the Current Planning System consultation.   

 

This report set out, for both consultation responses the key response points and the direction of the response for discussion, to be refined following the meeting.  

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces. 

 

                  i.        Noted the initial response to the Government’s White Paper (Planning for the future) consultation as set out in appendix 1 of the officer’s report.  

                 ii.        Noted the initial response to the Government’s Changes to the Current Planning System consultation as set out in appendix 2 of the officer’s report.   

               iii.        Agreed, for each consultation the wording of a final joint response and/or any individual response through an out of cycle decision, in consultation with Chair and Spokes. 

 

Reason for the Decision 

As set out in the Officer’s report. 

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected 

Not applicable. 

 

Scrutiny Considerations 

The Committee received a report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and the Planning Policy Manager.  

 

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

 

                  i.       The way the questions were worded in the White Paper there was an assumption that the reader agreed with the proposals.  

                 ii.       Concerned the white paper changed the balance in the planning system; many people locally felt the democratic element of the planning system too weak and these proposals did not make it stronger. 

               iii.       It appeared in the proposals that the democratic involvement process was completed ‘upfront’ such as allocating land free zones and agreeing design codes, but this would be disingenuous as the Government was proposing to reduce the preparation time available. 

               iv.       Welcomed the reference to digital consultation for the public. But both the City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council were already achieving this.  

                v.       Believed that residents became energised at the plan stage and resident’s involvement seemed to be diminished at this stage in these proposals. 

               vi.       Mistake to remove the ownership of the local planning authority to determine the housing needs rather than be advised by Government of the number of housing required. This removed local discussions with external agencies, the public and any ownership from the local authority. 

             vii.       Seemed to be a return of an adult and child relationship with Government. 

            viii.       Questioned if the changes would improve the planning system.  

               ix.       Important to highlight the infrastructure levy; how and who would deliver the major infrastructure.  Currently this was done by the developer and asked how much the local authorities would be expected to deliver and when. 

                x.       Queried who would be responsible for the infrastructure, including onsite and off-site.

               xi.       Who would determine what infrastructure should be on site, the developer, or the local authority? 

               xi.       Questioned if the levy could be used as an economic tool by Government which could be changed at any time.  

             xii.       The Government could change development and the resources that flowed through local government, i.e. changing the number of houses, designating, or de-designating the number of growth areas or renewal areas every five years.  

            xiii.       Did not consider this would be an advantageous system to certain vested political interests.  

           xiv.       Believed the proposed changes could lead to MP’s, elected representatives and large financial institutes lobbying Government to implement where growth areas were allocated; this could lead to poorer parts of the country not being developed.  

             xv.       Would support growth in the Cambridge area if it were sustainable with the correct infrastructure; needed to ensure the best deal for Cambridge was secured. 

           xvi.       Required further clarity on the lifting of the site threshold for affordable housing and asked if this be temporary or not. 

          xvii.       Noted the Government wanted to prioritise first time buyers; it should be to provide affordable housing in the first instance. 

        xviii.       The papers proposed that the Carbon neutral ambition was 2050 but Cambridge City Council’s was 2030. This would be a backward step for the environment and this point should be highlighted. 

           xix.       Welcomed suggestion that local authorities would be able to generate income at the ‘call for site stage’. 

             xx.       Officers should provide localised examples when critiquing the papers. 

           xxi.       Developments not being completed was an issue and time limits and penalties were needed.  

          xxii.       There was no mention of water and questioned if there was there enough of a water supply to meet demand in the city and surrounding areas.  

        xxiii.       Expressed concern at having only one design code and work undertaken at pre-application by the city council should be used as an example.  Both officers and councillors spent time considering the overall style and if this were suited to the area which it would sit in. 

        xxiv.       No reference to disability adjustments; an area that officers and councilors were extremely diligent on.  

         xxv.       Expressed concern at the temporary lifting the small sites threshold below which developers did not need to contribute to 40 or 50 units to support SME builders; what about those individuals who needed economic support caused by the effects of COVID-19. This would also support large building companies. The Government should look at a specific policy that supported SME builders only and did not have a negative impact of another group.  

        xxvi.       Stated the temporary lifting of the small site threshold for affordable housing would increase developers profit margins; house prices should therefore come down as the cost of the affordable housing was not being funded.  

      xxvii.       The Infrastructure Levy would be paid out at the conclusion of the development with a proposal for local authorities to borrow against this. Could it be suggested that some of the monies should be paid upfront that would help negate financial risk to burden the cost of infrastructure at the start of the development.  

     xxviii.       Further explanation was required on the area set up and what control would local authorities have, such as the number of housing units.  

        xxix.       Queried how raising the threshold on affordable housing units would impact on the viability assessment; would this be an improvement or not?  

         xxx.       Asked if developments were not undertaken or completed for several years how much of a liability would this have on local authorities.  

        xxxi.       Wondered if these changes moved local authorities to a more development control (with much less control) set up rather than a planning system.  

      xxxii.       Highlighted a typo on question 9b on p37 which needed amending.  

     xxxiii.       Suggested the officer had recommend the city council contribute to a national infrastructure levy and asked:

                        i.         What financial effect would this have as there was a large proportion of highly costed infrastructure needs?

                       ii.         Whether the pooling system which loose potential revenue to the council?

    xxxiv.       Stated these proposals were a complete overhaul of the planning process.

      xxxv.       The council should lead on the environmental issues; there should be criteria as to where development would take place based on environmental rationale.

    xxxvi.       Encouraged officer to strengthen the argument that the democratic process and consultation with residents would be lost; challenges should be permitted at all stages of the local plan process.

   xxxvii.       Asked if there would be a green paper.

  

In response to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and the Planning Policy Manager said the following:  

 

                  i.       Thanked the committee for all their comments and feedback. 

                 ii.       Regarding viability assessments when raising the threshold, believed there would be no requirement to provide affordable housing under this scheme below the set threshold. The developers would benefit from not having to make that provision.  

               iii.       In terms of development being granted and then not being built the conditions placed on the start of the development which could alleviate some issues raised.  

               iv.       In some cases speculative answers had been given in response to the white paper, as officers could only use what was written in the document.  

                v.       The consultation argues that in the proposals, a plan led system would be granting control communities setting what should happen in each area and what design that development should take.  

               vi.       Would pick up all comments regarding the Infrastructure Levy as further detail was required on this would work. 

             vii.       Part of the broader narrative is that practitioners’ views held both locally and nationally to the white paper were that it had not yet been fully formed. It did not fully address what it was trying to achieve.  

            viii.       The white paper says that the guidance outlined rigid, clear and transparent requirements to be shaped by communities, but the amount of time the Government would devote to shape those requirements in a local plan process was considerably less time than local authorities had committed working with communities; therefore could this be seen as unrealistic.  

               ix.       Challenging to define with certainty all the parameters to sustainable forms of development to fit the city of Cambridge in the time frame recommended. 

                x.       The Government appeared to be moving away the role of committees making decisions on a series of policy judgements but towards a more prescribed set of criteria. Preparing a book of criteria that would cover the diversity of Cambridge with only twelve months to talk to the communities seemed too ambitious.  

               xi.       As shown on p63 of the agenda it had been made clear the changes to affordable housing was not supported and would look to add the committee’s comments. 

             xii.       Was not offering to give essential infrastructure spending to be spent nationally. But there may be for large and sustainable projects issues around ‘gain share’ and local contributions complimenting national contribution infrastructure investment.

xiii.         The plan making process would identify what infrastructure was considered necessary where the funding received would be allocated to.

xiv.         Did not believe that green papers were part of the constitutional requirement to change legislation and this would not be issued by Government.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. 

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor. 

 

 

Matter for Decision

To approve the allocation of S106 funding for various projects as outlined in the officer’s report.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces.

Agreed to allocated s106 funding to the following projects, as amended, subject to the business case approval (see section 4 and appendix A of the Officers’ report for project details).

 

N1	Chesterton Rec Ground wheel-sport facility (East Chesterton ward): an additional £20,000 (informal open space).
N2	Five Trees open space: wildflower and tree planting (East Chesterton): £5,000 (informal open space)
N3	Pearl Close play area & open space improvements (East Chesterton): £2,900 (play) and £3,000 (informal open space)
E1	Tree planting in open spaces in Coleridge ward: £13,000 (informal open space)
S3	Nightingale Avenue Rec footpath improvements (Queen Edith’s ward): an additional £10,000 (informal open space)
S4	Landscaping for new Nightingale Rec Ground Pavilion (Queen Edith’s): £10,000 (informal open space)
S5	Trumpington Rec Ground boundary landscaping (Trumpington): £70,000 (informal open space)
S6	Accordia open space improvements: installation of drainage swales and biodiversity information boards (Trumpington): £5,000 (informal open space)
WC1	Parker’s Piece tree planting (Market): provisional allocation until June 2022 of £9,900 (informal open space) towards the wider project costs (see paragraph 4.3c).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Development Manager who reminded the committee that since report had been published, it had become clear that one of the recommendations (to fund the Trumpington Recreation Ground boundary landscaping proposal [S5]) using local S106 contributions) was not ready for consideration and had been withdrawn for consideration.

 

Councillor Bird welcomed the recommendation for funding for the Chesterton Rec Ground wheel-sport facility, the Five Trees open space: wildflower and tree planting (East Chesterton), Pearl Close play area & open space improvements (East Chesterton) and thanked officers for their hard work in bringing these schemes forward.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation as amended to allocate S106 funding to the following eight projects below, subject to business case approval (see section 4 and appendix A of the officers’ report for project details):

 

N1	Chesterton Rec Ground wheel-sport facility (East Chesterton ward): an additional £20,000 (informal open space).
N2	Five Trees open space: wildflower and tree planting (East Chesterton): £5,000 (informal open space)
N3	Pearl Close play area & open space improvements (East Chesterton): £2,900 (play) and £3,000 (informal open space)
E1	Tree planting in open spaces in Coleridge ward: £13,000 (informal open space)
S3	Nightingale Avenue Rec footpath improvements (Queen Edith’s ward): an additional £10,000 (informal open space)
S4	Landscaping for new Nightingale Rec Ground Pavilion (Queen Edith’s): £10,000 (informal open space)
S5	Trumpington Rec Ground boundary landscaping (Trumpington): £70,000 (informal open space)
S6	Accordia open space improvements: installation of drainage swales and biodiversity information boards (Trumpington): £5,000 (informal open space)
WC1	Parker’s Piece tree planting (Market): provisional allocation until June 2022 of £9,900 (informal open space) towards the wider project costs (see paragraph 4.3c).

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets

 

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

      i.         Noted the importance of the programme in relation to fire door installation and noted that Housing Associations were also doing electrical testing, so everyone was in the same position regarding tenant works following the covid-19 lockdown.

    ii.         Noted that some leaseholders had replaced their front doors themselves which may have been compliant with fire regulations at the time they were installed and queried whether these would be ok or if they would need to be replaced.

   iii.         Asked whether priority was being given to those tenants who had previously been required to shield to undertake their outstanding gas servicing.

  iv.         Asked if leaseholders refused to upgrade their fire doors would that adversely affect/negate their contents insurance.

    v.         Asked whether the fire safety works would be completed on time given the delays incurred as a result of lockdown and asked whether a wider pool of contractors were required in order to get the works completed on time.

 

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

      i.         Leaseholders had been contacted regarding fire door replacements and they had the ability to be able to order a replacement as part of the programme if they wanted. 12% of leaseholders had asked for a quote and 20% of leaseholders had said that they did not require a quotation. Once the details of the new Fire Safety Bill have been approved we will be in a better position to understand the changes to requirements and enforcement powers.

    ii.         There were 87 people who required a gas service.  The Council did not hold information about whether these tenants have a requirement to shield or self-isolate and officers were contacting all residents to try and work through the outstanding services and arrange an appointment.  Officers were working to Government guidance and would make every effort to be able to access properties and would keep records / risk assessments if they were unable to gain access to a property.

   iii.         Officers agreed to investigate what the position would be if leaseholders refused to upgrade their fire doors and the impact on their insurance.

  iv.         Confirmed that works were programmed until March 2021 and the current contractors had indicated they have capacity to undertake the fire safety work and any delays would be because of either a further lockdown or the ability to be able to access properties.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

1. Housing Scrutiny Committee are asked to delegate authority to the Strategic Director in regard to any changes to the Tenancy Policy following the upcoming review of Local Housing Allowance rent setting
2. To approve the Hoarding Policy
3. To approve the Rechargeable Works Policy

Matter for Decision

This report presented the following Cambridge City Council (CCC) policies which had been updated for the Housing Scrutiny Committee’s approval: Tenancy Policy (2020-23), Rechargeable Works Policy (2020), Hoarding Policy (2020).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the Tenancy Policy (2020-23), Rechargeable Works Policy (2020) and Hoarding Policy (2020) as attached to the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Policy and Performance Officer (Housing Services).

 

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

      i.         The Committee welcomed the clear policy on Hoarding, and noted the involvement and advice received from Lulu Agate (Tenant rep) in compiling this report.

    ii.         Asked when an enforced clearance would arise under the Hoarding Policy and whether this was few and far between.

   iii.         Asked what training an officer who made assessments under the Hoarding Policy had and if referrals were done with the individual’s consent.

  iv.         Tenant representatives confirmed that there was training available regarding hoarding as they had attended some training on hoarding.

    v.         Asked whether there was any discretion regarding the rechargeable works policy as tenants might consider some works to be urgent and request an urgent call out and incur costs but the council may not consider the works to be urgent.

  vi.         Asked whether the policies would be publicised if they were approved.

 

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

      i.         Under the Hoarding Policy if the tenant was not high risk then officers would work with the tenant for a 6-month period. There was a level of officer discretion before enforcement action was undertaken. If however there were health and safety concerns then there would be a multi-agency intervention and officers would then start enforcement. 

    ii.         A referral under the Hoarding Policy was usually done at the same time as a safeguarding referral. Criteria for assessments were set out in a County Council protocol and this protocol was widely used by other local authorities. 

   iii.         There would be screening / triaging of emergency works before works were undertaken.

  iv.         Confirmed that if the policies were approved then these would be publicised including in the ‘Open Door’ magazine.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Allocation of £1,513,000 for the purchase of 7x new build affordable homes at The Mews, Histon Road.

Matter for Decision

The report seeks approval for a capital budget to purchase 7 affordable units from Laragh Homes, for rent as Council homes. These will consist of the following: 6 x 2 bed, 4 person Flats and 1 x 2 bed, 4 person House

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the purchase of 7 new Council homes at the Mews, Histon Road and delegated authority to the Strategic Director to approve contract terms with Laragh Homes/LLP in respect of this transaction.

ii.             Approve a total budget of £1,513,000 to enable the development of 7 homes at the Mews, Histon Road.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

a) That Members adopt the revised charging schedule and categories to be introduced on 6th October 2020.
b) To agree that the pre-application charging scheme will be reviewed in 12 months’ time.

Matter for Decision 

The report referred to the Shared Planning Service commitment to review and integrate its process for providing pre-application advice in the 2020/2021 Business Plan.

 

Having begun that process earlier in the year, approval was sought for the proposed future arrangements for (including charges) for pre-application advice. This service offer would sit alongside the statutory planning application process (where fees and process are determined nationally) and which was unaffected by these proposals.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces. 

      i.         Agreed the proposals for Cambridge City Council to introduce the revised pre-application service offer and charging schedule set out in the Officer’s report for the Cambridge City Council area from 2nd November 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision 

As set out in the Officer’s report. 

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected 

Not applicable. 

 

Scrutiny Considerations 

The Committee received a report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

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

      i.         Felt that the charges were too low for the quality of service received and could be higher.

    ii.         The scaling of the charges was disproportionate.

   iii.         The fees did seem to be minor compared to the private sector but noted it was important the service needed to be accessible to all members of the public.

  iv.         Asked as the fees for smaller businesses had been reduced could the same be done for smaller charities undertaking small developments.  

    v.         Queried why an article 4 direction was not being charged for.

  vi.         Noted there was no fees for parish councils and asked if city councils need to be included.

 vii.         DPA (Data Protection Act) guidance should sought when officers were offering virtual advice to developers / applicants as this could be sensitive and confidential; should be made aware to developers this information could be shared under a Freedom of Information request.

viii.         Exemption for disabled people as stated in the scheme should also include invisible disabilities.

  ix.         Welcomed the standardisation of costs across the two authorities.

    x.         Fees should be reviewed annually to ensure stable increments.

  xi.         Asked was to the local authority’s advantage for people to take pre-application advice.

 

In response to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:  

      i.         One of the benefits of pre application advice allowed the achievement of the objective by giving early advice into a process. If an application were submitted without pre application advice and required changing this could be time consuming, introduce costs to the planning service and the applicant.

    ii.         Recognised there would be a range of people on various income streams applying for planning permission and had retained the fifteen-minute free advice to assist those on lower incomes.

   iii.         Would work on the definition of disability to ensure there were no disadvantages to some individuals.

  iv.         Would work with the Executive Councillor to examine if small charities could qualify for a reduction of costs as small businesses. Would liaise with the Chair and Spokes on the wording of this clause; however, a position of judgement would be retained in the final schedule dependent on the charity’s size of development and costs

    v.         There was no comparable body to the parish council in Cambridge City.

  vi.         Developments which used Article 4 were exempt from a planning fee and it was for committee to determine whether this exemption should be removed from the schedule

 vii.         Guidance on DPA would be provided for officers when offering advice virtually and for those who accessed the virtual advice.  

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor. 

 

 

Matter for Decision

As part of a programme of energy efficiency improvements to the Council's housing stock it is planned to install external wall insulation and solar panels to Council properties in the Arbury ward.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the use of the EEM solid wall insulation framework to directly call off and award contract(s) to Cornerstone (East Anglia) Limited to carry out energy efficiency improvements to Council dwellings. Phase 1 - Seventy properties in 20/21. Phase 2 - Seventy properties in 21/22

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets and the Asset Manager.

 

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

      i.         Asked whether the energy rating of the properties could be improved further and what percentage of the energy ratings data was estimated and what percentage came from actual data.

    ii.         Noted that due to the fabric of the buildings, it was not easy to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings but it was a challenge that could be met.

   iii.         Similar works had been undertaken in East Chesterton and residents were pleased with those works.

 

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

      i.         It was hoped that the energy ratings of the properties could be improved from a D rating to a B rating however this would depend on the orientation of the properties and whether solar panels were suitable to be installed.  The Council had approximately 3000 energy performance certificates (EPC ratings) which was just under 50% of the housing stock.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Approval to dispose of a small block of HRA land in the City to allow development of the site.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding the disposal of HRA land.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

To approve a capital budget to develop a new build housing scheme to planning submission stage. The scheme is based on the Orchard Park site recently acquired by CCC. The scheme includes Council rented units available for purchase by HRA.

Matter for Decision

The report sought approval for a capital budget to purchase 30 affordable units from Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP), to be let as Council rented homes. The report also set out the general fund investment and potential returns on this investment and the key elements of the CIP development proposal including a summary of the investment plan

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the purchase of 30 new Council homes on the site at the cost of £5,850,000 and include an overall budget in the HRA for the scheme Orchard Park L2 of £6,207,000.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.               Approved the indicative proposed investment plan for L2 outlined in confidential Appendix 3, with the high-level commitments associated with the General Fund and HRA. The investment plan will be refined in line with final project plans post planning permission determined and approved by the CIP Board with the Councils funding built into the relevant budget setting report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.         Asked that sufficient space was provided for cargo bike parking and also to ensure there were car club spaces. Also questioned biodiversity provision on the site.

    ii.         Questioned the housing mix which included 5 x 1 bed studio flats.

   iii.         Asked if people with a Cambridge connection would be able to live in the properties.

 

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

      i.         The bike stores were designed with some provision for cargo bikes but she would need to check exactly how many spaces were provided.  Biodiversity had been considered and they were looking to have sedum (green) roofs and to improve the biodiversity provision of the open space. Two car club spaces were included but if there was a higher demand then more could be put in.

    ii.         There weren’t any studio flats in the current programme but after consultation with the Head of Housing it was agreed that some 1 bed studio flats might be appropriate here.

   iii.         As the development was within the South Cambridgeshire District Council boundary there would need to be an agreement with them about nomination rights to the houses.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendation 2.1.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the recommendation 2.2.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Recommend the report to Council, which includes the Council's estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2020/21 to 2023/24. Also, to revise any counterparty limits as applicable.

Matter for Decision

The Council has adopted The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management (Revised 2017).

 

The Code of Practice requires as a minimum receipt by full Council of an Annual Treasury Management Strategy Statement – including the Annual Investment Strategy and Minimum Revenue Provision Policy – for the year ahead, a half-year review report and an Annual Report (stewardship report) covering activities in the previous year

 

This half-year report has been prepared in accordance with the Code and covers the following: -

 

·    The Council’s capital expenditure (Prudential Indicators);

·    A review of compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits for 2020/21;

·    A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2020/21;

·    A review of the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy;

·    A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2020/21; and;

·    An update on interest rate forecasts following economic news in the first half of the 2020/21 financial year.

 

In line with the Code of Practice, all treasury management reports have been presented to both Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee and to full Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to

     i.         Approve the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2020/21 to 2023/24 as detailed in Appendix A of the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance. She advised that the capital numbers within the report reflected figures in the General Fund (GF) and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategies (MTFS) relating to the proposed 1000 homes 10-year capital plan and the L2 Orchard Park development loan.

 

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

      i.         Asked whether the council had experienced any cashflow problems during lockdown as he was aware that other local councils had experienced cashflow problems because of the collection of business rates and council tax.

    ii.         Referred to Appendix D of the officer’s report which showed the current interest rates and noted that due to economic stimulus the rates were low at the moment. Referred to item 7.5 and noted that cash balances had protected the council from certain challenges. He assumed that target inflation rates would be kept at 2% and asked whether there were any steps the council could take to protect the real term value of investments.

 

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

      i.         The council had not experienced any cashflow issues because the Government had brought forward significant cash payments particularly in relation to business rates relief. Cashflow was monitored daily and it was not likely that there would be any cashflow issues until the implementation of the capital plan which wasn’t until the new financial year.

    ii.         When treasury investment was undertaken, officers were encouraged by CIPFA guidance to think about investments in a three stage hierarchy, the first stage was the security of the investment, then liquidity and then yield. The security of capital sums was the most important consideration and the risks of investments had to be considered very seriously. Referred to problems which had arisen with the Icelandic bank loans.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2021/22, the net savings requirements by year for the next 5 years, and the revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.

Matter for Decision

This report presented and recommended the budget strategy for the 2021/22 budget cycle and specific implications, as outlined in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) October 2020 document, which was attached and to be agreed.

 

This report also recommended the approval of new capital items and funding proposals for the Council’s Capital Plan, the results of which were shown in the MTFS.

 

At this stage in the 2021/22 budget process the range of assumptions on which the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) published in February 2020 was based need to be reviewed, in light of the latest information available, to determine whether any aspects of the strategy need to be revised. This then provides the basis for updating budgets for 2021/22 to 2025/26. All references in the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to the MTFS.

 

The recommended budget strategy was based on the outcome of the review undertaken together with financial modelling and projections of the Council’s expenditure and resources, in the light of local policies and priorities, national policy and economic context. Service managers had identified financial and budget issues and pressures and this information had been used to inform the MTFS.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to

 

i.      Agree the budget strategy and timetable as outlined in Section 1 [pages 5 to 7 refer] of the MTFS document.

ii.    Agree the incorporation of changed assumptions and specific, identifiable Covid-19 pressures, as presented in Sections 3 and 4 respectively [pages 18 to 23 refer]. This provides an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years, and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Section 5 [page 27 refers]  and reserves [section 7 pages 32 to 35 refer] of the MTFS document.

iii.   Note the changes to the capital plan and funding as set out in Section 6 [pages 28 to 31 refer] and Appendix A [pages 40 to 44] of the MTFS document and agree the new proposals.

 

 

iv.  Agree changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £6.33m and the target level at £7.59m as detailed in section 7 [pages 32 to 35 of the MTFS refers] and Appendix B [pages 45 and 46 of the MTFS refers].

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

      i.         Asked for clarification of the officer’s discussion of reserves as on the one hand she thought the officer had said that reserves would be used to offset financial pressures but on the other hand that the council’s reserves would be increased.

    ii.         Asked how the reserves could be used over the next few years considering the challenges which lay ahead.

   iii.         Referred to pages 123 – 126 of the agenda and noted that the scenario analysis which had been undertaken and acknowledged that a prudent position had been taken. Queried whether pressure had been taken off the Government by Council’s adopting a prudent approach. Questioned the prudent minimum balance and whether this would cover the council’s risks.

  iv.         Asked if there were more forecast figures taken from across the council since the figures which were approved at the July council meeting.

    v.         Commented that this was the time when residents needed to feel the benefit of the council’s good financial management. 

  vi.         Queried if the council was going to receive any Covid-19 grant funding and if they were how much this would be. Noted that the council was currently showing a surplus of money because a few capital schemes had been deferred. Also asked what the cashflow situation was for business rates, council tax and commercial tenants.

 vii.         Queried why the pay assumption had been increased from 2% to 2.5% and asked where the narrative was regarding this in the report. Referred to the statement on p130 of the agenda and asked which service reviews members should be expecting to hear about. Referred to 3 areas suffering particular impact because of Covid-19 which included parking, commercial rents and Cambridge Live and commented that there should be an explanation why the impacts were being extended into financial years 2021/22 and 2022/23. Asked if members could see bid from officers regarding ‘unavoidable items’ and whether these would be included within the budget.

viii.         Referred to section 8 of the report which looked at new ways of working and maintaining priorities and noted three interesting bullet points in that section. Asked the Executive Councillor to explain the directional financial impact of that section for example would it cost the council money or save the council money. 

 

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

      i.         She referred to a table on p141 of the agenda which set out the reserves that the council had and it showed in the 2021/22 column that the council was using £2.9 million of reserves over the next couple of years. The prudent minimum balance was shown in the table at the top of p143 of the agenda and set out the minimum balance that the reserves should be kept at. The difference between the prudent minimum balance and the council’s amount of reserves could be used by the council in a number of ways. The council’s reserves were not increasing; the prudent minimum balance of reserves was being raised. 

    ii.         There were a number of options for how the council’s reserves could be used and it was important to consider how the council could use the reserves to generate an income.  Reserves could be used to invest in a regeneration project which provided rental income, or a renewable energy projects which provided climate change benefits and generated an income, to support the council’s capital programme.

   iii.         Setting a prudent minimum balance required not only officer judgement but also a calculation to support it. Consideration had to be given to what had happened within the financial year.  The Council had seen a reduction in its income of around £8 - 9 million. There was a Government income compensation scheme which should reduce this deficit in a substantial way. The prudent minimum balance would be reviewed on a regular basis and would be reviewed again in the Budget Setting Report.   

  iv.         The forecast figures were looked at on a regular monthly basis, and a detailed end of quarter report was done. The second quarter report was not available at the moment.  Monthly flash reports were done but these were not as detailed as the quarterly reports. There was a projected underspend of approximately £2 million following the interim MTFS which was approved in July 2020.

    v.         An application had been made to the Cultural Relief Fund to cover the costs of Cambridge Live. She had now seen guidance for claiming for loss of income and had just submitted the initial claim for the first 4 months of the year. This would be for approximately £2 million but she noted that as the guidance was general and that MHCLG would be auditing claims and there was a considerable amount of judgement when claims were compiled.  She expected future claims for the rest of the year to be a lot lower. As the lockdown eased there were conditions around what could be claimed and whether these were as a result of Government guidance or local decisions.  Council tax income had held up but she expressed concerns that impacts of the lockdown were yet to be seen for example as a result of the end of the furlough scheme, increase in unemployment and more claims on council tax support scheme. The Council had been relatively shielded by the losses in business rates because of Government grants.

  vi.         Officer’s view was that a 2.5% pay rise was a better estimate given the recent pay award. There were a number of service reviews in progress and a number planned for the future. She would expect to see the outcomes of reviews of fees and charges, revenues and benefits and customer services in the budget setting report. The Head of Commercial services continued to do detailed forecasts regarding income which was based on assumptions relating to Covid-19, the recovering of the city centre and the return of full car parking charges. The Head of Property Services had done a detailed review of the property portfolio on a property by property basis and what properties might be provide opportunities for improvement or redevelopment. Cambridge Live had looked at how outdoor events might be delivered in 21/22 and how social distancing may affect the events. When preparing the BSR if things are truly unavoidable they are identified as such in the BSR the challenge is deciding whether something is truly unavoidable or whether it could be delivered in a different way or were not 100% necessary.

 

The Executive Councillor commented:

        i.       that the council was facing very unusual and uncertain circumstances, which included Covid-19, Brexit and the fair funding review, which meant the council needed to be prudent in how it considered using its reserves. The Council was not saying that it would not spend reserves but at the moment careful consideration needed to be given to the use of reserves so that the council was in a strong position to face challenges which lay ahead.

      ii.        Section 8 of the budget strategy section was alerting people to the potential ways that the council can move forward and this might cost money initially but the intention would be to save money in the longer term. The Council will look in relation to Covid-19 how it can build on the work with the Mutual Aid Networks and how the council can continue to work with the community.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the 6 July Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

      i.         Noted the update provided on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on the 5 August and 30 September 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.         Noted that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Mayor had joined the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Board as an observer and asked the Executive Councillor whether he thought this would be advantageous. 

    ii.         Asked if the Executive Councillor shared concerns regarding the length of time taken with the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) project and commented that if the project was deliverable then it needed to progress but if the project was not deliverable this needed to be acknowledged as further work on the project could affect work on other planning for transport projects.

   iii.         Noted that the Combined Authority should not focus solely on dualling the A10 between Ely and Cambridge as there were other initiatives which were being considered by the GCP.

  iv.         Noted the e-scooter pilot scheme the Combined Authority was looking to promote in Cambridge and raised concerns regarding parking, distribution and management of the project following issues with previous 2 wheel hire schemes. 

    v.         Expressed concerns regarding the abolition of regional planning structures and asked what was being done by the CPCA Mayor in response to the White Planning Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ as Mayors were identified within the White Paper.

 

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

      i.         All the authorities needed to work together to link up homes, jobs and work whilst also taking into consideration climate change impacts. The CPCA Mayor had delayed work on the Cambourne to Cambridge link for 9 months because the CPCA Mayor had an alternative route. The Combined Authority projects needed to link up with the GCP projects.

    ii.         Noted that the CPCA Mayor had returned to technology that the GCP had been working on regarding the CAM project which involved narrower tunnels as a technical group had identified that the wider tunnels were unaffordable. He expressed concerns regarding the amount of time and money which had been spent on the CAM project and also expressed concerns regarding the transparency of the external company which was being set up to take the project further. 

   iii.         Noted that a good outline business case had been prepared regarding the A10. Expressed concerns regarding the dualling of the A10 because there was a lot of traffic that used the A10.  Referred to work which had been undertaken by the GCP regarding a northern route rather than a large roundabout linking the A14 and the A10.

  iv.         Noted that the CPCA Mayor had publicised the e-scooter project but commented that there wasn’t a lot of detail available regarding the e-scooter project.  He would prefer to see an e-bike trial as he thought these would be more important in the future to connect homes with employment sites. He shared the concern expressed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People regarding the unregulated aspect of e-scooters.

    v.         A lot of work had been put into the non-statutory spatial strategy which contained a lot of good evidence, this included information regarding the imbalance of the growth in the south of the county and the disadvantage in the north of the county.  He wasn’t clear how the CPCA Mayor would take this issue forward. Acknowledged it was important that the City Council responded to the White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation.

 

The Committee noted the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

To note and agree content of the Annual Complaints Report prior to publication.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an analysis of the complaints and compliments received by the Council during 2019/20 under the Corporate Complaints, Compliments and Comments procedure.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

      i.         Approved the draft Annual Complaints Report for 2019/20, and approved the report could be published on the Council’s website.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy and the Business and Development Manager.

 

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

      i.         Thanked officers for the report and said it was helpful that the report included more contextual information around the areas where complaints were counted and assessed as this enabled councillors to scrutinise the report.

    ii.         Referred specifically to the Waste Service and p59 of the agenda and noted that complaints were still at high levels compared with 2017/18 levels. Questioned why complaints regarding bins not being emptied were treated as a service request and not as a complaint.

   iii.         Questioned if the lessons learnt by the Waste Service could be applied to other services across the council.

  iv.         Thought there were greater problems with the commercial four wheeled bins rather than domestic bins, and wondered if this was due to cross-contamination or the bins not being put back where they should be. Asked for commercial and domestic bin complaints to be separated in future reports.

    v.         Acknowledged the good work done by the Waste Team, which was evident in the £25,000 surplus and was also pleased that changes made to the service were now coming to fruition.

  vi.         The number of complaints regarding the Housing Assets and Maintenance Department had increased.  There were several tenants who were unhappy with the failure of the service to deliver its programme of maintenance and repairs. The narrative accompanying the complaint assessment did not adequately explain why there were a number of complaints.

 vii.         Noted a report which was later on the agenda which talked about digital transformation and the Responsive Repairs Appointing System which may assist the Housing, Maintenance and Assets Department improve their service.  He asked whether the system was on target to be introduced in November 2020.

 

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

      i.         99.82% of bins were collected on time.  There were occasions when bins were collected late and this could be due to staffing issues / road closures etc but crews would always return to the properties to collect the bins.

    ii.         The Waste Service visited resident’s properties 1 and a half times a week and therefore had a huge interaction with residents.  Lessons were learnt from formal complaints and the number of formal complaints had reduced.  Processes had been put in place to ensure that issues raised through the complaint system did not arise again.

   iii.         Complaints made to the Waste Service were now put at the heart of what the service does. All of the Waste Service Management Team reviewed complaints to see if there were trends and problems in certain areas. They tried to find solutions to patterns of problems rather than just dealing with individual complaints.

  iv.         Confirmed the way in which bin complaints were recorded would be looked at and noted that there had been issues with communal bins stores and a lot of work had been undertaken with residents in those communal locations.

    v.         Previously complaints regarding the Housing Maintenance and Assets Service were not always being logged through the complaint system and staff were instead individually responding to tenants and meant that officer weren’t always able to see patterns in complaints. She acknowledged that there had been an increase in the number of complaints and dissatisfaction with the service and a full-service review had been undertaken.

  vi.         It was confirmed that the Responsive Repairs Appointing System was due to go live in November 2020.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Approval of latest financial assumptions for the HRA financial forecasts, of any in year budgetary changes for the HRA and of the approach to setting the budget for 2021/21.

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) provided an opportunity to review the assumptions incorporated as part of the longer-term financial planning process, recommending any changes in response to new legislative requirements, variations in external economic factors and amendments to service delivery methods, allowing incorporation into budgets and financial forecasts at the earliest opportunity.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing (part 1):

      i.         Approved the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Strategy attached, to include all proposals for change in:

a)   Financial assumptions as detailed in Appendix B of the document.

b)   2020/21 revenue budgets and future year forecasts as introduced in Section 5, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of change and the need to respond to unavoidable pressures, including the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix D and D (1) of the document and summarised in Appendices G (1) and G (2).

    ii.         Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to be in a position to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner status with Homes England.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing (part 2) to recommend to Council to:

   iii.         Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 22 October 2020.

  iv.         Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Devolution Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance, Section 106 Funding and HRA borrowing.

    v.         Extend the existing delegated authority to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve use of Council land as sites for rough sleeper next steps POD’s on an individual basis based on the criteria as set out in the Housing Development Options for Homeless People report to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager:

        i.       Corrected an error in the report on pages 87 and 126 where the void assumption had been increased from 1% to 1.2% in the earlier modelling but this had been returned to the previous 1% but had not been corrected within the text in the report. 

      ii.        Referred to p133 of the agenda and appendix E which showed that extra resource had been allocated for fire door investment in relation to the committee’s discussion regarding the estates and facilities service review and compliance update. (See minute reference 20/31/HSC).

 

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

      i.         Noted that the white paper on planning may have an impact on affordable housing in the future.

    ii.         Queried the use of the consumer price index (CPI) within the report and noted that the implications of the covid-19 pandemic could impact assumptions for future years.

   iii.         Noted that reserves had been used to fill the gap where there were rent arrears to avoid the council having to consider cutting services to tenants.  Asked whether rent arrears had increased over the last 6 months.

  iv.         Queried what a budget virement was and asked if a list of definitions for acronyms could be provided to assist in understanding details in financial reports. 

 

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

      i.         Rent arrears had been extrapolated up until the end of the year, if any assumptions were needed in respect for future years impact, this would be picked up in the January 2021 Housing Revenue Account Budget Setting Report.

    ii.         The Council was governed by a rent standard and were only allowed to increase rent up to CPI plus 1% measured using CPI at the preceding September.  If the rate of the CPI in September 2020 was different to that assumed then this would have a direct impact on the income assumptions made within the MTFS. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic had meant that more people had been forced to claim benefits however she felt that prudent assumptions had been made in respect of income for the current year.  Officers were actively working with tenants to ensure that they claimed the benefits that they were entitled to.  The sums incorporated into the MTFS assume that the council build houses in the new programme to Passivhaus standards, but the ability to do this would be dependent upon the constraints of each site as it is identified and brought forward for decision. If the Council were to build to higher standards initially then the council would not be able to deliver the number of affordable houses that they hoped to build. There is however, a clear aspiration to move to build to net zero carbon over the life of the programme, again dependent on site constraints.

   iii.         Rent arrears had increased by £500,000 over the past 6 months however the rate of increase had stabilised recently. The adjustment made to the MTFS was prudent, but a further full lockdown could have an additional impact.

  iv.         A budget virement was when money was moved or reallocated from one budget to another within the same financial year, with officers having delegated authority to do this in some cases.  Any capital budget virements are shown in the MTFS for transparency.  Agreed an acronyms definition section would be included within the January Budget Setting Report.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse recommendations 2.1 and 2.2.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations 2.3 - 2.5.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To approve high level masterplanning options prepared by consultants for the East Barnwell area, and approve further local stakeholder engagement. The work aims to develop and help deliver the Council's ambitions for the area as expressed in the Local Plan.

Matter for Decision

This report sets out work that has been carried out towards developing a masterplan for the East Barnwell area within Abbey Ward. This work has been supported by the One Public Estate programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Noted the progress on developing a masterplan for East Barnwell and the Interim report.

ii.             Approved the development of further engagement with stakeholders and the second stage consultation process.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.         This was a positive change in East Barnwell and was well overdue, noted that there had been one round of consultation and would encourage further consultation.

    ii.         Noted that this development seemed to be looking towards a different source of funding for regeneration compared to the Marleigh development (which would develop 1300 new houses close by). Questioned what redevelopment the East Barnwell community might see as a result of the Marleigh development through s106 agreement funding.  Also noted that the McDonalds site would be difficult to acquire and regenerate on Newmarket Road but asked officers to liaise with McDonalds.

   iii.         Referred to p251 and p276 of the agenda which contained an exert of the local plan detailing the area which would be regenerated at the intersection of Newmarket Road and Barnwell Road. Questioned whether some of the open space (bowling green, tennis court) was protected open space as it appeared to be shown as brownfield land on one of the plans.

  iv.         Queried whether the Marleigh development was within the city council boundary.

    v.         Questioned what parking provision would be put on the site if garages were removed.

  vi.         Asked for the open space to be fairly distributed across the site and a commitment that the open space would be accessible and close to the new development.

 

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

      i.         He had had some meetings with the developers of the Marleigh development to try and ensure that the sites would be integrated but a lot of the s106 provisions arising from the Marleigh development would be delivered within the Marleigh development. There was some scope for additional open space and how this was used.  Further discussions with the developer, residents and stakeholders could be held to discuss how this could come together.  He was aware of the transport issues concerning McDonalds on Newmarket Road as these had arisen through discussions with the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) and their Eastern Access Project. Further discussion with stakeholders was required.

    ii.         Part of the open space area referred to was protected open space. Access to the open space was limited at the moment.  The policy provided for the re-provision of open space, but consideration needed to be given to how the open space could be re-configured to make better use of it.  Feedback from residents about the accessibility of the open space was important and would need further consultation.

   iii.         Confirmed that a small part of the Marleigh development was within the city council boundary.

  iv.         This was the starting point of the project for change and regeneration. When the consultation was carried out there were strong views about accessibility and the cost of public transport and concerns about parking.  These issues would have to be addressed when a formal proposal was brought forward.

 

The Executive Councillor responded that this was the start of the process and it was important that residents were involved within the process. He asked the Senior Housing Development Manager to provide the Committee with an update on the County Council’s proposals regarding the community centre.

 

The Senior Housing Development Manager said that they wanted to ensure that the community centre was delivered, they were not looking to create a hurdle to slow down the provision of the community centre. There were a number of challenges, but they had been working with the Local Planning Authority and the County Council to develop a Statement of Principles, which was a framework for development in the area.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report set out key issues for the committee to consider in formulating a new Housing Programme. The report outlined the strategic objectives of the programme, the key assumptions that had been used as a starting point and steps to investigate potential opportunities to move the programme forward. The report is in line with the provisions and assumptions in the HRA MTFS report. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.        Approved the bringing forward of a development programme to provide new housing in 2022-32 by the Council.

ii.      Approve the strategic guidance for the aims of the programme set out in Section 4 of this report.

iii.     Approve the allocation of £1m to the 2020/21 budget and £2m to the 2021/22 budget to allow early investment in feasibility, site investigation and land assembly from the overall resource incorporated in the MTFS for the delivery of this programme.

iv.    Approve the proposal to report progress on development of the new programme to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2021.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Director (FB).

 

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

      i.         The delivery of 10 x 1 bed flats to accommodate rough sleepers was good and was looking forward to the pods being located in East Chesterton.

    ii.         Noted the need for decent housing and queried the council’s different investments.

   iii.         Questioned what plans were going to be put in place for tenants when existing sites were redeveloped.

  iv.         Noted that some market housing may need to be built on sites to enable the development of affordable housing. Also asked whether affordable housing would be pepper potted across the development to build a mixed sustainable community.

    v.         Referred to paragraph 5.2 of the officer’s report on page 158 of the agenda which said that building zero carbon homes could add an extra 40% to build costs and noted that the cost implications of such development could mean a reduction in the number of houses which could be built.

 

The Strategic Director (FB) and the Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The Council had been prudent with its investments, there were different reasons for investing in the commercial sector and in housing.  Commercial investments ensured that facilities in retail were still available and could attract returns which could be used to support other council services. Investment in housing could be used to support more investment in affordable housing.

    ii.         When existing sites were considered for redevelopment a detailed options analysis would be undertaken.  This would consider the current status of the site, past and current maintenance costs, the EPC ratings and whether renovation was a better option.

   iii.         All homes would be built as sustainably as the site constraints would allow. Building mixed and balanced communities was at the forefront of officer's minds.

  iv.         Each site would be assessed on an individual basis, there may be some sites which could not support net zero carbon development.

 

The Executive Councillor commented:

        i.       That when existing sites were considered for redevelopment tenants would be consulted to ensure that they were fully involved, the council had gained valuable experience in this area over the last couple of years.

 

Councillor Martinelli proposed and Councillor McGerty seconded the following amendment to recommendation 2.1 (additional text underlined):

 

2.1         Approved the bringing forward of a development programme to provide new housing 2022-32 by the Council, on a net zero carbon basis.

 

Councillor Martinelli stated that they did not want housing development to add to the carbon footprint, the council should be a nationwide leader on this issue.  He also supported the pod housing scheme.

 

Lulu Agate commented that a lot of people worried about climate change and expensive heating bills. She knew a lot of tenants who would be in support of the amendment to recommendation 2.1.

 

The Executive Councillor commented that any proposal now to go to net zero carbon would require additional financing and could result in fewer homes being built. The increasing costs would call into question the ability of the council to be able to deliver the number of homes that they wanted to. There could be technical or geographical limits to deliver sustainable housing on a particular site.

 

Councillor Ashton queried the financial impact of the proposed amendment.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 3 votes to 5.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision

This report provides an update on the programme to deliver 500 Council homes with funding from the Combined Authority.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

ii.             Noted the funding structure for the Combined Authority programme.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.         There was usually a shortage of accessible homes so they were pleased that 5% of houses would be accessible homes.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

1. Approve the awards recommended for 2020 S106 Community Facilities funding subject to project appraisal and signed grant agreements.

2. Note updates and recommendations on existing projects.

Matter for Decision

The Council uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of developments on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. In line with the arrangements for annual generic S106 funding rounds, agreed by the Executive Councillor in March 2019, the Council invited grant applications from community groups for improvements to their community facilities, which could be made available for wider community use, as part of the 2020 S106 funding round.

 

In view of the Covid-19 lockdown, applications for the 2020 round were invited over an extended period (from mid-March to the end of July). Six have been received and assessed against the Council’s S106 selection criteria. The Officer’s report outlined the applications and officer assessments and recommends four community facilities S106 grants, plus a provisional funding allocation for a grant proposal to be developed in more detail.

 

Alongside the 2020 generic S106 funding round, the Officer’s report also took stock of the need to increase outdoor sports S106 funding levels for a couple of sports pavilions in the city where extra community facilities S106 allocations are proposed as well.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Agreed to:

      i.          The following S106 community facilities grants and funding, detailed in paragraphs 4.1-4.2 and Appendices A and B of the Officer’s report, subject to:

·       planning and building control requirements being satisfactorily met;

·       business case approval;

·       signed community grant agreement, securing appropriate community use of the facilities; and

·       a review of relevant funding allocations if any of these S106-funded projects cannot progress to the implementation stage within 18 months (that is, by the end of March 2022).

 

	Facility (and ward)	Purpose	Award
2.1.1	Nightingale Community Garden (Queen Edith’s)	Outside covered informal kitchen and activity area	£8,650 grant
2.1.2	Nightingale Pavilion (Queen Edith’s)	Multi-purpose community room, storage, kitchen & equipment	£20,000 costs
2.1.3	Chesterton Pavilion (East Chesterton)	Storage facilities for meeting space and equipment	£20,000 costs
2.1.4	Notts Own Scout Hut, Marmora Road (Romsey)	Kitchen and toilet improvements	£40,000 grant

 

     ii.          Provisionally allocate up to £100,000 for a possible community facilities improvement grant to St James’ Church, Wulfstan Way (Queen Edith’s ward) until the report on the 2021 S106 funding round when the project proposals will come back to this committee for further consideration. (Paragraph 4.2 of the Officer’s report refers).

   iii.          Allocate an additional £60,000 of outdoor sports S106 contributions for constructing and equipping the new pavilion at Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground in Queen Edith’s ward (alongside the additional £20,000 of community facility S106 funding mentioned in 2.1.2 above), subject to amended business case approval. (See paragraph 4.4-4.6 of the Officer’s report).

   iv.          Allocate an additional £40,000 of outdoor sports S106 contributions for constructing and equipping the new pavilion at Chesterton Recreation Ground in East Chesterton (alongside the £20,000 of community facility S106 funding mentioned in 2.1.3 above), subject to amended business case approval. (See paragraphs 4.7-4.8 of the Officer’s report).

    v.          Instruct officers to review the progress of the East Barnwell Community Centre project in Abbey ward (currently allocated £255,000) and the steps that may be needed to ensure that those S106 contributions can be used on time, and report back to this scrutiny committee by June 2021. (Paragraph 4.5 of the Officer’s report refers).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Engagement Officer.

 

The Community Funding and Engagement Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          In view of the Covid-19 lockdown, the application period for the 2020 funding round had been extended. It was envisaged that the arrangement for the 2021 round would revert to the normal timescales.

     ii.          Officers had offered support to projects listed in the report before committee. They recommended allocating funding as indicated. If projects were not eligible, they were signposted to other funding streams.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager said that, given the reduced generic S106 funding levels and the need to invite community facility improvement applications only from those parts of the city where the S106 funding was available, the small number of applications received was to be expected. Further targeting of applications from relevant wards would continue in the 2021 round.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

In recognition of the difficult trading conditions and to help sustain General and Sunday market occupancy figures and a viable city centre market, the Executive Councillor is recommended:

-        To apply a 25% discount to all General and Sunday Market traders for each of the deferred monthly rental invoices (June/ July/ August and September 2020) and issue a combined invoice for this four month deferred period in October, 2020. 

-        To continue with the discounted standard pitch rate of £10/ day, Monday-Friday (as per 11th June urgent decision); and introduce an additional discounted standard pitch rate of £25/ day, Saturday and Sunday; and premium pitch rate of £15/ day, Monday-Friday; and £30/ day, Saturday and Sunday, with effect from 1st October to 31st December, 2020; and any further extension subject to review.

-        To waiver the ‘casual’ trader premium charge of £5/ day until the end of the financial year (31st March, 2021) with the aim of encouraging ‘casual’ traders to take on daily available vacant pitches to maximise market occupancy rates.  The corresponding recommended standard or premium pitch fee rates, as detailed in 2.2 above, will continue to be applied to ‘casual’ traders.

-        To extend the ‘relinquishing of license’ measure (ie. removal of the four week notice period condition to relinquish licence, introduced on 23rd March, 2020), until the 30th November, 2020.

The Secretary of the Cambridge Market Traders Association addressed the committee as set out below.

       i.          Market traders were happy that the council was looking into ways to reduce the financial burden during the current situation. Reports in the press and their experience showed that interventions from both the government and the council could sometimes be very uneven in their effects. The Cambridge Market Traders Association hoped councillors were aware that COVID has affected some market sectors more than others.

      ii.          People whose trade focusses on tourists have seen trade fall by up to 90%. Therefore, any use of deferments and pay-back processes over longer periods would extend financial pain for many months and possibly years. It is hard to save, when you have fixed costs and limited income. In principle, would the scrutiny committee be amenable to schemes where rent/debt is written off, the precise details of which can be worked out later, for cases where market traders can demonstrate reduced financial circumstances through presenting accounts or other evidence.

     iii.          Many of the assistance schemes brought forward both by the council and the government have a qualification that if you have accepted help from elsewhere, you would not get any help under a new scheme.  So if a trader receives a modest amount of support from one scheme, it then prevents them from accessing support from many of the other schemes, and this has blighted the effect of many of the Government and Council introduced schemes, and made them effectively a form of empty gesturing. The Council say they are supporting people but the number that can access it is limited. Can Market Traders be assured that such a qualification would not be included in the current scheme and under any packages that you vote to bring forward in the future?

    iv.          Queried if a rebate could be factored into costs to help reduce them.

 

The Head of Environmental Services responded:

      i.          The City Council had a repayment plan available for traders to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

     ii.          The City Council wanted the market to be viable and to support traders.

   iii.          Undertook to take the queries away and liaise with colleagues, plus the Executive Councillor, so a response could be given after this meeting.

   iv.          Noted that the City Council’s finances were under pressure, but there were no qualifications on support offered to traders. Was unable to comment on Central Government schemes.

 

The Secretary of the Cambridge Market Traders Association said he would forward copies of correspondence to date to the Head of Environmental Services for information.

 

Matter for Decision

On 11 June 2020 the Council recorded an urgent decision to introduce market trader Covid-19 impact business support measures, under paragraph 2 of section 9, Council Procedure Rules. 

 

In recognition of the continuing impact of Covid-19 on the trading conditions being faced by the Council’s General and Sunday Market traders and the need to sustain a viable city centre market, as a key factor to the city centre ‘high streets’ economic recovery, the Council is proposing extending the programme of support measures from 1 October to 31 December, 2020.

 

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

In recognition of the difficult trading conditions and to help sustain General and Sunday market occupancy figures and a viable city centre market, the Executive Councillor agreed to:

      i.          Apply a 25% discount to all General and Sunday Market traders for each of the deferred monthly rental invoices (June/July/August and September 2020) and issue a combined invoice for this four-month deferred period in October 2020. 

     ii.          Continue with the discounted standard pitch rate of £10/ day, Monday-Friday (as per 11 June urgent decision); and introduce an additional discounted standard pitch rate of £25/ day, Saturday and Sunday; and premium pitch rate of £15/ day, Monday-Friday; and £30/ day, Saturday and Sunday, with effect from 1 October to 31 December, 2020; and any further extension subject to review.

   iii.          Waive the ‘casual’ trader premium charge of £5/ day until the end of the financial year (31 March 2021) with the aim of encouraging ‘casual’ traders to take on daily available vacant pitches to maximise market occupancy rates.  The corresponding recommended standard or premium pitch fee rates, as detailed in 2.2 above, would continue to be applied to ‘casual’ traders.

   iv.          Extend the ‘relinquishing of license’ measure (ie. removal of the four-week notice period condition to relinquish licence, introduced on 23 March 2020), until the 30 November 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Environmental Services.

 

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

      i.          Queried if communication channels were working effectively between the council and market traders given feedback from the Secretary of the Cambridge Market Traders Association.

     ii.          Asked the Head of Environmental Services for his view of the mood on the ground regarding the report recommendations.

 

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

      i.          Would communicate the market pitch payment plan with traders.

     ii.          There appeared to be communication issues between the council and market traders. Channels that were used to date:

a.    A weekly bulletin to all traders.

b.    Traders were offered a surgery with officers.

c.    Officers were visible on the market.

d.    Officers had an engagement plan with traders regarding the market square development to shape the design concept.

e.    Officers liaised with the trade body representatives.

   iii.          Undertook to liaise with the Market Team to improve communication channels with traders.

   iv.          Market stall occupancy was 68% now. It was 90% pre-covid. Figures could be provided to Councillors after the meeting.

    v.          Officers had held discussions with Cambridge Market Traders Association. They had some insights into traders’ financial losses and which products were particularly affected eg food.

   vi.          Casual trade pitches were promoted through the weekly bulletin to traders and advertised through social and news media channels.

 

The Executive Councillor said:

      i.          The Market Team had sent a number of surveys to market traders and followed these up with phone calls to test the:

a.    Impact of COVID-19.

b.    Position now.

     ii.          The market square redesign project hoped to generate a diverse market open seven days a week in future.

   iii.          The Head of Environmental Services and his Market Team were doing what they could to support traders.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

- To approve the principles and broad approach for a new Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026.
- To approve public consultation on the principles and approach.
- To consider progress in delivering the Council's existing Climate Change Strategy during 2019/20.

Matter for Decision

The Council has had three climate change strategies since 2008, the most of recent of which covers the period from April 2016 to March 2021. The strategies set out the Council’s approach to reducing its own carbon emissions; supporting residents, businesses and organisations in Cambridge to reduce their emissions; and helping the city adapt to the predicted changes in climate.

 

The Officer’s report provided an update on progress in delivering key actions in the Climate Change Strategy during 2019/20.

 

It also set out a framework for a revised Climate Change Strategy covering the period from 2021-2026, ahead of public consultation in autumn 2020. It proposed a revised strategic approach that builds on what the Council has achieved to date but sets out new ambition for working with residents, businesses and communities in the context of the Climate Emergency.

 

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

Approved the proposed framework for the revised Climate Change Strategy for 2021-2026 for public consultation.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

The Committee raised the following queries in response to the report:

      i.          What is the view on our current 2050 net zero carbon target for the city?

     ii.          When would the City Council produce its own roadmaps to decarbonise the organisation, to help establish reasonable target timescales?

   iii.          What was the council doing about the issues around flood risk, rivers and chalk streams?

   iv.          Requested more detail regarding the aim of the public consultation, and to what degree that consultation would affect the overall strategy. The councillor asked whether the consultation is planned to be a public engagement exercise or may affect the detail of the strategy.

 

The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The aspiration was for the city to be net zero by 2050, broadly in line with UN goals. When declaring a climate emergency in 2019, the City Council called upon the government, businesses and stakeholders to take action to meet this target by an earlier date. Part of the strategy development would be to review that aspiration. they cannot currently commit to a date until returning to committee in March.

     ii.          We would be developing a new carbon management plan, relating to buildings, fleet and services, including how best to achieve a net zero carbon aim. This was part of a road map to decarbonise the city.

   iv.          The primary purpose of the public consultation and workshops would be to give residents the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on their expectations of the city council as part of the  Climate Change Strategy, but also to receive feedback on their expectations for other organisations, including Cambridgeshire County Council, GCP and the Combined Authority.  Additionally, asking for suggestions on how best to work collaboratively with residents and businesses. The Council was open to advice from experts such as Cambridge Zero, ARU and Cambridge environmental groups. Councillors could signpost people to contact through the consultation process. The intention was to be as extensive as possible by using digital channels.

    v.          The cost of retrofitting housing was being reviewed through the design guide. Details would come back to committee in the January 2021 meeting cycle. This would cover [possible] carbon reduction measures and costs [if they were not implemented, or we did not build to net zero standards now]. The Council was looking at setting high standards for its house building program.

   vi.          Officers were looking at when net zero housing policy for private homes could be adopted through the Local Plan, so the net zero standard could be applied to council and privately owned dwellings in the city.

 vii.          Central Government promised significant changes that could affect City Council policies in future.

viii.          The council was producing a greenhouse gas emissions report coving buildings it owned or paid the energy bills for. The council owned the fabric of its housing stock, but did not pay the energy bills for them, or commercial buildings, so they would not be covered by the report.

 

The Executive Councillor said in response to members questions:

         i.           The net zero strategy would be part of the engagement the council has with residents.  There were also options over how reductions were planned, whether a constant gradual reduction, or using carbon budgets and making larger changes sooner.

        ii.           Hoped something would come out of the Cambridgeshire Climate Commission related to the city and county that may set out how to achieve net zero.  Also as mentioned in the report, the council would be using Climate View to measure emissions from different sectors in the city, to see what projects can reduce those emissions and build up a picture of where we were and where to focus efforts.

      iii.           We do have areas of risk from flooding, though not to the same degree as other areas of the country, but we do have issues of drought and water shortage. Councillor Thornburrow established a cross party, cross boundary conference looking into water resource and particularly chalk streams. Water gathering from the aquifer has now been added to evidence gathering for the new Local Plan, to assess the extent of the problem.

      iv.           The Shared Planning Service were using the Local Plan to seek the highest possible sustainable standards from developments.

 

The Head of Corporate Strategy said in response to members questions:

         i.           The council would have had larger plans for public consultation had it not been for the coronavirus issue.

        ii.           The Climate Change Charter set out what stakeholders, residents and Central Government could do to mitigate climate change.

      iii.           Cambridge Zero and the City Council were working in an innovative partnership to share expertise.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve:
- Changes to 2020/21 General Fund revenue and capital budgets to address financial pressures resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic; and
- An interim update to the General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy

Matter for Decision

The report presented an overview of the impact of the Coronavirus emergency in the Spring of 2020 on Cambridge City Council’s budget for 2020/21. It set out how estimates had been made and the uncertainties within those estimates. It lists the financial support that central government has provided to the council and proposes several actions that the council can take to balance its budget in 2020/21.

 

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

      i.          Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances.

     ii.          Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.

   iii.          Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.

   iv.          Note the revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 of the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

      i.          Asked what priorities were being set and what the areas were that the council might stop spending on.

     ii.          Questioned if the council was looking to make cuts before they were required. What processes were in place to reverse these cuts if government funding came through to the council.

   iii.          Questioned what the process for was reviewing the reserve target if required.

   iv.          Questioned if funding had been cut in the right areas.

    v.          Stated it was clear why some projects had been cancelled, others had been set as lower priority or cut and do not need to be completed this year. However, there needed to be a clear definition between the two as it was not clear for all the projects referenced, the reason why this decision had been taken and by who. This information was required to undertake accurate scrutiny before the next meeting of full council.

   vi.          It was important the public sector invested and spent finances to support the local economy especially as there was a prospect of additional government funding designed to support local authorities’ loss of income. The council were able to do just this. 

 vii.          The council had stopped work at a time when the community and local economy needed it most, if the projects stopped it could be too late to reverse the decision.

viii.          Noted there was a few partnerships working projects (notably the Greater Cambridge Partnership) where funding cuts had been made.  Questioned if these projects had been postponed as those partners had decided they could not be delivered due to COVID-19, or had they been negotiated with both parties or was it the council’s decision.

   ix.          Asked for the status on the youth liaison officer.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Items that had been retained in the budget were anti-poverty, climate change, biodiversity, homelessness to maintain these services during this difficult time.

     ii.          There had been items which had been deferred until the following year as the work could not be carried out during the pandemic; other deferred items had been retained in the budget while others would be considered in the new year if financially viable.

   iii.          The next round of government funding which had recently been announced amounted to £500 million for local authorities to cover additional expenditure which met certain criteria. There would not be assistance with property income losses.

   iv.           With regards to car parking, the council would have to pay the first 5% of the losses and the government three quarters of the remainder. This could give approximately £2 million if the council met all conditions, however, detailed guidance was not yet available.

    v.          Funding from government received on homelessness amounted to £24,750 (additional cost to the council was £1.2million).

   vi.          In total a £1.3million grant had been received to date.

 vii.          If government funding were more than anticipated, it would be possible to review the council’s reserves and adjust the figures again.

viii.          Stated there were far more imponderables on the income side and reminded the committee there would be no assistance with the commercial property incomes. There was a variety of fees across the council which needed to be recovered across the council. It was uncertain if these costs would recover from government and the council would have to pay the first 5%.

   ix.          Projects postponed were capital schemes funded from revenue, therefore these could be moved back and forth from one year to the next without much issue if the work could be completed.

    x.          Acknowledged there were some climate change and biodiversity items which had been deferred but much of these works could not be restarted this year. The doubling of the wildflower meadows should already be completed.

   xi.          The council had planned to spend £100,000 on its tree programme, but this funding had been spread over a longer period.

 xii.          As the government had agreed a further tranche of funding to the GCP and the council did not have the financial resources available, it seemed sensible the contribution to the GCP could be reduced without hindering the work they were undertaking.

xiii.          The amount of money that the council allocated to the GCP was related to the new homes bonus which had been reduced.

xiv.          Could not provide a response to the query regarding the youth liaison officer but would ask that this was provided outside of the meeting.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to:

      i.          Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances.

The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:                        

     ii.          Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.

The Committee unanimously resolved to:                        

   iii.          Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.

The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:                        

   iv.          Note the revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 of the officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21 as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2019/20 to 2020/21 as detailed in report appendix.

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2019/20 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for all portfolios, compared to the final budget for the year.  The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted.  Specific requests to carry forward funding from budget underspends in 2019/20 were reported.

 

This was the first year that one combined General Fund outturn report covering all portfolios was produced for scrutiny at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee

 

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

i.      Approve carry forward requests totalling £1,070,060 revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21, as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report.

ii.    Carry forward requests of £27,634k capital resources from 2019/20 to 2020/21 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s report.

iii.   To fund the overspend of two capital schemes – Lammas Land Car Parking and Barnwell Business Park remedial projects totalling £29,757 from reserves.

iv.  Transfer the Bateman Street tree replacement underspend of £17k to the Environmental Improvements programme – South.

v.    Transfer the underspend of £24k on Grafton East car park essential roof repair project to Structural Holding Repairs & Lift Refurbishment - Queen Anne project which is renamed Car Park Structural Holding Repairs.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

      i.          It was important part to note the carry forwards in Appendix C, particularly reference 4, tourism cost centre, regarding Visit Cambridge and Beyond. There was reference to a report being prepared for the end of June which had not been seen and questioned if there were further financial costs that the committee should be aware of.

     ii.          Requested information to the carry forward for the refit carbon reduction projects and queried if this had been delayed from the previous year.

   iii.          Asked for an update on the vacancy for the cycling and walking officer.

   iv.          Requested further information on the reason for large variances for the Crematorium (Appendix A p184) and asked what was creating the greater loss, the impact of the closure of the  A14 or the increase competition in the general area.

    v.          Asked if officers would appraise the performance of Cambridge Live as it was difficult to evaluate the accounts which were no longer separate now the organisation was back under the remit of the council.

   vi.          Questioned what the sum of money was the council had allocated to deal with the original bailout of Cambridge Live and where on the officer’s report was this shown,

 vii.          Enquired if an explanation on the significant overspend regarding Environment Improvements (p136) could be provided.

viii.          Asked if the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources would comment on the 57.5% failure rate to deliver on the capital programme.

   ix.          Paid credit to garage services and car parking services.

    x.          Welcomed the improvement under the refuse and recycling collection and the surplus by the Bereavement Services and Town Hall lettings.

   xi.          Questioned why there was areas of overspend and underspend in the open spaces’ portfolio.

 

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

      i.          The carry forward for the refit carbon reduction would have been carried for a purpose.

     ii.          A detailed answer would be given outside of the meeting on the Visit Cambridge and Beyond report and Cycling and Walking Officer as this could not be provided.

   iii.          Referenced p144 of the agenda pack provided a response to the Environment Improvements question. This confirmed a lack of recharging income on officer’s time against a budget which required reviewing as it had been set higher than the potential income that was possible.

   iv.          Suggested the staff (environment improvements) in the team were not sufficient to generate the income suggested in the budget. This was a significant imbalance and would be investigated further in the budget process.

    v.          Under Culture and Communities, p143, the following headings - Corn Exchange and Guildhall, City Events and Folk festival and Cambridge Live when added together represented Cambridge Live that was the external organisation.  The variances added together showed a figure of £100,000 overspend.

   vi.          Reminded the committee that Cambridge Live was taken over by the council at the start of the year with a considerable amount of work required to be done with the organisation.

 vii.          Work had been undertaken by officers to change the structure of Cambridge Live which would help to bring down the deficit. The COVID-19 pandemic had severely impacted on this work and the finances required additional attention. Officers were wating to find out what funding was available to support Cambridge Live.

viii.          £750,000 had been allocated to cover the cost of bringing Cambridge Live back into the council.  Dealing with the deficit on the balance sheet which came into the council and developing structures to improve ways of running the organisation, legal advice, accountancy advice and audit. The money had almost been spent.

   ix.          Before COVID-19 the Culture and Community Manager was confident that Cambridge Live was ‘back on track’.

    x.          Noted the request for the breakdown of how the £750,000 had been spent and what was left and would be given outside of the meeting.

   xi.          The crematorium had been significantly impacted by the upgrade of the A14 which had contributed to three quarters of the loss revenue. There was an ongoing claim for loss of income regarding the A14 upgrade.

 xii.          Prior to COVID-19 officers had put together a work plan to compete with the new competition, offering a low-cost funeral service and the introduction of a café on site which would increase income and match the competition.

xiii.          £13million of the £27million underspend was in CIP loans with £2.8million in bonds; all of which was for development and outside the council’s control. If these figures were taken out of the underspend, the total was still significant but not as large at first glance. 

xiv.          There were variables in the open spaces budget each with a specific reason as referenced on p144 of the agenda pack; different businesses had been impacted differently by COVID-19.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resource said the following:

      i.          The original budget for Environment Improvements was higher and there had been an underspend. Could not comment why it had been reduced as much as it had.

     ii.          Further information on Cambridge Live could be read on p142 of the agenda pack. The folk festival did not have the ticket sales anticipated when the council took over and the festival would not be taking place this year.

   iii.          Agreed it was not satisfactory that there was an underspend on capital and this needed to be looked into further.

   iv.          Expressed thanks to the finance department for compiling such a comprehensive report while all working from home.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Recommend the report to Council, which includes the Council's actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2019/20.

Matter for Decision

The Council was required by regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce an annual treasury report reviewing treasury management activities and the actual prudential and treasury indicators for each financial year.

 

This report met the requirements of both the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (the Code) and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential Code) in respect of 2018/19. Both these publications have been revised by CIPFA and references to these documents are to the 2017 Editions.

 

During the 2019/20 the minimum requirements were that Council should receive:

- An annual strategy in advance of the year

- A mid-year treasury update report and;

- An annual review following the end of the year describing the activity compared to the strategy.

 

In line with the Code of Practice on Treasury Management all treasury management reports have been presented to Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and to Full Council.

 

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

i.                Approve the report with the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2019/20

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

 

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To reduce the size of the service, following a reducing in benefits workload arising from introduction of Universal Credit
To consult staff on options.

Matter for Decision

The introduction of Universal Credit meant that new working-age claimants, or claimants who have certain specified changes in circumstances, no longer claim Housing Benefit from the Council, but claim Universal Credit (UC) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which includes an amount for housing costs. 

 

The report brought forward recommendations following a review of the Revenues and Benefits service in the light of this change.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.                To restructure the Revenues and Benefits service, as detailed in the officer’s of the report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Director.

 

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

      i.          Queried what if any impact the changes would have on staff; would staff be TUPE’d (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) across.

     ii.          Requested reassurance that staff would be supported during this period.

   iii.          Asked if the council could be sure that standards would not drop supporting the vulnerable residents in the city.

   iv.          Indicated that the decision was inevitable

    v.          Acknowledged the hard work and dedicated staff that the council had and expressed disappointment that the changes would have on them.

 

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

      i.          Staff would not be TUPE’d as the Department of Working Pensions (DWP) had hired additional staff to undertake the additional work. Therefore, there could be potential redundancies.

     ii.          When roles were redundant the council did try to redeploy staff within the council and would work with staff to look at the opportunities available.

   iii.          Staff would be consulted and supported throughout the process.

   iv.          The Council did not have the power to redeploy staff to external agencies.

    v.          The work to support vulnerable people with their housing cost would be dealt with by the DWP through the universal credit scheme.

   vi.          The council had a strategic interest to ensure that residents had accessed their benefits, offering financial advice through inclusion workers and council funding to external agencies such as citizens advice bureau.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To consider the proposed Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.

 

To strengthen and build on the current successes of the Council’s Apprenticeship Scheme, by broadening the types of apprenticeships available to existing employees and new apprentice recruits. 

 

For Council services to plan for and utilise apprenticeships more to support succession planning, recruiting to hard-to-fill vacancies, and attracting more younger people to the work for the Council.

 

To consider a pilot programme beginning in 2020/21 which would see the transference of up to 10% p.a. (approx. £12,000) of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit organisations.

Matter for Decision

The report proposed a new revised Cambridge City Council ‘Apprenticeship Strategy 2020’ to replace the existing Apprenticeship Strategy approved at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in March 2017.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.      Approved the proposed measures for a revised Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.

ii.    Agreed to consider a new provision for the transference of up to 10% p.a. to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit organisations as a pilot during 2020/21. This could be achieved by either working directly with external organisations or through the exiting schemes such as the Cambridge & Peterborough’s Apprenticeship Levy Pooling Service which supports local business to take on apprentices.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Organisational Development Manager.

 

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

      i.          Asked how easy it was to find apprentices for these schemes particularly at entry level.

     ii.          Welcomed the move away from using the levy on management apprenticeships.

   iii.          Apprenticeships were going to be difficult for people to find, particularly school leavers in the future, especially in the current conditions.

   iv.          Believed over the next two years the council’s focus on the use of apprenticeships should be coupled with recruitment rather than internal development. The priority for the community at large was for people to enter the labour market. If there was any levy left the remainder could be put into the levy pool and provide support for SME business, charitable and non-profit organisations who had a recruitment plan for sustainable employment.

    v.          Queried when the absolute deadline was to a make a final decision regarding the apprenticeship strategy?

 

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

      i.          Would expect several applicants for each apprenticeship, particularly given the current climate of the job market that COVID-19 had caused.

     ii.          The council’s focus was in three parts, the levy transfer, supporting existing staff and new recruits. No level had been put on support for new recruits and existing staff.

   iii.          The Government allowed 25% of the total levy to be transferred annually, approximately £30,000 could be transferable.  The proposal is to transfer 10% approx. £12,000 p.a.

   iv.          The Council pays £120,000 to £100,000 into the apprenticeship levy annually which lasts two years. This is a rolling programme with each month’s payment expiring after 24 months.

    v.          It would be best to make the decision as soon as possible so that the funds could be transferred.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following comments:

    i.            That the apprenticeship levy was for training and not for apprenticeship themselves. Recognising this, the committee should think about the impact on the voluntary sector, SME’s and non-profit organisations who could make use of the levy.

   ii.            Consideration had been given to put 25% immediately into this sector but felt emphasis should be for the city council to develop its own apprentices first. This would allow those organisations the opportunity to develop apprenticeship if appropriate or express an interest. Salary costs would also have to be picked up by the businesses as the levy did not cover this cost.

 iii.            Believed there had an issue in the past in finding the appropriate training scheme for SME’s.

iv.            The work that the levy had been proposed would see an increase in manual trades that traditionally had not been offered and was what the apprenticeship scheme was for. The scheme would be reviewed on a regular basis it could be possible that the transference of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local businesses, charitable and not for profit organisations could be increased in future.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Dalzell seconded an additional recommendation:

 

NOTE the report and proposals

 

RECOMMEND a rethink of the proposed strategy applicable to apprentice starts over the next two years in the light of the post pandemic depression, with a view to emphasising the use of apprenticeships to improve recruitment offers, potentially sharing an increased surplus from the council with local SMEs, charitable and Not For Profit organisations who provide sustainable, recruitment-based business plans

 

AGREE a modified version of the strategy through the procedure for an urgent decision

 

The additional recommendation was lost by 2 votes to 4.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report summarised the performance for the 3Cs ICT, Legal Shared Services and the Greater Cambridge Shared Internal Audit Service during 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

i.                   Noted the content of the annual reports.

ii.    Noted the requirement for renewal of the 3Cs services partnership agreement the principle variations planned

iii.   Delegated authority to the Chief Executive and Strategic Director to finalise and agree the renewed partnership agreement by September 2020, in consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Director.

 

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

            i.    Asked if consideration had been given to greater shared scrutiny between the authorities, such as meeting virtually. There had been recently been a couple of ICT outages and suggested it could have been resolved more efficiently if all stake holders had been involved.

          ii.    Enquired why the city council’s consumption of legal services was higher than South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council.

 

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

i.         There had been a previous proposal for a shared scrutiny committee. However, there were complications for agreeing the overall decision-making process in line with each authorities’ constitution and the number of member allocations. Therefore, it had been decided not to pursue this further.

ii.       The level and complexity of the services delivered by the city council was currently greater than the other two local authorities therefore more advice and support was required from legal services when dealing with issues such as commercial portfolios.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources made the following comments:

i.                Echoed the technical difficulties that had occurred when investigating a greater scrutiny committee; the executive councillor and scrutiny model used by the City Council was not compatible with the other local authorities.

ii.               Officers across the local authorities had regular debate and communication on the business plans and services. This worked well and there was no need to change.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships 

Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships 

Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.

 

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

i.                Agreed the Mayor’s approach to the transport projects in relation to the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) was not positive for public accountability or public understanding of the issues that were involved which was regrettable.

ii.               The GCP had just completed their first five years of project delivery and had recently been awarded the next tranche of government funding, therefore the GCP clearly the right organisation to undertake the transport project work.

iii.             Asked if the capital grants scheme had been widely advertised and if the criteria to apply for a grant was clear. It was vital there was transparency to show where and how public money had been allocated, particularly as funds were being dispersed into the private sector.

iv.             Questioned if the Mayor understood the need for affordable housing in Cambridge, any delivery was welcome. 

v.              Highlighted an article in the local press regarding affordable housing being delivered by the Combined Authority Mayor. It also referenced that he had negotiated £100 million as part of the devolution deal. The council had also taken part in the negotiations and believed a proportion of funding had been allocated to the city for affordable housing. Questioned how the income stream was allocated.

vi.             A recent Savills report highlighted the lack of affordable housing in the city; the median house price to median income ratio was 13 times the average income, compared with the national average of 7.8.

vii.           Queried the £40million rolling fund the Combined Authority had, which the same newspaper article referred to.

viii.         Asked how the Mayor decided what the funding criteria was for strategic projects as this did not appear to be clear.  Provided the example of Lancaster Way Roundabout on the outskirts of Ely and noted there were projects that required more urgent works.

ix.             Queried the Mayor’s declarations of interests at meetings at they did not seem to be consistent.

x.              Requested an update on the CAM metro policy.

xi.             Asked for an update on Alconbury Weald as had read the lease was being surrendered.

 

The Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships and the Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.        Understood there had been a widespread publicity campaign regarding the grant scheme for the first round. Comments made by the committee overlapped the concern expressed outside of the committee regarding the governance of the business board. It was important for the board to remain accountable and to report on their spending. 

ii.       Having reviewed the grant applications these had been submitted by a diverse selection of businesses.

iii.     The grants awarded were to those organisations who needed the funding to protect jobs.

iv.     The capital grant funding had been linked to the previous growth hub funding in terms of innovation specifically linked to COVID-19, shared by the economic sub-groups and had been promoted very strongly.

v.      Acknowledged the hard work and support that had been undertaken and given during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Combined Authority.

vi.     With regards to the CAM metro it did feel that the Mayor was trying to create ‘banana skins’. The Mayor’s recent actions and comments were not compatible with the Local Transport Plan agreed at the GCP January meeting.

vii.   Suggested the Mayor could be invited to a future meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee.

viii.     The Alconbury Weald lease was expensive and unnecessary, the Mayor proposed to relocate but no future strategy had been provided where this would be.

ix.        The revolving fund of up to £40million could be used for projects which would achieve an outcome and bring a return.

x.           £10million of the revolving fund had been allocated to a development on Histon Road on the former squash club site, four of the nine units would be affordable homes (£100,000 homes). Up to one thousand people had registered an interest in this scheme.

xi.        Believed that more could be achieved with the revolving fund.

xii.      Questioned the allocation of funding of projects and if the best outcome had been achieved; would suggest working with the committee to look in detail at the work going forward.

xiii.     Suggested that members read the annual finance report to look at the money spent and what had been delivered.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to note the report.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.