1) Note progress on wider project work to support community lending, loan and re-use in the city in line with the council’s priorities.
2) Establish alternative options and support for individuals and groups to access arts, craft and scrap materials, noting intention to close down scrapstore and repurpose the unit for Cambridge Food distribution hub in July 2022.

Matter for Decision

In October 2021, the Executive Councillor for Communities approved recommendations to support a review of Scrapstore to greater align to corporate priorities. This paper provides an update on progress and further recommendations.

 

Following a mapping exercise and workshop with community partners, an options appraisal and feasibility work has taken place to consider the broader topic of community lending, loaning and reuse and options for direction of travel going forward.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Noted progress on wider project work to support community lending, loan and re-use in the city in line with the council’s priorities.

     ii.          Noted progress to establish alternative options and support for individuals and groups to access arts, craft and scrap materials, noting intention to close down Scrapstore in its current form and repurpose the unit for Cambridge Food distribution hub in July 2022.

 

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 Development Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors commented that a mobile scrapstore could be provided like a mobile library.

 

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

      i.          The Scrapstore had been running for twenty years. Many donated items could be recycled, but they eventually ended up in landfill (so had climate change implications). There was also a climate impact as people travelled to and from the store, plus the van used by the Scrapstore.

     ii.          The Scrapstore could reduce its carbon footprint by moving to a community hub.

   iii.          The store venue and staff were being moved, items in the store were being retained, not disposed of, during the move.

   iv.          Officers were looking at how to support community led recycling schemes in future.

 

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

      i.          Scrapstore cost details were set out in the October 2021 committee report.

     ii.          Not all costs could be considered when the project was set up. Costs were covered by Community Services during covid, so manged through the staff budget not the (corporate) capital budget. A new way to provide the facility was now proposed.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Porrer proposed to add the following recommendation to those in the Officer’s report:

 

(New) 3. Bring back a report to the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee before the end of 2022 with an update on progress on matters described in Section 3.

 

The Committee rejected the recommendation by 6 votes to 3.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the (unamended) substantive recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

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

Matter for Decision

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommends that Councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety and Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 28 January 2021.

 

The City Council has not used surveillance or other investigatory powers regulated by RIPA since February 2010.

 

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

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

     ii.          Noted and endorsed the steps described in paragraph 3.7 and in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

   iii.          Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 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

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny and the committee made no comments in response to the report from the Head of Legal Practice.

 

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.

Cambridge City Council

Record of Executive Decision

Funding for the Demolition of East Road Garages

Decision of: Councillor Mike Todd-Jones, Executive Councillor for Housing

Reference: 22/URGENCY/HSC/06

Date of Decision: 20 May 2022

Decision Type: Key

Matter for Decision: Approval to fund the demolition of the garage block at East Road from HRA reserves, with the expenditure to be formally recognised in the budgets as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in September 2022.

Why the Decision had to be made (and any alternative options): The decision to demolish the garage block at East Road has been taken under delegation following receipt of a demolition notice from Building Control after the building suffered severe structural damage in high winds. This urgent decision is required to secure the funding in the HRA to allow these demolition works to proceed.

The Executive Councillor’s decision: Approve the use of £300,000 of HRA reserves to fund the demolition of the garage block at East Road, with the use of these funds to be formally recognised in the HRA budget as part of the HRA medium Term Financial Strategy in September 2022.

Reason for the decision: The decision to demolish the garage block at East Road has been taken out of cycle for reasons of health and safety, following damage to the block in high winds. The need to fund these works arises from this decision.

Scrutiny Consideration: The Chair and Spokesperson of Housing Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report: A report detailing the background and financial considerations will be published Agenda for Housing Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 21st June, 2022, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council.

Conflict of interest: None

Comments: The Green and Independent Spokes noted their Group’s support for the decision and noted that it was difficult to see what other option was possible.

 

Matter for Decision

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

 

On 22nd September 2021, SFCT were given advance notification that, in line with the council’s corporate priorities and Community Centres Strategy, and following the successful establishment of the Centre programme and staffing team, the councils operation of Storey’s Field Centre would not continue beyond the current contracted deadline of 31 December 2022, and that the Trust would now need to begin to assess other options.

 

SFCT responded to state that it will continue to work with the Council towards achieving a successful transfer of service by 31.12.22 but requested that provision is also made for a further contract extension period if required until 31.03.23 in case additional time is needed to complete negotiations and TUPE arrangements. A further extension provision would be pragmatic to ensure a smooth transfer for the staff involved, with a hard end date of 31st March 2023.

 

Following the transfer of service to a new operator, the councils Community Services team would focus on working collaboratively with SFCT and The University to ensure a joined-up programme across community facilities in the local area and that community work is continued, at least to the requirements as set out in the Section 106 agreement.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed to extend the councils contract for management services if required by Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT), until 31 March 2023.

     ii.          Noted the Council’s management and operation of Storey’s Field Centre would end 31 March 2023 and that eight Council employed posts will then transfer under a TUPE arrangement, to a new operator appointed by Storey’s Field Centre Trust.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Project Manager.

 

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

      i.          Staff would TUPE over to the new contractor with their existing pay and conditions.

     ii.          The City Council were currently responsible for half of the running costs. When the contract was handed over, the group running the centre would be responsible for ensuring it was viable in future to maximise income whilst still meeting community needs.

   iii.          The Business Plan set out cost details. Running costs would be benchmarked against other leisure centres.

   iv.          The development of Eddington had slowed due to Covid. This had not been factored into earlier Business Plans.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

Section 65 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 provides that in respect of the charges for Hackney Carriages, the Council “may fix the rates or fares within the district as well for time as distance, and all other charges in connection with the hire of a vehicle…by means of a table”.

 

The existing Table of Fares came into effect on the 1st April 2021 and is attached to the Officer’s report as Appendix A.

 

In previous years amendments to Table of Fares was completed on an ad hoc basis. However, in January 2019, Executive Councillor agreed for consultations to take place in early March each year with the adaptation of fares coming into effect on 1st April.

 

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

      i.          Considered and agreed the amended Hackney Carriage Tables of fares as seen on Appendix B which incorporates requested amendments, which have been considered by Environmental Health Manager;

1.1.1.1.           Change from “For each subsequent 176 yards (161    metres) or part thereof” to “For each subsequent 175 yards (160 metres) or part thereof”;

1.1.1.2.           Amend extra charges to the following;

-                  5 or more passengers travelling in the vehicle - £3.50

-       Bicycles - £1.50

-       Vehicle unfit to continue working (soiling) - £100

1.1.1.3.           Include but amend the Fuel Surcharge, under Extra Changes. Amendment is as followed:

“£0.40 Fuel Surcharge (only applicable if the national retail price of diesel, as published by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy , has exceeded 179.9p per litre since 1 April 2022)

 

**There will be a separate notice in this vehicle if this extra charge is payable.”

1.1.1.4.           Extra Fuel Charge will only be applicable during dates fuel exceeds 179.9p per litre, as published weekly by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy up until  the next fuel publication detailing that fuel charge has fallen back and no longer exceeds 179.9 per litre. Trade will be made aware via e-mail.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

The Environmental Health Manager updated recommendations in her original report by referring to the published amendment (amendments shown as bold text):

 

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

1.1.2. Consider and agree the amended Hackney Carriage Tables of fares as seen on Appendix B which incorporates requested amendments, which have been considered by Environmental Health Manager;

1.1.2.1.           Change from “For each subsequent 176 yards (161    metres) or part thereof” to “For each subsequent 175 yards (160 metres) or part thereof”;

1.1.2.2.           Amend extra charges to the following;

-       5 or more passengers travelling in the 

vehicle - £3.50

-       Bicycles - £1.50

-       Vehicle unfit to continue working (soiling) - £100

1.1.2.3.           Include but amend the Fuel Surcharge, under Extra Changes. Amendment is as followed:

ӣ0.40 Fuel Surcharge (only applicable if the national retail price of diesel, as published by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy , has exceeded 179.9p per litre since 1 April 2022)

 

**There will be a separate notice in this vehicle if this extra charge is payable.”

1.1.2.4.           Extra Fuel Charge will only be applicable during dates fuel exceeds 179.9p per litre, as published weekly by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy up until the next fuel publication detailing that fuel charge has fallen back and no longer exceeds 179.9 per litre. Trade will be made aware via e-mail.

 

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

 

The Deputy Leader approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Deputy Leader.

1 Note the update on the project status and next steps for the project workstreams.

 

2 Note the need to consider the project in line with the heat network feasibility study and GCP’s Road network hierarchy review and resulting proposals before a more detailed scheme proposal can be developed in order to ensure that a strategic approach is taken to the project. This is likely to mean that the development  of a final scheme  for approval to  progress to a planning application will not be finalized until at least 2023.

 

3 Approve the amended vision as proposed in section 4.3.

 

4 Delegate authority to the Director, in consultation with Chair and Spokes, to continue to develop the project in line with the Corporate Programme Office and project management requirements, and with the Council’s formal decision processes.  The project will be managed in collaboration with partners leading other major schemes which may have an impact on the outcomes for this project. Formal scheme development, where proposed, will be developed  in line with current policy, including on voluntary and statutory consultation, and brought to committee. Future delivery of any approved project will be subject to available funding.

 

5 Approve the proposal to set up a liaison group to ensure information and updates on the project are  informally shared with key stakeholders.

Matter for Decision

The City Council has been working with stakeholders to consider the potential opportunities for improvement of the Market Square. Stakeholder views raised at scrutiny committee regarding the project in early 2021, alongside the continued impact of the pandemic, offered the Council’s team the potential to consider all the evidence and views collated over the past few years and to review the project.

 

The project team have reviewed the feedback, previous reports and more recent work. There is a groundswell of support for changes to the market square, making it a more accessible, attractive, welcoming, exciting and safe place to visit, shop and gather both during the day and into the evening. Stakeholders want to see the 7 day market continue, but also want the ability to experience other events in the space.

 

The Officer’s report provided an update on the review of the project, the other major projects potentially impacting on, or which may impact on the city centre, and the additional work done to look at the possible options for sustainable improvements to the square to address stakeholder requirements in an effective way whilst recognizing the importance of the surrounding heritage, alongside the needs for a fit-for purpose future.

 

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

      i.          Noted the update on the project status and next steps at section 8.0 for the project workstreams.

     ii.          Noted the need to consider the project in line with other key projects including the heat network feasibility study and GCP’s Road network hierarchy review and any resulting proposals which may arise before progressing a more detailed scheme proposal, in order to ensure that a strategic approach is taken to the project. This is likely to mean that the development of any scheme, if still feasible, for approval to progress to a planning application will not be finalized until at least 2023.

   iii.          Approved the amended vision as proposed in section 4.3 of the Officer’s report.

   iv.          Delegated authority to the Director, in consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes, to continue to develop the project in line with the Corporate Programme Office and project management requirements, and with the Council’s formal decision processes. The project will be managed in collaboration with partners leading other major schemes which may have an impact on the outcomes for this project. Formal scheme development, where proposed, will be developed in line with current policy, including on voluntary and statutory consultation, and brought to committee. Future delivery of any approved project will be subject to available funding.

    v.          Noted the proposal to set up a liaison group to ensure updates on the project are shared with key stakeholders, with the first meeting of this group to take place before the next Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee. The Liaison group engagement does not preclude other specific engagement with partners, or replace the relevant voluntary or statutory public consultation processes.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development.

 

The Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Was liaising with police colleagues on how to improve the safety of the market square area such as lighting for the night time economy. There was a feeling the market square was unfriendly when there was no market present, so officers were looking at ways to mitigate this such as changing market stall orientation to all better CCTV coverage.

     ii.          Opposition Spokes would be included in the stakeholders group. Any future decisions on the market square would come back to committee for discussion and debate in public.

   iii.          The consultation had been widely promoted. It was up to people in and outside of the city (including tourists) to respond. Over a thousand responses had been received to date, so officers felt the responses represented various views.

   iv.          The market square was being improved to facilitate a multi-use area including a seven day market. Officers were not prescribing who could use the area eg agency or independent traders.

    v.          There was a lot of concern about material used in the trial demountable stalls so other options were being considered.

 

The   Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Noted some discontent regarding the market square project had been expressed by some traders and members of the public. The project had started well and been supported by traders. The pandemic occurred which forced the closure of the market. This changed the tone of responses. Misinformation and distrust arose. The Executive Councillor hoped things were in a better position now.

     ii.          Traders were updated through regular meetings with officers.

 

The Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development amended the recommendations in her report as follows (amendments shown as bold and struck through text):

2.1 Note the update on the project status and next steps at section 8.0 for the project workstreams.

2.2 Note the need to consider the project in line with other key projects including the heat network feasibility study and GCP’s Road network hierarchy review and any resulting proposals which may arise before progressing a more detailed scheme proposal, in order to ensure that a strategic approach is taken to the project. This is likely to mean that the development of any scheme, if still feasible, for approval to progress to a planning application will not be finalized until at least 2023.

2.2 2.3 Approve the amended vision as proposed in section 4.3.

2.3 2.4 Delegate authority to the Director, in consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes, to continue to develop the project in line with the Corporate Programme Office and project management requirements, and with the Council’s formal decision processes. The project will be managed in collaboration with partners leading other major schemes which may have an impact on the outcomes for this project. Formal scheme development, where proposed, will be developed in line with current policy, including on voluntary and statutory consultation, and brought to committee. Future delivery of any approved project will be subject to available funding.

2.4 2.5 Note the proposal to set up a liaison group to ensure updates on the project are shared with key stakeholders. The Liaison group engagement does not preclude other specific engagement with partners, or replace the relevant voluntary or statutory public consultation processes.

 

Councillors requested a change to the Officer’s recommendations. Councillor Porrer proposed to amend the following recommendations from the Officer’s report (amendments shown as bold and struck through text):

·       2.3 Approve as amended draft the vision as proposed in Section 4.3, subject to a full report on the consultations undertaken so far and further scrutiny at the next ECSC.

·       2.5 Note the proposal to set up a liaison group to ensure updates on the project are shared with key stakeholders, with the first meeting of this group to take place before the next Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee. The Liaison group engagement does not preclude other specific engagement with partners, or replace the relevant voluntary or statutory public consultation processes.

 

The Chair decided that the proposed new recommendations should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee rejected recommendation 2.3 by 5 votes to 3.

 

The Committee accepted recommendation 2.5 by 8 votes to 0.

 

The Chair decided that the amended recommendations should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.1 as amended.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.2 as amended.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.3 as amended.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.4 as amended.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.5 as amended.

 

The Deputy Leader approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor or Deputy Leader.

Matter for Decision

The Council has commissioned surveys of corporate buildings, prioritising those with gas boilers, to start to develop a programme to incorporate the decarbonisation of these buildings by 2030 within a planned maintenance programme. This report provides a progress update and the next steps.

 

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

Noted the contents 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 Asset Manager.

 

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

      i.          The intention was not to replace existing gas boilers with new gas ones, but to use alternative heating systems such as air source heat pumps.

     ii.          Where gas boilers should have been replaced in 2021, they would be repaired and maintained until suitable non-gas alternatives could be installed.

 

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

 

The Deputy Leader approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Deputy Leader or Executive Councillor.

The Executive will be considering the Budget Setting Report which is published at Agenda Item 11 of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee which is meeting immediately prior to the Executive meeting.  Please use the link below to access the report.

 

Agenda for Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on Monday, 7th February, 2022, 5.00 pm - Cambridge Council

Minutes:

The Executive met immediately following the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee which had considered and scrutinised the Budget Setting Report and Executive Amendment and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources had recommended it to the Executive.

 

Members of the Executive present, who had been present throughout the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee had no further comments.

 

Accordingly, Council is recommended to:

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets: [Section 5, page 26 refers]

 

a)  Approve

 

·  Revenue Pressures and Bids shown in Appendix B(b) and Savings shown in Appendix B(c).

 

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

 

·  Bids to be funded from External Funding sources as shown in Appendix B(e).

 

 

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

 

c)  Approve the level of Council Tax for 2022/23 as set out in Appendix A (b) and Section 4 [page 17 refers].

 

 

Other Revenue:

 

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

 

Capital: [Section 6, page 29 refers]

 

Capital Plan:

 

e)  Agree the proposals outlined in Appendix C(a) for inclusion in the Capital Plan.

 

f)  Delete from the Capital Plan of the Cambridge Junction capital scheme, as set out in Section 6 [page 29 refers]

 

g)  Subject to (e) above, approve the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix C(c) and the Funding as set out in Section 6, page 29.

 

 

General Fund Reserves:

 

h)  Note the impact of revenue budget approvals and the resulting contribution from reserves to support service delivery [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

i)  Approve the allocation of funding on a contingency basis to the collaborative ‘Changing Futures’ programme project [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

j)  Note the resulting level of reserves [Section 8, page 44 refers].

 

Section 25 Report:

 

k)  Note the Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Report included in Section 10 of the BSR [page 65 refers].

 

Review of Charges

 

l)  Note the schedule of proposed fees and charges for 2022/23 in Appendix F.

Matter for Decision

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“2014 Act”) gives the Council powers to make Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs).

 

The Council has two PSPOs due to lapse in 2022. These are:

      i.          The Cambridge City Council Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden at Ditchburn Place, Cambridge Public Spaces Protection Order 2016, and

     ii.          The Public Spaces Protection Order (Touting) 2016.

 

Before the orders lapse a decision must be made to either extend the period of the orders for up to three years, to vary or to discharge the orders. All three decisions will require action by Cambridge City Council.

 

A consultation on which decision to take has been conducted with the Police and Crime Commissioner, the local policing body, relevant community representatives, ward councillors and the owner/occupier of land the PSPOs cover. Over 92% of respondents supported the extension of the orders.

 

Whilst reported incidents of prohibited behaviours have significantly decreased, community groups and councillors remained concerned about anti-social behaviour re-occurring without the PSPOs in place.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

      i.          Approved extending both PSPOs for a period of 12 months on the grounds of:

a.    Consultation feedback highlighting concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB) re-occurring if the orders were discharged and evidence of lower levels of prohibited behaviours.

b.    The impact of Covid-19 on social life in the areas concerned and the potential that behaviour and anti-social behaviour may resume now that restrictions have been lifted.

c.    The need to address the disparity between low reporting to the Council and Police and ongoing community concerns about prohibited behaviours.

     ii.          Noted that, if approved, the extension period would be used to assess if there is further evidence to warrant a 3-year extension, variation or discharge of either or both of the PSPOs.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Safety Manager.

 

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

      i.          People could report anti-social behaviour to the City Council anti-social behaviour team if they did not feel comfortable contacting the police.

     ii.          As covid restrictions were lifting, the City Council was liaising with residents as people anticipated that levels of anti-social behaviour could rise.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 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 Council’s approach to public art has, for many years, been under-pinned by both:

      i.          ambitious policy for high quality, original public art, combining professional expertise and community engagement; and

     ii.          planning obligations from developers to mitigate the impact of their developments, either via on-site public art or by providing off-site financial contributions (S106 funding).

 

Against a context of dwindling off-site S106 funding availability for public art (which will reach ‘best before/expiry dates’ over the next five years), the Officer’s report set out a new way forward, including the new Manifesto for Public Art.

 

The proposed Manifesto is a public declaration of the City’s intentions for public art commissioning and a reminder of the benefits of public art and the achievements so far; it demonstrates the City’s commitment to deliver new public art and its support of best practice when commissioning.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed to release S106 funds currently allocated to the Southern Connections public art commission (see paragraph 3.6 and Appendix B of the Officer’s report) for use on future public art projects.

     ii.          Approved delegated authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities, in consultation with the Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokes for Communities and the Chair of the Environment and Community Services Scrutiny Committee to:

a.    take stock of the progress made on the on-going History Trails 2 project (see Appendix B of the Officer’s report) in order to identify next steps and bring the project to a conclusion in 2022/23; and

b.    review the following proposals (for which S106 funding has been earmarked but not yet allocated) to confirm the funding allocation via the development of the Public Art Commissioning Strategy or whether release the earmarked funds for future public art projects (see paragraphs 3.6-3.7 and Appendix B of the Officer’s report):

1.                   Travellers & Outsiders public art proposal

2.                   Chesterton village sign proposal.

   iii.          Agreed to allocate between a further £80,000 to £150,000 of off-site public art S106 ‘strategic’ funds to enable the delivery and/ or future development of the public art installation arising from the “To the River” residency, subject to a constructive public consultation response, planning permission and other necessary consents and confirmation of project affordability within the proposed increased budget range (see paragraph 3.8 of the Officer’s report).

   iv.          Instructed officers to seek and identify eligible proposals for local public art through the Commissioning Strategy in or near:

a.    Romsey ward, incorporating use of around £32,500 of local S106 funds that need to be contractually committed by autumn 2023; and

b.    Queen Edith’s ward, incorporating use of around £12,500 of local S106 funds that need to be contractually committed by spring 2024.

 

These proposals would be reported back to this committee for approval of S106 funding allocations later this year. (See paragraphs 3.9-3.11 and Appendix C of the Officer’s report.)

 

    v.          Approved the use of the Manifesto for Public Art (Appendix D) and the Public Art Commissioning Strategy principles (see Section 4 of the Officer’s report).

   vi.          In the context of the new Manifesto for Public Art, instructed officers to:

a.    identify appropriate public art projects to make effective use of existing off-site S106 funds that need to be used between 2025 and 2027;

b.    develop a Public Art Commissioning Strategy for the City (including possible future projects) which will guide future commissioning principles for the delivery of all public art in the City, whether through Council commission or the planning process and report back to this committee later this year (see paragraph 3.12 of the Officer’s report);

c.    explore options for accessing the wider resources required to achieve the Manifesto for Public Art’s aims and objectives (see paragraph 5.1 of the Officer’s report).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Development Manager (Streets & Open Spaces).

 

Council Copley made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          Expressed concerns about the benefits of public art listed in the public art consultation.

     ii.          Queried if all stakeholder groups had been engaged in the public art consultation process.

   iii.          Queried how to measure the public art project outcomes and if the project is delivering against these.

 

Labour Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          Were keen to make the most of public art opportunities. Wanted diversity and inclusion as part of the commissioning process.

     ii.          Funding came from s106 agreements so its uses were limited compared to general council funding.

 

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

      i.          The Officer’s report referred to offsite funded projects not on-site ones.

     ii.          Feedback had been received on manifesto proposals for public art delivery.

   iii.          https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/to-the-river-project 'To the river' project. A residency celebrating and promoting the story of the River Cam and its role in shaping the city.

   iv.          The council had a legal duty to spend s106 funding in a timely and correct manner.

    v.          It was correct that the £290,000 is available to spend after the £150,000 is allocated not £150,000 from £290,000.

 

Councillors Copley and Porrer requested a roll call vote as per section 46.2 of the constitution on page 143 which reads "Any two members of a committee present and voting on any matter may require the names of the persons voting for, the persons voting against and the persons abstaining to be recorded in the minutes."

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Copley proposed to amend the recommendation in the Officer’s report:

·       2.3 Await the response of the public consultation response to the public art installation arising from the "To the River" residency, and defer allocation of off-site public art S106 until the views of residents are known on the proposal, and the consultation is fully reported. This report will then be brought back to a future scrutiny committee with recommendations (see paragraph 3.8).

 

and

 

3.8 Recommendation 2.3 awaits the consultation response before allocation of further funding for the ‘To the River’ public art installation. a. The River Cam artist residency was allocated £120,000 of S106 public art funding, as a strategic project, in January 2018. Since 2019, public engagement events have focused on understanding the influence that the River Cam has on Cambridge and its residents and visitors, with a view to providing a permanent work of public art on the River Cam.
b. Following extensive engagement during 2018/19, the artist has now developed a proposal for the permanent artwork (‘Selvedge’), drawing on the textile industry that existed in Cambridge in 17th century and, specifically, the Cambridge weave, still used in
graduation gowns produced today. The proposal is to fix a metal artwork proposed to the existing metal sheet piling at Sheep’s Green.
c. Public consultation on these proposals took place until mid-March 2022. Planning permission, Environment Agency consent and consent from the Conservators of the River Cam are also required. d. The consultation response will be reported back to a future scrutiny committee, to then consider what funding to allocate to this project. If the project were to continue as described, between £80,000 and £150,000 would be needed for the artwork in addition to the remaining amount from the original £120,000 budget for the ‘To the River’ artist residency7. Whilst it is hoped that the extra funding required for production may be at the lower end of this range, delivery costs for the final artwork would have to be confirmed, due to fluctuating market prices for materials (in the context of both the Coronavirus pandemic and Brexit). Any of the additional £80,000 to £150,000 allocation not used would be returned to strategic funds for other future projects.

 

The Committee rejected the recommendation by 5 votes to 3:

·       For: Councillors Copley, Payne and Porrer.

·       Against: Councillors Ashton, H. Davies, Healy, Sheil and Sweeney.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 3 to endorse the (unamended) substantive recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report:

·       For: Councillors Copley, Payne and Porrer.

·       Against: Councillors Ashton, H. Davies, Healy, Sheil and Sweeney.

 

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 Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman Service has found “there was fault causing injustice” in relation to a complaint about how the Council used rat poison at a residential property within the City which incurred vet bills after their dog came into contact with it.

 

This customer also complained that the Council failed to provide details of the poison or an emergency contact number, causing distress and did not deal with this complaint properly, causing them time and trouble.

 

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

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

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors commented that it showed the need for signage and councillors noted actions taken by officers.

 

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.

Public Questions

Members of the public asked several questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Raised the following points:

      i.          Welcomed the recommendations made in the Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP). Suggested some amendments at 2.1 a) 'The Executive Councillor is recommended to approve the Herbicide Reduction Plan Project as set out in Appendix A.'

     ii.          Reasons for suggesting amendments to g) and h) were:

1.    Dates and preparations for the 12 wards outside the herbicide free trial are not mentioned in the HRP.  The start date for herbicide spraying is not given, nor the need for website content updating or publicity for their treatments.  The date for Consultation and Communication preparations for the trial wards to be ready is 25th February with a start date of 1st March. See point 5 of the report.

2.    Resources need to be allocated so residents can look up planned herbicide treatment dates by ward on the council’s website and see in situ signage so they can keep pets, children and themselves away from treated areas. This is for public health reasons, to reduce their exposure to herbicides.           

3.    Herbicides are probably carcinogenic (WHO) and are neurotoxic to humans.

4.    After herbicide treatment plants do not die off for 5 to 10 days so are invisible for that time.

5.    Glyphosate, the most common herbicide, has a half-life of 3 days to 19 weeks depending on the weather so can stay toxic for a long time. Herbicides pollute the air, the ground and ground water. You cannot see, taste or smell it in water.

   iii.          Appendix A

g) 'Explore the most effective methods of communicating with residents...about any necessary herbicide applications, which may will include the following commitments; publishing the planned dates of herbicide treatments by road/ward for the whole city for the remainder of 2022 and thereafter on the council website, allowing residents to find out when a treatment is planned. After 2022 herbicide treatments will end.’

and

h) 'Consider the commitment Commit to displaying signage in situ on the relevant roads and pavements with dates of any herbicide treatments from for the remainder of 2022 onwards after which herbicide treatments will end.'

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing responded:

      i.          Sections G and H were part of a council motion so could not be amended unless details went back to a Full Council meeting. The above ideas could be noted for future reference to avoid delay.

     ii.          The project initiation document contained strategic data, not operational data such as dates. It set tasks to be completed by 25 February. Officers would work with the project board on the tasks.

   iii.          Officers would communicate with residents about pesticides to be used. They were looking at ways to do this in conjunction with the project board.

   iv.          Residents would be advised when work was to be undertaken and any issues to be aware of.

 

Supplementary question:

      i.          Requested pesticide work be listed on the council website, so residents could see action taken at a road or ward level.

     ii.          Queried if herbicide work would end in 2022.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.          Pesticide work could be listed on the council website.

     ii.          Results from the end of the trial could not be predicted in advance. It was hoped pesticide use would end after 2022.

 

2.    Pesticide-Free Cambridge raised the following points:

      i.          Reiterated their firm commitment to working with the City Council to make Cambridge pesticide-free, starting with a complete end to herbicide use on land owned or managed by the City Council. Remained committed to working with communities, groups and residents to make this happen as quickly and as effectively as possible. Welcomed the Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP) and the Herbicide-Free Streets proposal. Was disappointed to note that they had no response to questions to the ECSC meeting on 7th October 2021 or to their follow up email to councillors on 10 December 2021.

     ii.          Raised the following questions for the ECSC meeting on 27 January 2022:

1.    Although the pesticide free motion of 22 July stated that the council would work directly with Pesticide-Free Cambridge over the planned herbicide free trials, to date we have only had informal talks with the Biodiversity Team, and we have not been included in any formal discussion with the council. When will Pesticide-Free Cambridge be invited to join a working group to monitor the progress of the ward trials and herbicide-free streets, and to have input into related information campaigns and websites?

2.    When will the city council start to post notices of when herbicide spraying is due to take place across those wards and streets that are NOT being included in the HRP and to erect information signage in areas that are undergoing herbicide-free trials?

3.    Will the city council operatives wear full PPE, as is legally required, when spraying herbicides?

4.    Will steps be taken to include specific reference to the human health impacts of pesticide exposure in the HRP? We are concerned that the only health impacts mentioned in the current document are those connected with trip hazards posed by urban plants. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing responded:

      i.          (Q1) For this to succeed the City Council would need to work with other organisations as set out in the Stakeholder & Comms Plan. A project board would lead on the plan.

     ii.          (Q2) Ideas were being developed on how to communicate with residents. The Stakeholder & Comms Plan would set out details.

   iii.          (Q3) City council operatives would wear full PPE and undertake a risk assessment.

   iv.          (Q4) The EQiA set out potential negative impacts which would be reviewed. The positive impact of ending pesticide use was also set out.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council has considered, debated, and shares the concerns from residents about the use of herbicides in the city.

 

On the 18th July 2019, the Council unanimously voted in favour of declaring a Biodiversity Emergency. In response, the Council has stopped the use of herbicides in playgrounds, parks and commons. This declaration also included a commitment to reducing and removing the need to use herbicides on highway footpaths and verges, and to find viable and effective alternatives.

 

On 22nd July 2021, the Council passed a Herbicide (Free) Motion (ref. 21/32/CNlc), which sets out a range of tasks and actions to reduce the reliance on herbicides as a means of managing unwanted vegetation on public property assets within the city.

 

The Officer’s report and its accompanying proposed Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP) Project Initiation Document (as set out in Appendix A) responds to the Council declared Biodiversity Emergency and approved Herbicide Motion.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

      i.          Approved the Herbicide Reduction Plan Project Initiation Documentation as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Approved Newnham and Arbury as the two trial Wards to be completely herbicide free for 2022.

   iii.          Approved the introduction of up to 12 herbicide free streets in addition to and outside of the two trial herbicide free wards.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

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

      i.          Noted that members of the public and committee had suggested putting information about pesticide usage on physical signs (to be displayed in areas when work undertaken) as well as on websites. Signage was a significant resource. It was only accurate on the day it was written whereas webpage details could be updated faster. Would investigate the suggestion of using stickers as an alternative to signs as they could be easier to produce. Also QR codes.

     ii.          Undertook to produce a stakeholder communication plan to manage expectations and set out what people could expect from the trial.

   iii.          The trial was modelled on herbicide reduction action undertaken in Lambeth. People could opt into the trial. A consensus from residents was needed to show if people in a street wished to participate or not.

   iv.          Noted the suggestion to include details in Cambridge Matters.

    v.          Newnham and Arbury were chosen for the trial as they had different streetscapes that could be contrasted to review how the trial worked.

   vi.          Hazards would be noted and reacted to during the trial.

 vii.          Noted councillors’ concerns about strimming and mowing around trees as this could cause damage.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Porrer proposed to add the following recommendations to those in the Officer’s report:

·       New recommendation d - publishing the planned dates online of herbicide treatments for the whole city for 2022, with information available by both ward and road.

·       New recommendation e - committing to mark streets treated with herbicides with simple signs such as stickers on lamp posts.

·       New recommendation f - committing to end herbicide treatments on streets and open spaces in the city in 2022, subject to a successful trial.

 

The Chair decided that the proposed new recommendations should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee rejected recommendation d by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee rejected recommendation e by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee rejected recommendation f by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the (unamended) substantive recommendations as set out in 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.

1.      Agree the proposed approach for completing a strategic review of leisure to help inform the most optimal future leisure management arrangements for the council 

2.      Approve the officer recommendation to extend the current management contract for 30 months until 31^st March 2026, under the same terms but for a reduced management fee

3.      Note the findings of GLL’s review of the Jesus Green Lido winter opening pilot and agree to its continuation under the same arrangements

4.      Note the update and progress on carbon reduction plans at the Council’s swimming pools

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out a proposed approach for a strategic review of the council’s leisure provision that will inform a future management options appraisal. The report also recommended a rationale to extend the current leisure management contract by 30 months, until 31 March 2026 and covered the findings arising from 2021/22 trial of winter opening hours at Jesus Green Lido.

 

GLL managed the lido.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed the proposed approach for completing a strategic review of leisure, to help inform the most optimal future leisure management arrangements for the council.

     ii.          Approved the officer recommendation to extend the current management contract for 30 months until 31st March 2026, under the same terms, but for a reduced management fee.

   iii.          Noted the findings of GLL’s review of the Jesus Green Lido  winter opening pilot and agree to its continuation under the same arrangements.

   iv.          Noted the update and progress on carbon reduction plans at the Council’s swimming pools.

 

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 Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillor Bick commented:

      i.          The lido was a good form of social engagement. It attracted people of various ages from casual users to the very fit.

     ii.          People welcomed the lido being open during the winter. Flood lights assisted this when there was less daylight in shorter winter days so people could swim ‘at night’.

   iii.          In future, could all open days be spaced out eg on alternate days?

 

The Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          GLL were using their own maintenance funds to ensure the Jesus Green Lido stayed open to the end of the extended contract period.

     ii.          (Report paragraph 4.4) GLL made savings of £84k pa through capital investment at the start of the project, so there were savings to use now.

   iii.          The contract was extended, not put out to public tender, to give a longer time period to look at options on how to manage leisure facilities. These would be brought back to committee in future.

   iv.          GLL had recruited lifeguards and swimming teachers. Some of these needed to qualify. GLL offered a range of courses and classes to facilitate this. Staffing levels were now close to pre-pandemic levels, so the impact on leisure facilities was limited.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

This was the annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations.

 

The report also provided updates for 2021-22 and outlines key areas of work going forward.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2022-23, as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2022 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

     ii.          Approved £30,000 to Cambridge Council for the Voluntary Sector (CCVS) for a building community power and resilience project following on from the remarkable support undertaken by communities during the pandemic and linking to the Council’s ‘Our Cambridge’ transformation programme, as detailed in section 4 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

In response to the report Councillors asked for the Committee’s thanks to the Community Funding and Development Manager and her Team to be recorded for their hard work.

 

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

      i.          A funding statement to mitigate the impact of Covid had been put out in March 2020. Details set out in the agreement said the City Council would support groups if applicants contacted officers to request assistance.

     ii.          There had been no applications from voluntary groups to support the Gypsy and Traveller community. Applications had been received from other communities. Officers were working with the Equalities Officer to understand how to approach groups who did not apply to encourage them to do so.

   iii.          Different amounts of funding were allocated around the city wards based on population size. The calculation had been in place for ten years.

   iv.          A budget of £1,000,000 was available for Community Grants 2022-23 subject to approval of the Council’s budget in February 2022. £70,000 of the Community Grants budget was allocated to Area Committee Community Grants as in previous years. The amount had been the same for years. Inflation was taken into consideration.

    v.          Applicants had to meet criteria to receive funding. Funding was awarded according to what was considered acceptable under project criteria.

 

The Executive Councillor said the City Council was one of the few District Councils in the country who maintained a community funding pot. If some sections were increased, the impact on the overall budget would have to be reviewed.

 

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 Council has a legal duty to investigate statutory nuisance within its area under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the law does not specify how to exercise this duty, it is therefore the responsibility of each Local Authority to establish its own procedures for investigating complaints of noise that may amount to statutory nuisance.

 

The Councils Out of Hours Noise Service operated for the last 25 years, which, until October 2019, operated 7pm – 7am Monday – Friday; and 9am – 5pm, and 7pm – 7am, respectively on weekends and Bank Holidays. This approach required significant staffing levels and tied up staff time in reactive, rather than targeted pro-active service work.

 

The primary purpose of the previous Out of Hours Noise Service was to allow residents to log initial noise complaints and for officers to contact complainants to gather information and evidence to determine the existence of a statutory noise nuisance. Referrals would then be made to the daytime team to take appropriate enforcement action in relation to applicable cases of ongoing noise disturbance persistently detrimentally affecting the quiet enjoyment of someone’s home.

 

Following a review of Council Out of Hours services, including noise, combined with a difficulty recruiting to Out of Hours Noise Service posts, and the availability of new ‘self-help’ evidence gathering technologies and equipment, the Council committed to trial a new Out of Hours Noise Service approach.

 

This trial moved away from residents having access to officers to discuss their complaint and / or request a visit out of hours, to all noise complaints being passed to daytime officers within Environmental Health to discuss their complaint and / or arrange a proactive, pre-arranged visit(s). The trial adopted a proactive planned approach, supported by evidence gathering technologies and equipment, for witnessing of noise disturbances out of hours. This new approach enabled complaints to be triaged more effectively and for staff resources to be deployed in a more efficient way.

 

The trial of this new approach has been evaluated and the results fully support its adoption on a permanent basis, in place of the previous reactive and inefficient Out of Hours Service model.

 

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

      i.          Noted the results of the pro-active and planned Out of Hours Noise Service trial

     ii.          Approved (based on the trial evaluation results) the adoption of the pro-active and planned Service approach on a permanent basis, supported use of evidence gathering technologies and equipment, in place of the reactive and inefficient Service model.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

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

      i.          An evidenced based action was a better way forward based on kit loaned out by the council, rather than a visit by a council officer to witness anti-social behaviour.

     ii.          People could report issues in the same way as the 24/7 service by ringing the Customer Access Centre during office hours. An officer would contact them within three working days (usually less). The officer would discuss options with the concerned resident. The council would triage options based on evidence submitted and manage expectations on options available as some issues were civil matters outside of the council’s control. The process was the same as before except for having someone at the end of a phone 24/7.

   iii.          Customer Access Centre call handlers had been trained on how to give information in response to reported issues. Case Officers would follow up the next working day after a call had been logged.

   iv.          A councillor briefing session was planned to give information on how members could offer support to residents.

    v.          Only a small minority of councils provided a 24/7 answer service so moving away from this put Cambridge City in line with the majority. The service was not stopped, just refocussed. Some councils provided less.

   vi.          The Customer Access Centre provided a single point of contact for residents and made it easier for the council to triage noise complaints so officers could effectively manage expectations on what the council could do to respond.

 vii.          The Officer’s report set out the number of reported noise complaint cases. Most were during the day.

viii.          The amount of noise monitoring kit had increased from one item to two. These could be loaned out for up to a week. Officers never refused to loan out items, but there may sometimes be a delay until kit became available.

   ix.          Residents would be contacted about the service through various channels such as Open Door. Feedback was welcome on how effective this was.

    x.          The Enforcement Team gave feedback on planning applications to advise on relevant conditions to mitigate noise issues e.g., during construction. Officers monitored the situation and acted where required.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Payne proposed to add the following recommendations to those in the Officer’s report:

1.    Note the results of the pro-active and planned Out of Hours Noise Service trial; and

2.    Based on the trial evaluation results, to approve the adoption of the pro-active and planned Service approach for a further 12 months, pending a further review and report to Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee when a full year's data is available. on a permanent basis, supported use of evidence gathering technologies and equipment, in place of the reactive and inefficient Service model.  

 

The Committee rejected the recommendation by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Environmental Health Manager offered to bring a report back to committee in October on how the service was progressing.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the (unamended) substantive recommendations as set out in 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.

- To agree a joint response to the government consultation ‘Creating a vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc’ with Cambridge City Council

- Endorse the shared environment principles; and,

- Supports the future development of an Arc Environment Strategy which will provide for how the principles can be delivered.

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to agree Cambridge City Council’s response jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council, to the Government's Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation for which the deadline for responses was 12th October. Also, for Cambridge City Council to endorse the locally led Environment Principles produced by the Arc Leadership Group.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

i.   Agreed a joint response with South Cambridgeshire District Council to the Government’s Creating a Vision Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

ii.   Endorsed the shared Environment Principles at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report hereto.

iii.   Supported the development of an Arc Environment Strategy which would provide for how the principles could be delivered.in the Officer’s report.

iv.   Agreed to write to Anthony Browne MP and Daniel Zeichner MP requesting they support the Environmental Principles at Appendix 2 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

In response to Members’ questions Officers said the following:

  i.  Noted Members’ assumption that rail would be electric and should be the only option.

  ii.  As reported at the previous Planning and Transport Community meeting, the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes had in response to East West Rail Informal Consultation Stage expressed their support of electric rail only.

  iii.  Important to understand the environment principles had been formed by the local authorities and would be difficult for central Government to ignore if all local authorities were to approve them.

  iv.  The consultation was aimed as a ‘first conversation’ with communities across the arc. This was not the primary channel for Local Authorities as there were work streams which they were being engaged upon.

  v.  Believed it was important to put forward the Council’s position in relation to the emerging Local Plan.

 

Councillor Bick proposed an additional recommendation:

  i.  To write to Anthony Browne MP and Daniel Zeichner MP requesting they support the Environmental Principles at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report.

 

The additional recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee

The recommendations in the Officer’s report were voted on separately by the Committee, the votes were as follows:

 

  i.  The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendation i as set out in the Officer’s report.

  ii.  The Committee endorsed the recommendation ii as set out in the Officer’s report by 8 votes to 0.

  iii.  The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendation iii as set out in the Officer’s report.

  iv.  The Committee unanimously endorsed the additional recommendation iv to write to Anthony Browne MP and Daniel Zeichner MP requesting they support the Environmental Principles at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport 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 agree the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Preferred Options and supporting documents and evidence for public consultation.

Matter for Decision

The First Proposals (Preferred Options) represented the next stage in the preparation of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan being jointly prepared by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. It was proposed the public consultation would take place between 1 November and 13 December 2021.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

  i.  Agreed the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (preferred options) (Regulation 18) (Appendix A) for public consultation;

  ii.  Noted the First Proposals Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix B) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appendix C) and agreed them as supporting documents to the First Proposals that would also be subject to public consultation;

  iii.  Agreed the following supporting documents to the public consultation: (a) Topic papers for each theme (Appendix D) (b) Statement of Consultation, including the Councils’ consideration of and responses to representations received to the Issues and Options consultation 2020 (Appendix E); (c) Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (Appendix F); (d) Draft Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground (attached at Appendix G) (e) Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix H);

  iv.  Agreed the findings of the following background document that informed the First Proposals and was proposed to accompany the public consultation: (a) Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Appendix I and errata at appendix J);

  v.  Noted the findings of the following background documents that have informed the First Proposals and are proposed to accompany the public consultation (see Background documents to this report): (a) Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Conversation (issues and options) (Regulation 18) data release published September 2020 (b) Interim Evidence published in November 2020 (c) New Evidence published August 2021; 6. Agree that any subsequent material amendments be made by the Lead Member for Planning Policy in Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, in consultation with respective Chairs and Spokes;

  vi.  Agreed that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning Policy in Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, in consultation with respective Chairs 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 Joint Director of Planning Policy and Economic Development introduced the Officer’s presentation which outlined the first proposals and where the project was in the process.

 

Following a detailed presentation from the Planning Policy Manager and the Engagement and Communication Lead Officer, the following responses were given to Members’ questions. The questions were taken under four headings:

 

Needs and Numbers

  i.  Affordable housing (AH) was a key element to the Plan; it was important to maximise delivery of AH through the Plan.

  ii.  If the number of homes calculated were not provided this could increase commuting into Cambridge as the jobs in the City increased and would put pressure on accommodation costs.

  iii.  The job market in Cambridge was extremely successful which brought both benefits and disbenefits, increased commuting, a scarcity of housing for those working in Cambridge which impacted the rising cost of housing.

  iv.  The Climate Change Study had stressed the importance of homes being located appropriately for jobs in the city to reduce the volume of long-distance commuting.

  v.  A complex modelling exercise had been undertaken to quantify the growth of the job market; it sought to identify those sectors/jobs which would continue to draw people into Cambridge and who needed to be housed in locations that provided good access to those jobs. This would also address the quality of life issues which have been highlighted in the emerging Plan.

  vi.  Noted the comment that on p345 the reference ‘200,000 vehicles crossing the boundary every day’, should be 200,000 vehicle movements crossing the boundary every day.

 vii.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines sustainable development to included economic, social, and environmental considerations. Therefore, the emerging Plan needed to look at delivery of the governments definition of sustainable development which meant it did not just look at the housing need but had to look at the economic needs of the area for the Plan to be found sound.

viii.  The price/cost of workspaces in Cambridge had increased significantly which had an impact on small and local businesses as well as large companies.

  ix.  Within the emerging Local Plan, a flexible supply of employment land had been allocated, whether for multinational or local businesses. It was important to ensure that small local businesses were not priced out of the market.

  x.  Noted the comment there was an increased chance of achieving the goal of 40% affordable housing in the urban extension than adding new homes into new settlements.

  xi.  Work had been undertaken to try to determine the trajectory of water consumption; a wider water resource management plan for the region is being prepared which was expected to identify long and shorter term measures for supplementing or changing the existing supply arrangements  - in recognition of the impact upon the chalk streams that existing abstraction was having.

 xii.  The Environment Agency were due to review the abstraction licences for Cambridge Water from the aquifer as part of the regional water planning process.

xiii.  There was a regional planning process to address water issues and a Water Resources Management Plan was due to be published next year. This timeline meant that Officers would be aware of the outcome of the process of that Plan before the more formal stages of the emerging Plan were concluded.

xiv.  While consideration had been given to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER), the emerging Plan did not seek to provide for the economic growth rates referred to in that plan but followed its recommendation and  was informed by additional evidence considering the need for homes and jobs in the Greater Cambridge area;

xv.  Officers would advise what the split of the 20,000 office and industrial positions were from the 58,500 jobs created during the Plan period outside of the meeting. 

 

Proposed sites and green space

  i.  The definition of sites referenced as the ‘edge of Cambridge’ and the ‘city of Cambridge’ followed the Issues and Options Consultation which had categorised site by location. When viewing the digital map of the emerging Plan the locality of these sites would be clearer to the reader.

  ii.  When viewing the Plan digitally the reader would be able to search by area.

  iii.  With reference to the BioMedical Campus Policy S/CBC, noted the comment that the proposal submitted through the call for sites from  landowners, from Jesus College, St John’s College, Pembroke, and Cambridgeshire County Council.

  iv.  The Plan identified an appropriate windfall allowance within the Cambridge area and South Cambridgeshire area; these figures had been determined by a housing delivery study.

  v.  The annual monitoring report published by the Council highlighted locations of sites and anticipated sites which would be brought forward including windfall sites. The data which showed the completion of sites could be found through the annual survey. With this data it would be possible to undertake further tracking of assumptions around the windfall sites and the cumulative impact as it was important to understand the infrastructure needs.

  vi.  Noted the comment there was no reference to cumulative impact under the banner of health and wellbeing.

 vii.  Noted the suggestion the CBC Addenbrookes site would come under greater scrutiny for use of the green belt.

viii.  The issue of open spaces would continue to be looked at throughout the Plan process; it was important to get the right balance between off site contributions towards green open spaces

  ix.  There was a policy proposal which would ensure a good level of self-builds would be provided.

  x.  Noted the recommendation that the needs of Gypsy, Romany, and Travellers needed to be accommodated. Currently an assessment was being undertaken regarding this matter; permanent provision and / or temporary space would be investigated based on the needs collated from the results.

  xi.  The delivery study explored issues such a market absorbency, market trends, and current issues in the area; these would be considered when determining if the sites could be delivered at a faster rate.

 xii.  Central Government had a substantial stake in the two sites identified in the Plan for faster delivery. The Council’s expected to engage with Homes England on the matter of new/additional tenures and at ways in which more accessible housing could be delivered. 

xiii.  The Housing Strategy would also explore the ongoing issues around the delivery of affordable housing and the build to rent properties.

 

Environmental issues – policies

  i.  Noted the advice that it would be helpful to provide additional information on article 4 directions (which can add additional controls for changes of use that do not otherwise require planning permission) regarding retail centres, so the public have a greater understanding of the meaning of article 4.

  ii.  Noted the suggestion the wording on the section regarding retail centres could be changed from Cambridge city centre and village centres to local centres within the city.

  iii.  The people and place responsive design did highlight community engagement to inform design decisions and would look to develop this point further. 

  iv.  Believed the Plan did take a strong and innovative approach regarding visitor accommodation but noted the comments regarding better control of short term lets.

  v.  Work would begin on the statement of consultation for the plan which would address community engagement.

  vi.  The digital glossary would allow the reader to click on a word such as neighbourhood plan or article 4 and an explanation of the term would appear.

 vii.  As part of the consultation, residents would be welcome to put forward policy suggestions to be carried over from the existing plan or new policies for consideration.

 

Resilience/ structures to support the plan

  i.  Believed that through evidence and engagement work to date, the Council was in a good position to understand the infrastructure and collateral requirements required as part of the Plan process with those external agencies who would assist with delivery.

  ii.  It was important to recognise the issues of working with external agencies, such as utilities companies, or external partnerships such as the Greater Cambridge Partnership, to ensure the growth strategy could be met by all involved or whether due to the level of growth had to be rethought.

  iii.  Through the independent examination process the deliverability of the plan would be tested.

  iv.  The emerging Plan related to several internal and external documents which could be used as an evidence-based document when speaking to Central Government.

  v.  The 10% buffer included in the number of new homes to the year 2041 would allow flexibility and safeguarding of supply.

  vi.  Officers would be exploring whether it was possible to seek agreement with Central Government for greater flexibility over issues such as  the 5-year housing land supply (as Oxfordshire had done as part of the housing and growth deal for their area). This discussion could be progressed with government as part of the ongoing work surrounding the Oxford-Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework.

 vii.  The Plan would be accompanied by a viability assessment. Such an assessment had been carried out at this current stage which had demonstrated that the proposals were reasonably viable. Polices and standards were developing which would be fed into the viability assessment for further work.

viii.  Noted the conversation around resilience from the utility companies, climate change resilience and the wish to expand on community resilience in the Plan.

  ix.  Would investigate whether it was possible to take out the word ‘options’ from the title Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Preferred Options (Regulation 18) – For consultation.

  x.  Noted the point that it needed to be clearer that approximately 11,500 homes were required for the new plan; 37,000 homes were existing commitments.

 

The Committee

Resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations and congratulated Officers on their efforts to produce such outstanding work.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any

Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Note the achievements and progress of the strategic partnerships that the City Council is engaged with.

Matter for Decision

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

 

The paper highlighted recent NHS reforms that have led to the setting up of Integrated Care Systems that will lead to adaptations in Health and Wellbeing arrangements to accommodate and share priorities and ways of working that will improve health and care for all, through shared leadership, integration and collaborative action. It also highlighted the achievements of the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership during the year.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

      i.          Agreed to continue to work with the Health and Wellbeing Board and engage with the Integrated Care Partnership to ensure that public agencies and others can come together to address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge City and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens are heard, as the system is developed.

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

 

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 Officer. It was noted the report was listed as for the attention of the Executive Councillor for Communities but would in fact be considered by the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Strategy Officer undertook to set up a briefing for councillors on health reforms.

 

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

      i.          The anti-social behaviour when driving motion referenced by Councillor Hauk fitted into Community Safety Partnership priority 2. This was a high-level partnership which looked at strategic rather than operational level details.

     ii.          Undertook to set up a briefing for councillors on policing priorities and the Community Safety Partnership.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 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 purpose of this decision is to confirm and approve the Council’s representation to Anglian Water’s forthcoming public consultation on the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant Relocation (ReCWWTP) Phase 3 Consultation and the Development Consent Order (DCO) timeline. The consultation response has been prepared jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council.
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	The submission of the consultation response is required by 27 April and the Consultation response letter should be agreed as soon as is possible.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	That the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport agreed to:   Approve the Council’s representation to Anglian Water’s forthcoming public consultation on the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant Relocation (ReCWWTP) Phase 3 Consultation and the DCO timeline. As outlined in the Draft Consultation Response.
Reasons for the decision:	Anglian Water commenced their third consultation on the proposal between the 24th of February and the 27th of April 2022.  This is the last of their statutory consultations prior to submission of a Development Consent Order application to the Secretary of State in September 2022.    The recommendation is to support in principle the proposed works within South Cambridgeshire. There are however concerns raised about elements of the proposal, including traffic on local roads, the design approach, landscape mitigations, technological solution, potential odour impact, and connectivity to enable sustainable means of transport.  The decommissioning of the existing plant also requires consideration.     This Officer recommendation is based on an assessment of the site constraints and characteristics and ongoing consultation with relevant technical officers.
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised. The Chair of the Committee (Councillor D Baigent) asked the following points which were addressed by the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development:   1    Could the response be delayed until after the upcoming election? 2.     Is there any purpose that the escaping gasses from the vents can be put to?   The Green and Independent Opposition Spokes (Cllr S Davies) made the following comments based firmly on the agreed Group principles of promoting environmental and social justice (the comments were received after the five-day consultation period)   1    There is no operational need to relocate the plant. Anglian Water have confirmed that the present plant was refurbished in 2014 to a level sufficient to meet the city's needs until 2050   2    The proposed new site is green belt and near to a site of Special Scientific Interest.   3    The reason for the relocation is therefore not intrinsic to the operation of WWTP but rather driven by the ambition to develop commercial and residential buildings on the vacated site.   4    Due to low levels of unemployment in Cambridge and the surrounding area, the jobs created will pull new residents in to the city rather than creating jobs for existing residents. It is proposed that more jobs will be created on the redeveloped site than housing capacity, thus exacerbating housing pressures in the city.   5    The resource implications of the relocation and subsequent redevelopment of the site are extremely concerning:  the carbon emissions from the relocation cannot yet be quantified but will clearly be substantial Cambridge City Council's own research demonstrates that the area's water resources are insufficient to support the proposed new development although the new buildings on the vacated site are described as being sustainable, they will still generate additional carbon emissions and water use.  It is irrelevant that the carbon emissions and water use may be less than the city's average. The carbon emissions and water use will still be additional to the city's current figures. In conclusion, we are aware that this project has been an ambition of the city council for nearly 20 years. However, over that time, our understanding and awareness of the climate emergency has evolved considerably. We cannot go on ignoring the limitations on our resources. For these reasons, we cannot support the proposed relocation of the WWTP.
Report:	The draft consultation response can be found at the link below: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1612&ID=1612&RPID=76358189
Conflicts of interest:	None Known