Decisions

There were no apologies for absence.

Cambridge City Council

Record of Officer Urgent Decision

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority- Appointment of the Council’s Board member and substitute member

Decision taken: To appoint the Board member and substitute member for the City Council on the Combined Authority.

Decision of: Chief Executive

Reference: 22/OfficerUrgent/SR/02

Date of decision: 4 November 2022

Matter for Decision: To appoint Councillor Anna Smith as the City Council’s member and Councillor Lewis Herbert as substitute member on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.

Any alternative options considered and rejected: None

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: Normally an appointment by Full Council (which next meets on 23 February 2023), an urgent decision under paragraph 2 of section 9, Council Procedure Rules was necessary to give the required 14 days’ notice by the Combined Authority of a change to the city council’s Board membership.

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: None.

Comments: None

Contact for further information: Robert Pollock, Chief Executive. Robert.Pollock@cambridge.gov.uk

Recommended to consider the proposed changes and adopt the revised Corporate Enforcement Policy 2022.

Matter for Decision

·      In 2014 the new enforcement policy was adopted. The Policy included a provision for it to be reviewed after three years.

·      The policy was reviewed in 2017 and brought to Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in October 2017 where it was adopted.

·      The policy was due to be reviewed in October 2020, however with the pandemic this was delayed. The earliest opportunity to review the policy was this year in 2022.

·      A review took place with all services who carry out enforcement activities and this allowed for amendments to be completed taking into account any operational and legislative changes.

·      The main amendments were to make the policy more succinct, taking out references to paper copies and adding links to appropriate documentation as references.

Decision of the Leader of the Council

Agreed the proposed changes and adopt the revised Corporate Enforcement Policy 2022 as attached in Appendix A.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The item was not requested for pre-scrutiny.

The Committee received a report from Cllr Herbert.

 

 

Cllr Herbert said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Cllr Herbert is the Cambridge City Council representative of the combined authority and the deputy mayor. It is an interim role.

    ii.         Regarding franchising the cities bus service, and what the Combined Authority is trying to achieve, they will need multiple operators.

   iii.         Stagecoach will continue to reduce routes.

  iv.         It is possible to move to franchising within two years.

 

The Leader wanted noted her thanks to Cllr Herbert for his service on the Combined Authority.

 

The report was noted.

Matter for Decision

 

 

A review has been carried out by the Council into its future needs for, and optimum use of its assets for civic and administrative purposes. This is to ensure that provision is efficient, effective and beneficial to customers, staff and Members. Executive Councillors have reviewed the options and have identified their preferred mix of options for further progress and development of a business case.

 

Decisions of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

·      Noted the report and the options set out in 3.29 of the report

·      Approved the proposal to take forward more detailed investigation on two options:

      i.         To retain the Guildhall as the main office and civic space for the Council, dependent upon the potential to ensure it is fit for purpose for future use and the cost of achieving this.

    ii.         To investigate as a comparator the potential for an alternative office and civic space which meets the Council’s needs in or around a central location.

·      Requested that a further report and recommendations be brought back to Committee at a later date for a final decision on the long-term office accommodation strategy aligned with the Our Cambridge business transformation outcomes.

 

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

Members made the following points:

The majority who spoke supported the view that the Guildhall on the Market Square was a focus for the people of Cambridge, with the recent Proclamation of the King a real indication of that.  Members commented that they were stewards of the building for future generations.

If the Guildhall were to remain the main accommodation the interior should be made more functional and the conservation interest should be robustly challenged

One member opposed the premise that disposal of the Guildhall appeared off the table.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation responded:

It was difficult to quantify civic value and explain that to residents, any final decision would need to be explained well.

In response to the public question, a recent example to look at is how Camden is revitalising its Town Hall.

It will be important to have the appropriate technology for future accommodation needs.

There is interest in the better use of the Large and Small Halls and the outcome of the Allia lease of the Ground Floor and look at the use of the Roof as well.

 

The scrutiny committee approved the recommendations by 7-1

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

 

This paper provided:

·      An update on the progress made on the development of a future organisation design for the council.

·      Proposals for agreement on the new organisational design and work required to ensure delivery.

·      An indicative savings and investment profile for the next phase, recognising dependencies and collaboration with Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and accommodation papers.

·      An outline timeline and sequencing of changes required over the next two years.

 

Decisions of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

The Executive Councillor agreed to:

i)              Note the progress made, and the proposals for changes to operations, future council infrastructure and identified areas for saving and reinvestment.

ii)             Confirm support for the direction of travel.

iii)           Agree that officers move forward with the development of changes that will achieve the savings required by Q1 April 2025

iv)           Note the programme timetable (section 8).

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 Transformation Director.

 

Members made the following comments:

Is an area-based model being considered?

The new service design must ensure advocate access for disabled residents.

No progress yet on any change in governance following the review by the Centre for Governance & Scrutiny (CfGS).

 

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

It was important to have a senior management structure to deliver transformation by April 2023.

A further report will be presented to scrutiny committee on the next steps.

The Council will have to make the financial targets sets and likely to have to accelerate those, to be addressed in the Budget Setting Report.  Quarterly meetings will be set up with Group FR&T Spokes on transformation and financial implications.

There would be an all party working group on the CfGS report in time.

Thanked Nick Kemp for his work as Transformation Director.

 

The Scrutiny Committee agreed i) and iv) unanimous and ii) and iii) 6-0 with 1 abstention.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2023/24, the net savings requirements by year for the next 5 years, and the revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.

Matter for Decision

 

At this stage in the 2023/24 budget process the range of assumptions on which the Budget Setting Report (BSR) published in February 2022 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 further. This then provides the basis for updating the budget for 2023/24 and to provide indicative budgets to 2032/33. All references to the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to MTFS Version 1.0.

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

Decisions of the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

The Executive Councillor recommended to council:

 

General Fund Revenue

·      To agree the budget process and timetable as outlined in Section 8 [page 25] of the MTFS document.

·      To agree the incorporation of changed assumptions as presented in Section 3 [pages 10 and 11], which provide an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years [page 13], and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Appendix A [page 26] and reserves, Section 6 [page 18].

·      To agree the 2022/23 revenue budget proposal as set out in Section 4 [page 12], for a £1,122k increase in pay budgets to reflect the current pay offer

 

 

Capital

 

·      To note the changes to the capital plan and funding as set out in Section 5 [pages 15 to 17] and Appendix B [pages 27 to 30] of the MTFS document.

·      To agree capital spending proposals as set out below.

 

Reserves

 

·      To agree changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £6.854m and the target level at £8.225m as detailed in Section 6 [page 18].

·      To agree that the remaining balance of £213k on the Cambridge Live Development Fund is transferred to the GF reserve and the fund is closed [page 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.

 

 

Members of the Committee made the following points:

 

Despite improvements in the presentation of the financial information for the public, the Council should do more to explain the Council’s financial position to improve public awareness. 

 

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

 

·      The Council produces news releases at various stages of the budget process and explanatory films on the Council’s YouTube and social media content but is willing to discuss other ideas and options with Members.

·      Will look with the Head of Finance into Heads of Service’s providing information how they are managing their in-year budgets to share with Members of the Scrutiny Committee (in addition to the Q2 information due to be circulated in the next 2 weeks).

General Fund Revenue

 

The Committee unanimously resolved:

                        i.         To agree the budget process and timetable as outlined in Section 8 [page 25] of the MTFS document.

 

The Committee resolved 6-0 (with 2 abstentions):

                      ii.         To agree the incorporation of changed assumptions as presented in Section 3 [pages 10 and 11], which provide an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years [page 13], and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Appendix A [page 26] and reserves, Section 6 [page 18].

 

The Committee unanimously resolved:

                     iii.         To agree the 2022/23 revenue budget proposal as set out in Section 4 [page 12], for a £1,122k increase in pay budgets to reflect the current pay offer.

 

Capital

                    iv.         To note the changes to the capital plan and funding as set out in Section 5 [pages 15 to 17] and Appendix B [pages 27 to 30] of the MTFS document.

                      v.         To agree capital spending proposals as set out below.

 

Revenues

                    vi.         To agree changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £6.854m and the target level at £8.225m as detailed in Section 6 [page 18].

                   vii.         To agree that the remaining balance of £213k on the Cambridge Live Development Fund is transferred to the GF reserve and the fund is closed [page 20].

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

 

Councils are required to review their Council Tax Reduction scheme annually and determine whether to revise it or not. In October 2019 it was agreed for an annual, light touch review, to be delegated to Head of Service followed by consultation with preceptors and for a full review and comprehensive consultation in 2022 for the 2023-2026 Council Tax Reduction Schemes.

 

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation recommended to Council on 20 October 2022:

·      To continue with the current Council Tax Reduction scheme (to include annual uprating in line with housing benefit rates) for working age.

·      To reset the non-dependant deduction rates for both working-age schemes for 1 year from 1 April 2023 and to uprate by September CPI figures thereafter.

·      To continue with an earnings based banded local Council Tax Reduction scheme for Universal Credit claimants and to have fixed non dependant deductions for these claims.

·      To reset the earned income bands and contribution amounts set out in 4.03 Table 1 for 1 year from 1 April 2023 and to uprate by September CPI figures thereafter.

·      To align non-dependant deductions so the rules for application are the same for all schemes (prescribed Pensioner scheme and the two Local Schemes, one for Universal Credit households and one for non-Universal Credit households).

·      To not introduce a minimum contribution towards Council Tax for households on Local Council Tax Reduction.

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 Benefits Manager.

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any

Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council have developed proposals to work together with the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) to deliver a new community centre, library and pre-school facility in the context of a regeneration scheme across three sites owned by the two Councils.

 

Decision of Executive Councillors

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing:

i.               Noted the completion of the work on the Framework for Change document and the officer’s report.

ii.             Granted delegated authority to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to enter into development/relevant agreements and finalise and approve terms with Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) and Cambridgeshire County Council, to deliver the proposed scheme. 

The purpose of the Development Agreements will be:

iii.            To enable land owned by Cambridge City Council HRA (as shown in Appendix 2) to be transferred to CIP via a long lease for the purposes of development as set out in section 6 of the report and subject to independent valuation.

iv.           To note that upon completion of the development CIP lease would collapse (except where new houses are sold freehold) with interests to be transferred to the County Council in relation to facilities for which they will maintain overall responsibility.  

v.             That the development be brought forward by CIP to include:

a.    A new Community Centre

b.    A new library

c.    A new pre-school facility

d.    New commercial premises

e.    New publicly accessible open space

f.     New high quality sustainable housing including affordable housing

vi.           That the agreement will provide for:

a.    A programme

b.    Phasing of development

c.    Financial contributions by the parties

d.    Other matters as required to give effect to the agreement

vii.          Granted delegated authority to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Property Services and Head of Legal Services, acting on behalf of the Council as the landowner to finalise and approve the terms of any disposal, leases, easements, agreements and contracts that may be required to deliver the scheme.  This may include any planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which is required by the Council in its capacity as the local planning authority pursuant to the planning application or applications for the development of the sites, S278 highway agreements and other similar agreements required to be entered into.

viii.        Noted that consultations are in progress to clarify community needs which can be met within the facilities to be provided on the land jointly owned by the two Councils and to identify needs which cannot be met on these sites.

 

Following the meeting the Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation watched the recording of the meeting as they were not able to be present in person and made the following decisions:  

i.               Agreed to enable land owned by Cambridge City Council General Fund (as shown in Appendix 2 of the officer’s report) to be transferred to CIP via a long lease for the purposes of development as set out in section 6 of the officer’s report and subject to independent valuation, and specifically:

ii.             Approved the use of the Bowls Club site (See plan at Appendix 2 of the officer’s report) to provide a mixed-use development including but not limited to the community centre, the library and the pre-school facility.

iii.            Approved the redevelopment of the overflow car park at the Abbey Leisure Centre (ref Appendix 4 of the officer’s report) to re-provide the Bowls Green (ref Appendix 4 of the officer’s report) and the grant a new lease to the bowls club on terms to be agreed to enable the vacation of the existing bowls club.

 

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 Senior Housing Development Manager.

 

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

i.               The report only contained decisions regarding the East Barnwell site on Newmarket Road. An update on Ekin Road had been included in the report for information only as part of a wider update.

ii.             Confirmed there was a requirement to re-provide open space as part of the East Barnwell redeveloped and this included: a sports club, a bowls facility, a tennis court and a multi-use games area and grassed area.  Consideration was being given to where these facilities could be re-provided. Initial conversations had taken place about the Bowls Club being located with the Abbey Leisure Centre.

iii.            Wanted to create a framework for discussions between the City Council and the County Council to take place.

iv.           Was considering what energy standards could be achieved for the proposed housing and this would be reported back in a future report. Would be working towards BREAAM excellent for the community facility.

v.             Work on the East Barnwell redevelopment had been going on for 15 years.  Residents of Abbey ward had wanted the redevelopment of the site for a long period of time. There was no plan to remove the community centre, it was just going to be re-positioned. Acknowledged that there was still work to be undertaken.  Noted a similar report was being taken by the County Council to their relevant Committee on 30 September 2022.

 

Diane Best, Leaseholder Representative encouraged Ekin Road residents to contact the Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives to discuss their concerns.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed and Councillor Lee seconded a request to defer the decisions contained in the Officer’s report pending more information being provided about accessible open space. The proposal was lost by 2 votes in favour to 6 against with one abstention.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 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 housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

ii.             Noted the further review of budget and housing mix required to be undertaken at St Thomas Road, with a further update to be brought to the Committee as design work progresses.

iii.            Approved changes to the Budgets for St Thomas Road as outlined in part 6.6 of the officer ‘s report with the revised budgets to be incorporated as part of the HRA MTFS in September 2022 for the delivery of 4 net new homes.

iv.           Noted the revised housing delivery and amended rental regime at Paget Street, revised to the development of 4x 3-bedroom homes within the approved budget.

v.             Approved changes to the Budgets for Fanshawe Road as outlined in part 6.7 of the officer’s report with the revised budgets to be incorporated as part of the HRA MTFS in September 2022 for the delivery of 4 net homes.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

i.               Confirmed that it had been hoped that external grant funding through the European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) programme could have been used to top up the funding for the Paget Road development to build the development to a net zero standard however the funding was not available. An estimate of the cost to build to net zero standard had been built into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

 

The Executive Councillor proposed that recommendation 2.6 on page 201 of the agenda be deferred. They requested a meeting with officers to discuss the matter of publishing information on the city council website rather than in committee reports.

 

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 report sets out the proposed policy for how the Council will carry out its statutory responsibilities for ensuring minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector including enforcement of the regulations and fee setting in relation to financial penalties.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the adoption of the proposed Cambridge City Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards Enforcement & Fee Policy as attached in Appendix B 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 Team Manager (Residential).

 

The Team Manager (Residential) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               The Council was carrying out a proactive communication approach with landlords when they elected to receive communication from the Council. If the Policy was adopted, then the council would investigate who the ‘responsible person’ was for the management of a property and pursue enforcement action against them if necessary.

ii.             Noted that a Landlords Forum was taking place the following week which would look at housing health, the cost-of-living crisis, the rules contained in the new Policy and how landlords could support their tenants.

iii.            Confirmed that when Officers had been making proactive contact with landlords, they had been stressing the need to strive to meet energy efficiency standard ‘C’ for their properties which the minimum energy standard rating may be increased to in future by the Government in respect of private rented sector housing. 

iv.           There was an enforcement process set out in the Policy which officers would follow. If a landlord failed to ensure that their property met energy efficiency standards, they could be issued with a financial penalty. If a landlord still failed to bring their property up to standard, then officers could consider other powers to require improvements / stop them renting out properties. These powers were contained within the Housing Act 2004. 

 

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 2023/24.

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) provides 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 national and local 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

i.               Approved the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Strategy attached to the officer’s report, and included all proposals for changes in:

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

b.    2022/23 and future year revenue budgets, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of changes in these and the need to respond to unavoidable pressures and meet new service demands, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix D and summarised in Appendices G (1) and G (2) of the document.

ii.             Approved that delegated authority be given to the Strategic Director to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner status with Homes England.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing recommends to Council to:

iii.            Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in the officer’s report at 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 20 October 2022.

iv.           Approve proposals for new housing capital budgets, as introduced in the officer’s report at 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 20 October 2022.

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

 

 

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

i.               With reference to Section 6 of the MTFS, it was noted that the contract for external planned works to housing stock was with Fosters Property Maintenance and the Council was looking to extend this contract. The outcome of the recent procurement regarding the internal planned investment works would be announced soon. It was also noted that the companies currently running both contracts did sub-contract some of the works.

ii.             Noted the challenge regarding financing the retrofit of existing council housing stock. Looked to Government funding to bring forward more opportunity for retrofit financing.

iii.            Noted comments on section 8 of the MTFS which referred to how amendments to the budget would be member led rather than officer led going forward.

iv.           There was a risk that interest rates could increase further, the MTFS assumed an interest rate of just under 3.5%. If the interest rate increased, then there could be an impact on the new build housing programme and the council would need to consider what type of housing it could deliver. Noted that a lot of the services provided by the Housing Department are in response to statutory responsibilities.

v.             The Council had considered whether it could deliver its own cheaper electricity however it was noted that other Local Authorities which had explored this option had not been successful. This issue would require significant investment and consideration would need to be given as to why other Local Authorities had failed.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations i and ii.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations iii to v.

 

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

In response to the war in Ukraine the Government launched its Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme in March 2022. UK households were invited to host Ukranian refugees for a minimum six-month period or preferably longer. As at 1 September there were 383 guests spread across 203 households in Cambridge City.

 

These arrangements were not permanent and Ukranian households had initially been offered 3-year visas. The Council is devising a homelessness prevention plan and the potential allocation of a small number of properties formed part of this plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the allocation of up to 20 Council properties to Ukrainian refugees to support the Council’s homelessness prevention plans and avert the need for temporary accommodation.

ii.             Allowed these allocations to be made outside of the Council’s Lettings Policy.

iii.            Delegated authority to the Head of Housing, in consultation with the Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokespersons, to extend this scheme beyond 20 units, in the event that there is excessive pressure on temporary accommodation.

 

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.

 

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

i.               If the decision was approved at Committee, then further discussions would take place between the Council and Housing Associations.

ii.             The City Council had Ukrainian speakers within the workforce and external translators were also used to assist Ukrainian refugees.  Officers also hoped to introduce English language support for Ukrainian refugees in the future.

 

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 detailed the background to the Tenancy Audit Visits pilot, which commenced in April 2022, and sought approval to permanently adopt this function within City Homes.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Noted the report and the findings of the Tenancy Audit visits pilot to date.

ii.             Approved the adoption of a permanent tenancy audit function by City Homes.

iii.            Agreed to incorporate a budget bid into the 2023/24 HRA budget process for the addition of a permanent, full time equivalent, housing officer to support this work, considered alongside other spending priorities.

 

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 Housing Services Manager (City Homes).

 

The Housing Services Manager (City Homes) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               Confirmed that if the additional resource detailed in recommendation iii was not agreed then the tenancy audit work could not continue.

ii.             Noted that Housing Officers had worked closely with other council departments as part of the Tenancy Audit and that issues that were identified as part of the tenancy audit could also impact resources in other council departments.

iii.            Would provide additional information outside of the meeting detailing:

a.    if any language support had been given,

b.    what the living conditions were of those tenants audited,

c.    the status of repair work identified as part of the tenancy audit.

 

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 compliance related activities delivered within the Estates and Facilities Team, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing and fire safety work.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.       Noted 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 Property Compliance and Risk Manager.

 

The Property Compliance and Risk Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               Confirmed that officers would be in touch with Leaseholders about the Fire Safety Risk Assessment Programme and officers would work with residents if they had a non-compliant fire door.

ii.             Officers were looking at properties which had had adaptions done and had been adding personal risk assessments. 

 

The Executive Councillor proposed that the recommendation in the report be amended to simply note the report. They requested a meeting with officers to discuss the matter of publishing data on the City Council website rather than in committee reports. This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

This report reviewed the future provision of the weekly paid, ‘with rent’ Tenants Contents Insurance Scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved that the Council ceased to directly offer Tenants Contents Insurance with immediate effect and terminates the existing contract on 31st March 2023, notifying all existing customers of this in the intervening period.

ii.             Approved a delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokespersons, to determine whether an ‘arm’s length’ scheme could be offered to council tenants as an alternative, implementing this if due diligence confirmed it was viable.

 

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 said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.               Noted that some tenants would need extra support if this service was no longer provided by the City Council however Officer’s also needed to be careful not to give any advice to ensure that they did not fall foul of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulations. 

ii.             Noted Member’s concerns about residents potentially being digitally excluded.

iii.            Officers would communicate with the Vice-Chair and Spokespersons as part of the proposed delegated investigation process into whether the Council could recommend certain insurers on an arm’s length basis, to tenants who currently had contents insurance through the council. 

iv.           Confirmed that if it was deemed viable to proceed with the ‘arm’s length’ process referred to in recommendation ii, then a procurement process would need to be undertaken.

 

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.

 

Record of Officer Delegated Decision

Consideration of an Arms length Tenants Contents Insurance Scheme

 

Decision taken: That an arm’s length Tenants Contents Insurance scheme should not be offered.

 

Decision of: Jane Wilson, Strategic Director

 

Minute Reference: 22/40/HSC.

 

Date of decision: 7/10/2022

 

Matter for Decision: A report recommending the cessation of the provision of Tenants Contents Insurance Scheme was approved at Housing Scrutiny Committee in September 2022.

 

The Executive Councillor delegated a decision to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokespersons of Housing Scrutiny Committee and the Opposition Spokespersons.

 

The Decision was to determine whether an ‘arm’s length’ Tenants Contents Insurance scheme could be offered to council tenants as an alternative, implementing this if due diligence confirmed it was viable.

Jane Wilson, Strategic Director made a delegated decision in October 2022, following consideration of report by the Assistant Head of finance and Business Manager.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: None

 

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: It is recommended that the authority did not further explore an arm’s length contents insurance offering, but instead provide the required support to resident’s for the following reasons:

·      The service is discretionary and not our core business

·      There will still be a cost burden to the HRA in procuring an arm’s length offering

·      There is limited interest in the current product and numbers continue to decline. This will only be exacerbated when prices rise significantly

·      A pool of three suppliers did not provide sufficient choice to demonstrate value for money. In the wider insurance marketplace, tenants can opt for an infinite number of insurance options, cover levels, excess levels and specific inclusions and exclusions.

·      Staff would still effectively be ‘recommending’ an insurance product without the appropriate training.

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: None.

 

Comments: Chair, Vice Chair, Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokespersons consulted before decision was taken.

Opposition Spokes advised that they supported the decision provided that the tenants who no longer accessed the Council’s scheme were supported (in a technical sense) when needing to search online for alternative products.

 

Contact for further information: Julia Hovells, Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager

 

Matter for Decision

 

The Council has adopted The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management (Revised 2021). This half-year report has been prepared in accordance with the Code and covers the following:

·      An economic update for the first half of the 2022/23 financial year;

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

·      The Council’s capital expenditure, as set out in the Capital Strategy, and prudential indicators;

·      A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2022/23;

·      A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2022/23; and,

·      A review of compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits for 2022/23.

·      Cash and investment balances are forecast to stay at the increased level seen over the past year at around £173 million by 31st March 2023.

·      Interest receipts for the year are projected at £1,159,000 which is £358,000 above the original budget. Interest receipts are forecast higher than last year due mainly to increases in investment rates.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

The Executive Councillor recommended to Council:

 

·      The Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2022/23 to 2025/26 (Appendix A).

·      That the revised counterparty list be approved (Appendix B).

·      To approve the addition of a loan to the Cambridge Investment Partnership in the counterparty list, to bring these into line with the approved expenditure per the approved capital plan (Appendix B).

 

 

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.

Members asked the following:

Was it appropriate to completely base the revised Counterparty list on a judgement of Link Asset Services (the Council’s advisors)

Will the Council receive 100% of the Thurrock Council loan?

 

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

 

Yes, we have always based our counterparty list on Links’ advice. Their colour coding is based on their review of a number of financial indicators and updated daily, therefore is more reliable and up-to-date than we could do ourselves.

We would not want to invest too much with one counterparty, so will work within the limits advised by Link, which bring together all types of investment held with each counterparty.

Yes, we are confident that we will receive back the funds loaned to Thurrock Council in full.

Councils are considered very low risk, as councils who are in difficulty are supported by government to recover. No council has failed to repay loans when due. Therefore, there is no need for further due diligence when lending to another local authority.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to approve:

                        i.         The Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2022/23 to 2025/26 (Appendix A).

 

The Committee resolved (6-0 with 2 abstentions) to approve:

                      ii.         That the revised counterparty list be approved (Appendix B)

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to approve:

                     iii.         To approve the addition of a loan to the Cambridge Investment Partnership in the counterparty list, to bring these into line with the approved expenditure per the approved capital plan (Appendix B).

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Record of Officer Delegated Decision

To implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local Authorities Pay Award for 2022-23.

Decision taken: 2 November 2022

Decision of: Chief Executive

Reference: 22/Officerdecision/Civ1

Matter for Decision: Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

Any alternative options considered and rejected: The pay award for the chief officer level posts (Directors and Heads of Service on HOS grade) is determined by national level collective bargaining between the national employers and trade unions. Once agreed at a national level the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with the terms of staff contracts of employment.

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: To implement the nationally agreed pay award for chief officers following receipt of notification by circular from the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local Authorities dated 1 November 2022. The award is for a flat rate of £1925 on each pay point and is backdated to 1 April 2022.

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive:The Chief Executive is exercising this decision as the Head of Human Resources has a personal interest in this pay award.

Comments:

This decision is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows:

To implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates of salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and other employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the exercise of a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is taken in pursuance of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human Resources and a record of that advice be made available to the public.

Contact for further information: Robert Pollock, Chief Executive

Officer delegated decision to implement the nationally agreed pay award for staff on Bands 1-11 following receipt of notification by circular from the National Joint Council for local government services (NJC)

Record of Officer Delegated Decision

To implement the National Joint Council for local government services (NJC) Pay Award for 2022-23 for employees on Bands 1-11 and on Cambridge Live terms and conditions.

Decision taken: 2 November 2022

Decision of: Head of Human Resources

Reference: 22/Officerdecision/Civ2

Matter for Decision: Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

Any alternative options considered and rejected: The pay award for staff on pay Bands 1-11 is determined by national level collective bargaining between the national employers and trade unions. Once agreed at a national level the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with the terms of staff contracts of employment.

Council in February 2020 agreed to introduce a pay award mechanism with effect from 1 April 2020 for staff on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment.

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: To implement the nationally agreed pay award for staff on Bands 1-11 following receipt of notification by circular from the National Joint Council for local government services (NJC) dated 1 November 2022. The award is for a flat rate of £1925 on each pay point and is backdated to 1 April 2022.

The award also includes the addition of 1 day of annual leave, effective from 1 April 2023.  This will increase the annual leave entitlement from 24 to 25 days and after 5 years of service, from 29 to 30 days.

Council in February 2020 agreed to introduce a pay award mechanism with effect from 1 April 2020 for staff on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment, based on comparison to the NJC pay award. Authority is delegated to the Head of Human Resources to implement any future pay awards, following consultation with the Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources. 

The pay award will also apply to five staff who remain on Cambridge Live terms and conditions.  The flat rate of £1925 will be applied to the relevant pay points. These posts are expected to move on to Cambridge City Council terms and conditions by 1 April 2023 when the additional leave will apply.

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: None.

Comments: This decision is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows:

To implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates of salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and other employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the exercise of a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is taken in pursuance of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human Resources and a record of that advice be made available to the public.

Council in February 2020 agreed to introduce a pay award mechanism with effect from 1 April 2020 for staff on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment, based on comparison to the NJC pay award. Authority is delegated to the Head of Human Resources to implement any future pay awards, following consultation with the Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources. 

Contact for further information: Deborah Simpson, Head of Human Resources

Matter for Decision

Cambridge BID’s (Business Improvement District) second consecutive five-year term concludes on 31^st March 2023.    Cambridge BID is seeking a third five-year term, to run from 1^st April 2023 to 31^st March 2028, which will be determined by a legally required ballot of non-domestic rate payers within the BID area, to take place between 14^th October and 10^th November 2022.

Decision of the Leader of the Council (as the Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety was attending virtually)

To exercise the Council’s voting entitlement in the forthcoming Cambridge BID third term ballot.

To support Cambridge BID’s third term ballot.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Head of Environmental Services introduced the report and Ian Sandison, CEO of the BID attended the meeting to answer questions.

 

Councillor Payne proposed that the decision be deferred until the next meeting (and after the business plan launch) which was still before the ballot commenced.  The Committee rejected the amendment by 5 against 3 in favour and 1 abstention with the Chair casting their vote against the amendment.  The Committee endorsed the recommendation by 5 votes to 3.

 

Cllr Gilderdale would meet with Cllr Payne and the Head of Service for an update on this item if it was considered appropriate taking account of Members’ comments during the debate.  Cllr Gilderdale also requested a report on the Purple Flag scheme in due course.

 

The Leader of the Council approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report sought agreement to key responses to one current and one imminent Local Plan consultations in districts neighbouring or near to Greater Cambridge

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure.

      i.          Agreed the proposed response to the West Suffolk Local Plan Preferred Options (Regulation 18) consultation as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, and the proposed response to the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission (Regulation 19) as set out in Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Agreed that any material changes to the responses to the West Suffolk Local Plan Preferred Options (Regulation 18) and the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2040 Plan for Submission (Regulation 19) arising from consideration by South Cambridgeshire District Council, will be agreed via an out of cycle decision by the Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee, and in liaison with the South Cambridgeshire Lead Cabinet Member for Planning.

   iii.          Agreed to grant delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the South Cambridgeshire Lead Cabinet member for Planning and the Cambridge City Council Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure, to make any minor editing changes to the responses to the West Suffolk Local Plan Preferred Options (Regulation 19).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Chair advised that as the item had not been requested for scrutiny and debate the Committee would go straight to the vote.

 

The Committee

 

Unanimously endorsed the Officer’s recommendations. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure 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 referred to a proposed joint Greater Cambridge response with South Cambridgeshire District Council to the current Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP): draft plan consultation

 

The draft LTCP set out the vision, goals and objectives which would define the strategic approach up to 2050, and the policy themes and transport schemes to deliver those objectives.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure.

i.                Agreed the proposed response to the draft Local Transport & Connectivity Plan consultation as set out in appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

ii.               Would consider and agree any material changes to the response to the draft Local Transport & Connectivity Plan consultation proposed by South Cambridgeshire District Council, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee, and in liaison with the South Cambridgeshire Lead Cabinet Member for Planning.

iii.             Agreed to grant delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the South Cambridgeshire Lead Cabinet member for Planning and the Cambridge City Council Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure, to make any minor editing changes to the response to the draft Local Transport & Connectivity Plan 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 Principal Planning Officer.

 

The Chair advised that as the item had not been requested for scrutiny and debate the Committee would go straight to the vote.

 

The Committee

 

Unanimously endorsed the Officer’s recommendations. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure 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 results of the consultation on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals (Preferred Options) held in late 2021 and the representations received, and sought agreement to a revised timetable for future stages of the Local Plan, and of the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, as set out in an update to the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure.

      i.          Noted the representations made to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals (Preferred Options) consultation and the report on the consultation at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Agreed to adopt the updated Local Development Scheme for Greater Cambridge included at Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report, to take effect from Monday 1st August 2022.

   iii.          Agreed to grant delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the South Cambridgeshire District Council Lead Cabinet member for Planning and the Cambridge City Council Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure (in consultation with chair and spokes), to make any minor editing changes and corrections identified to the updated Local Development Scheme for Greater Cambridge included at Appendix 1 of the report prior to publication.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The report had been split into two parts with the Planning Policy Manager presenting the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals and the Strategy and Economy Manager leading on the Local Development Scheme. 

 

In response to comments made by the Committee on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals, the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development and Planning Policy Manager said the following:

 

                i.          In the consultation there was a clear theme on ‘great places’ which looked to expand ideas on design policy.

               ii.          Noted the Committee’s comments on specific feedback and views in the document. All feedback would be looked at which would help outline the design policy and make it work for places.

             iii.          There had been a lot of work undertaken on the future need for homes and the increase in population as the emerging plan had been developed.

             iv.          Officers were aware that new information on population growth was constantly emerging; the latest results from the Office of National Statistics had just been published.

              v.          The most up to date information would be considered regarding housing needs and jobs growth as examples; further work on this had been recently commissioned.

             vi.          Acknowledged there would be a huge amount of content for members to reflect upon. This Committee did not meet frequently enough to consider reviewing the responses to the document on a topic-by-topic basis.

           vii.          A programme of engagement was being considered for the Joint Local Planning Advisory Group; this meant the document could be broken down into smaller themes for consideration. This would also give access to deeper analysis of all the published comments received.

         viii.          All details of the consultation and each proposal could be found on the Greater Cambridge planning services website. Full detailed comments could also be viewed including any documents submitted. The website also provided details of new sites with a link to the details and an interactive map. The relevant plan could be found at the following link: Greater Cambridge Local Plan

             ix.          Noted that Members welcomed the comments made by the public to discourage car travel on new sites. The issue of energy, water efficiency and where children played was a high priority and was noted. 

              x.          With regard to individuals who disagreed with the need of building  additional new homes each year, all feedback would assist officers when exploring the evidence and would be viewed as part of the overall package. Both negative and positive comments were taken into consideration.

             xi.          The age profile information submitted was a voluntary part of the submission forms and therefore members should be aware that this data was not a complete picture of all respondents.

           xii.          Noted the comments that it was important to capture the views of younger people; the plan was for future generations.

         xiii.          Welcomed suggestions on where to leave hard copies of future consultations / documents in the local community.

         xiv.          Was keen to explore ways to improve digital means and engagement for all, including non-digital and digital users.

          xv.          Acknowledged the request to show a geographical breakdown of responses and which groups had commented such as residents, businesses, and developers, that that this would be explored as issues were summarised and explored further. 

 

Councillor Smith reminded the Committee there would be an opportunity to update the emerging local plan when it came to the draft plan stage and any new evidence would be considered.

 

In response to comments made by the Committee on the revised timetable of the future stages of the emerging Local Plan and North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development and Strategy and Economy Manager said the following:

 

      i.          Updates to the Local Plan need to follow the local plan process. To give weight to the development plan there are no shortcuts and could not be updated rapidly. The procedure officers are currently undertaking had to be followed.

     ii.          When making planning decisions, the NPPF would trump a five-year-old plus Local Plan unless it could be evidenced that it was up to date. Wanted to safeguard that local policy making was retained rather than national policy, so the proposed policy review of the adopted Local Plan in 2023 would be an important process.

   iii.          Policy standards in the current plans could not be changed before the local plan process is complete but could make sure the development strategy, housing trajectory, the protection of space and greenbelt etc had priority in planning making decisions.

   iv.          Officers would be keeping up to date with any changes to the NPPF and statutory changes to the planning regime which might assist Members with their planning decisions.

    v.          As the emerging Local Plan progressed though the latter stages some consideration could be given to emerging polices as they potentially gain weight as a plan reaches later stages of the review process.

   vi.          Recognised the economy in Cambridge was vibrant; changes in consumer behaviour and the housing market were also an element that Officers had to take into consideration.   

 vii.          Officers were continually working with various utilities providers, statutory agencies including the Environment Agency and Cambridge Water to look at a range of issues such as water consumption, climate change, carbon net zero.  Planning was however only one part of the regulatory framework used to advance changes necessary in infrastructure.

viii.          Welcomed cross party working and agreement through the process. 

 

 

The Committee

 

Unanimously endorsed the Officers recommendations. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure 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 referred to the introduction of the requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) above baseline conditions for all developments in England from November 2023 as outlined in the Environment Act.

 

The Executive Councillor was asked to approve an interim approach for Greater Cambridge to proposed offsite BNG to ensure that applicants and decision makers are clear on what is expected by the Council when considering offsite BNG proposals, prior to November 2023. This includes a sequential approach starting with BNG provision on site wherever possible, before considering offsite strategic habitat banks and then more local solutions to fulfil this need encompassing the principles already set out in the Environment Act around BNG, and emerging best practice.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure

i.                Endorsed the interim approach to siting biodiversity net gain for developments across Cambridge, and noted and welcomed the emerging habitat banks in Greater Cambridge, with delegated powers given to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make minor changes to the technical note at 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 Natural Environment Team Leader introduced the report.

 

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Natural Environment Team Leader and Built and Natural Environment Manager said the following:

      i.          Further regulations / are awaited from DEFRA; officers did not have a complete set of guidance yet but are taking soundings and advice from peers in Natural England, the Planning Advisory Service, and other Local Authorities.

     ii.          Nature reserve sites in private ownership that were in poor condition which may be suitable for BNG contributions for enhancement, but equally could be eligible for other revenue streams. Officers would look carefully at any proposals for these sites.

   iii.          The achievement of BNG was a component of sustainable development as confirmed by central government through the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, members of the planning committee could consider the delivery of the objectives of the interim approach. However, 10 % or the aspiration for 20% BNG was not yet part of the emerging Local Plan policy framework and Committees could not at this point insist upon these figures in making planning decisions.

   iv.          It was the intention to encourage on-site BNG as a priority. Training and briefings would be provided to officers and planning committee members to outline the aim and intended outcome of this interim approach.

    v.          It would be made clear to developers the Council’s commitment to BNG within the planning application process and what could and should be achieved.

   vi.          When the Environment Act obligations became mandatory this would give weight to planning applications being approved or refused on the basis that 10% BNG would or would not be delivered amongst other material planning considerations. 

 vii.          The current legislation states BNG has to be delivered but there is no actual figure; in simple terms developers have to put back more than they take out.

viii.          The changes to the Environment Act introduced the requirement for 10% BNG above baseline conditions for all developments in England from November 2023 which would be a considerable increase.

   ix.          All developments in Greater Cambridge should aim to deliver high quality green infrastructure as best practice.

    x.          The expectation was that after thirty years of good management of BNG on sites, the site should be in such good condition they would be seen as valued biodiversity locations and would not be appropriate for any kind of built development.

   xi.          Larger strategic habitat banks delivered greater benefit to BNG securing significant improvements at a landscape scale. In addition, these sites could be managed more effectively for BNG and could be monitored by the local authority over a 30-year period more easily than a vast number of smaller sites.

 xii.          The emerging local plan identified large sites in Greater Cambridge for habitat and landscape enhancement.

xiii.          Carbon sequestration was an important part of vegetative growth but was not the primary benefit of BNG, that was biodiversity.

xiv.          BNG would be fully funded by the developers.

xv.          Community led solutions to BNG provide smaller opportunities due to the size of land available in the city compared to the land available owned by various parishes in Greater Cambridge.

xvi.          There are several ways officers could verify BNG being delivered during the local authority’s management such as aerial photography and Google maps. There would be standard approach nationally to measure the uplift, using the Defra metrics.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure referenced six council houses that had been built on Wadloes Road. This had produced BNG of 35% overall through an offsite community project and onsite biodiversity. Small projects could be beneficial to biodiversity and community. 

 

The Committee

 

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

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure approved the recommendations and thanked the officers for all their hard work on this matter which would benefit the city of Cambridge and Greater Cambridgeshire significantly.

 

This item was chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

Cambridge City Council’s Community Alarms service has been in operation in the City for over 20 years and currently serves around 440 customers. It has built a solid reputation and provided a valuable service over this time. However, for the last 5 years the service has been experiencing a decline in customer numbers and has, therefore, not achieved its income targets, resulting in the service no longer recovering its full cost inclusive of all overheads.

 

A review of the options for the service has been conducted and the report recommends the termination of the service by the City Council and the transfer of customers to the equivalent service by Cambridgeshire County Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Agreed the termination of the Community Alarm Service.

 

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 Housing Service Manager (Supported Housing).

 

The Housing Services Manager (Supported Housing) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.      Advised that the officer whose job was affected by the proposals had been involved with the drafting of the report and developing the recommendation.

ii.    Noted in relation to concerns expressed regarding paragraph 1.3 of the officer’s report that discussions which had taken place with the County Council in 2019 were before the County Council had set up their own independent service.

iii.   Agreed to share information regarding pricing with members and would report back on discussions with the County Council.

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.

 

Regular update on the delivery of new council homes under the 500 programme, together with an update on the work being undertaken to deliver an additional 1,000 Council homes, building on the success of the current programme. This report will also update the Committee on ongoing consultation work and resident engagement.

This item was chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

ii.               Noted forthcoming work on consultation with residents.

iii.             Agreed the adoption of a blended rent policy (to include more social rent but some higher rents at 80% of median market rents inclusive of Service Charge) across the new 1,000 homes programme, as required, when delivering homes with grant above the minimum planning requirement of 40% of units on any site.

iv.             Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to update the HRA Rent Setting Policy in accordance with recommendation iii above.

v.              Approved the start on site of currently approved schemes that have planning permission at risk in relation to grant, to mitigate the risk of build cost increase.

vi.             Approved the rent level changes to the specific schemes outlined in this report, including the addition of 45 homes at L2, with 30 homes to be let at Social Rent and 45 homes to be let at 80% of market rent.

vii.           Approved a budget of £11,520,000.00 for the purchase as a package deal of the private sale units at L2 Orchard Park into the Council's HRA stock, to be let at 80% of median market rent.

viii.         Approved changes to the Budgets for Fen Road, Ditton Walk and Borrowdale as outlined in part 8.5.3, with the revised budgets to be incorporated as part of the HRA MTFS in September 2022.

ix.             Authorised the Section 151 Officer to enter into a Grant Agreement with Homes England for the 21-26 Homes England Affordable Homes Programme for Continuous Market Engagement.

x.              Approved the principle that units to be let at 80% of market rent be targeted at key workers OR the intermediate rental market, (ie those who are assessed as being on incomes sufficient to be able to afford 80% of market rent), and governed by local lettings plans.

xi.             Approved that as part of our Housing Strategy development work the Head of Housing has delegated authority to agree (subject to consultation with the Executive Councillor) a definition of key worker.

xii.           Agreed that the Council works with South Cambridgeshire DC to try and jointly agree the definition of key worker.

 

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 the Housing Development Agency. An updated table to that detailed in paragraph 8.2.4 of the report had been circulated to members at the meeting, a copy was also published on the meeting webpage after the meeting.

 

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

      i.          Welcomed a ‘key worker’ definition in relation to housing policies.

     ii.          Expressed disappointment with a loose commitment regarding passivhaus development.

 

The Executive Councillor welcomed homes for key workers.

 

The Head of Housing said that City Council Officers would work with colleagues from South Cambridgeshire District Council to try and agree a definition of ‘key worker’.

 

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.

 

This item was chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

The report sought budget and approval to proceed with the redevelopment of Fanshawe Road flats, adjacent houses, and garages to provide 93 new highly sustainable, affordable homes on the site, with enhanced open space, as well as improvements to the community pavilion on neighbouring Coleridge recreation ground.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved that the scheme be brought forward and included in the Housing Capital Programme, with an indicative capital budget of £27,937,291.53 to cover all site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees, to deliver a 100% affordable housing scheme which meets the identified need in Cambridge City. Budget would be drawn down from the sum already ear-marked and approved for investment in new homes.

     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, sizes and tenure as outlined in the officer’s report.

   iii.          Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to adopt option b; to deliver a minimum of 44 (approx. 47%) affordable homes for Council rent and the balance as market homes for private sale, should grant not be available once the scheme is at a deliverable point, subject to continued financial viability.

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

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

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

 vii.          Delegated Authority to the Head of Housing to amend the local lettings plan for Cromwell Road to allow for the proposed decant from Fanshawe Road to be accommodated.

 

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 Senior Development Manager.

 

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

i.      If the redevelopment went ahead residents would be offered alternative housing at the Cromwell Road development but acknowledged that this may not be appropriate for everyone and that there was also alternative housing stock elsewhere in the ward which could be explored. Pre-application advice had been sought from the Planning Department some homes would be 2 storeys others estimate 3-4 storeys in the middle of the development.

ii.    All properties would need to be compliant with M42 standards and 5% of the properties (approximately 4-5 properties) would need to be fully adapted for wheelchair users. The ability to deliver passivhaus properties had been explored however the orientation of properties was crucial as they would need to be south facing and the early indication of the development layout was that the properties would be east/west facing. The scheme would include Passivhaus principles. Acknowledged that there would be a trade-off between competing interests. The important factor is the output achieved in terms of carbon emissions, fuel bills for residents and low maintenance costs and not just the passivhaus badge. The Council is involved with including passivhaus pilots with learning to be fed back.

iii.   The amount of bike storage proposed would accommodate the number of bedrooms/occupants who would be on the site. 

iv.  Officers regularly checked the housing register to see how many people needed a fully accessible home.

v.    Advised that the council sought to build mixed and balanced communities when sites were redeveloped.  The inclusion of market homes within a development meant that more affordable housing could be built. The council had to be careful when selling properties not to act or apply a policy which was discriminatory.

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

This item was chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

Housing First is an approach to helping rough sleepers to leave the streets which differs from other, longer-established approaches in a number of respects.

 

Cambridge City Council, in partnership with the County Council, agreed to set up and jointly fund a Housing First pilot in the city. The pilot would be assessed in two stages: an interim report carried out at a mid-point in the scheme and a later independent report once the scheme had been running for a sufficient length of time to allow a full appraisal. This is the mid-point report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Noted the report and the interim findings and noted the recommendations for further examination, the most important of which were set out paragraph 3.4 of the officer 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 Housing Services Manager (Housing Advice).

 

The Housing Services Manager (Housing Advice) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.      Any decision to bring the Housing First Service in-house would need to consider several variables including consultation with the County Council (as a partner in the project with the City Council) and Housing First employees. Commented that if the service was brought in house this could facilitate better integration with other services for rough sleepers.

ii.    The comments made by support workers within the report would be a consideration in the future review of the service. Noted that there needed to be better integration of the Housing First service within the broad spectrum of housing services for rough sleepers. There needed to be a balance between the needs of individuals and other people who may be vulnerable (neighbours / tenants etc).

iii.   Stated that the County Council would always be involved as a partner with the Housing First project, the question which was raised in the report was whether Housing First would sit better within the City Council in terms of this being the best fit for Cambridge.

iv.  Noted concerns raised about Housing First 2 and the good neighbour role but felt there was still not enough information about this at the moment to draw conclusions as there were currently only two.

v.    Confirmed that there would be a review of the modular homes project but there was insufficient information at the moment to do a like for like comparison to Housing First.

vi.  Six modular home units at Newmarket Road were funded completely independently of the council.  Officers were currently in discussions about funding for further units. Housing First was a good fit for some people but was not appropriate for everyone. Needed to get more Housing Association involvement in the project.

vii.There were a number of considerations / eligibility criteria taken into account as to whether Housing First was appropriate for a particular individual. Housing First may be appropriate where other housing options had failed.

viii. Acknowledged that the case studies in the report were from males but female clients did not come forward to take part.

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.

 

Recommendation i was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair) and recommendation ii was chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey.

 

Matter for Decision

The report presented for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA)

-        A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2021/22 (outturn position).

-        Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations

-        Specific requests to carry forward funding available from both revenue and capital budget underspends into 2022/23

-        A summary of housing debt which was written off during 2021/22.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved carry forward requests totalling £12,561,760 in revenue funding from 2021/22 into 2022/23 as detailed in appendix C of the officer’s report.

     ii.          Recommends to Council to approve carry forward requests of £22,055,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets and associated resources from 2021/22 into 2022/23 and beyond to fund re-phased net capital spending, as detailed in appendix D of the officer’s report and the associated notes to the appendix.

 

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

i.      Carry forward requests detailed in appendix C of the officer report, had been submitted to ensure there was financial resource to enable required cyclical maintenance works to be carried out.

ii.    Officers were exploring a number of different ways to improve access to council properties so that essential maintenance works and checks could be carried out. This included offering later appointment times. Also confirmed that the Responsive Repair Team would always make appointments with tenants and confirm an appointment by letter; officers would not attend a property without prior notice / appointment. Tenants would be contacted three times before the property would be classified as a ‘no access’. Also noted (as per agenda item 22/27/HSC) that officers were exploring aligning gas / electrical safety checks to try and ensure all necessary safety checks could be done in one visit.

iii.   Noted that tenants were within their rights to refuse to have works done to their property provided that there was no detriment to the property or health and safety risk.

iv.  Contractors were also being asked to explain whether a ‘no access’ was due to a tenant refusing works or if it was due to no response from the tenant. 

v.    Noted comments about better and realistic communication with tenants if there were delays in carrying out maintenance works. Would speak with Tenant Representatives outside of the meeting about their ideas for better communication what more could be done.

vi.  Confirmed that the profiling of spend would be revisited as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) in September, so the position would be reviewed at that point to see what progress had been made and if there was any residual impact of the challenges over the last two years that needed to be adjusted for.   

vii.Confirmed that the average time period to turn over a void property was 6 weeks. Noted that there were a significant number of void properties which were being returned back to the Council in poor condition which increased the period of time it took to bring them back into use. There were a variety of reasons why a property was being returned in a poor condition this included long standing tenants who had declined planned maintenance works and also a few tenants who had caused damage to properties. Different teams within the Housing Department were working together to share information on property condition when visits were made to properties.

viii. Confirmed that the fire door contract was terminated due to poor performance by the contractor. The Council had since reprocured the contact and a new contractor was now in place.

ix.    The term ‘debt reinstated’ meant that a debt which had previously been written off could be reinstated if a person re-presented themselves to the city council for housing. Some debts were ‘statute barred’, which meant the council were unable to pursue the debt after a 6 year period with no interaction had passed.  Some debts were written off due to ‘special circumstances’ this could include mental health concerns or if someone had been subject to domestic violence.

x.      Noted that the Decent Homes Budget was being carried into 2023/24 but would still be subject to labour and materials availability.

The Committee resolved by 12 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation i.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation ii.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations i and ii.

 

This item was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Noted the current position of the Council regarding Compliance and the progress of ongoing associated works.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Property Compliance and Risk Manager.

 

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

      i.          Cadent are the supplier for the gas assets (meters) at Kingsway, Princess and Hanover Courts. Inspections had been carried out where meters had not yet been removed.

     ii.          Electrical testing should be carried out every 5 years. Thought there would be an 18-month time lag to be up to date with testing due to the pandemic and delays experienced in gaining access to properties to be able to carry out testing / inspections. There were a number of work streams which would feed into this report for example kitchen upgrades and wholescale electrical improvements. Confirmed that officers were still seeking to ensure that gas and electrical testing was done at the same time as gas checks were currently at 100% compliance, whereas electrical testing had a slightly lower compliance rate. Also confirmed that the letter process for electrical checks would be changed to be more in line with gas letters.

   iii.          The compliance rate for the electrical testing 10-year programme stood at over 85% as access to undertake checks had been difficult as a result of the pandemic.

 

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.

 

1. Note the findings emerging from Community Services review work.
2. Approve the future direction of travel and approach for community development services (to include priority work with children, young people and families) and community centres management.
3. Approve completion of proposals and consultation for a staffing restructure for community development and community facilities to re-align resources to future service, and to maximise opportunities for affected staff and minimise redundancies.

Matter for Decision

Following decisions made by the Executive Councillor for Communities in October 20211 and March 20222, this report sets out an updated direction of travel for the council’s community development service, services for children and young people, and community centres. The reviews in each area are being undertaken as part of the council’s Our Cambridge transformation programme.

 

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

      i.          Noted the findings emerging from Community Services review work.

     ii.          Approved the future direction of travel and approach for community development services including priority work with children, young people, and families, and for community centres management.

   iii.          Agreed to proceed with the consultation with staff on proposals for a staffing restructure for community development, ChYPPS and community facilities, in accordance with the council’s organisational change policy and, in so doing, seek to maximise opportunities for affected staff and minimise redundancies.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously 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 Officer’s report proposed to provide a grant to The Junction towards its £120,000 project (which is ready to implemented) to improve its community facilities for use by local groups and residents beyond its function as an arts and music venue. This would be funded primarily from specific S106 developer contributions (aimed at mitigating the impact of development) which already stipulate improvements to community facilities at The Junction as their purpose. The funding will provide a range of adaptations to the ground and first floors within the J2 building at the Junction to provide enhanced meeting areas, storage, and furniture suitable for a range of community use activities and public use within The Junction.

 

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

Allocate £113,185 of S106 community facilities funding (as detailed in financial implications in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3, subject to business case approval and a community use agreement), as a grant to The Junction towards its improvement project to provide enhanced and furnished meeting areas and associated storage space at its J2 building.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously 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

In July 2021 the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing approved use of a draft Biodiversity Strategy for public consultation.

 

The Biodiversity Strategy consultation, research and evaluations are now complete, and this report sets out the summary of the findings in relation to the draft Biodiversity Strategy.

 

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

      i.          Noted the stated ambitions and approve the adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy (2022 – 2030) and accompanying Action Plan.

     ii.          Allocated responsibility for delivery and monitoring of the Action Plan to the Executive Councillor for Environment, Climate Change and Biodiversity.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee unanimously 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 Community Grants priorities are reviewed periodically to ensure they remain relevant and align with the Councils Corporate Plan and wider objectives. Similarly, the Grant procedures are reviewed annually as part of a continuous improvement process, taking into account feedback from applicants and the experience of the Grants Team.

 

As reported to Environment and Scrutiny Committee on 27th January 2022, the focus on the next Grants Review will be to ensure it aligns with the Council’s future priorities and outcomes as identified through the ‘Our Cambridge’ transformation programme.

 

To enable the ‘Our Cambridge’ work to develop and conversations with community groups to begin, whilst at the same time allowing for continuous improvements as usual, a two-phase Grants Review is proposed.

 

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

      i.          Approved the changes to the Community Grants programme proposed in Phase 1 of the Community Grants Review, namely:

a.    The introduction of a ‘light touch’ small grants application process for awards of £2,000 and under as set out at point 4 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Noted the broader review work required in Phase 2 which will be developed alongside the ‘Our Cambridge’ transformation 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 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 Officer’s report provided an update on delivery of key actions in the Council’s third Anti-Poverty Strategy, which covers the period 2020-2023. During 2021/22 the Council has delivered a range of planned actions to help address a range of issues associated with poverty, including low pay, debt, food poverty, fuel poverty, digital inclusion, skills, employment, housing affordability, homelessness, and poor health outcomes.

 

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

      i.          Noted the progress in delivering actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge during 2021/22.

     ii.          Agreed to extend the end date of the existing Anti-Poverty Strategy from March 2023 to March 2024.

 

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 questions, the Strategy and Partnerships Manager stated that:

 

Although there was no proposal to adopt the socio-economic duty, the strategy was developing an on-going range of approaches to tackle the current cost of living emergency.  The Council’s equalities impact assessment is being adapted to take into account the socio-economic impact of the council’s policies and actions.

There will be on-going updates for Members on the impact of the cost of living crisis including the heating/housing issues which will be faced this winter.

 

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 current Single Equality Scheme (SES) covers the period from 2021 to 2024. The council produced the SES in order to set equality objectives and therefore to ensure transparency and assist in the performance of its Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010).

 

The Officer’s report presented information to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty by providing an update on progress in delivering key actions set out in the SES for 2021/22. It also proposes some new actions.

 

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

      i.          Noted the progress in delivering equalities actions during 2021/22.

     ii.          Approved the new actions proposed for delivery during 2022/23 (see point 3.5 in 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 Strategy and Partnerships replied to questions from Members:

 

Work on period poverty in 2021 had led to sanitary products being available at all council community centres.

Face to face customer interaction at the customer service centre had reduced since re-opening compared to pre-pandemic numbers, the officer was still awaiting the full detail from officer colleagues and would provide it to the committee after the meeting.

A number of information questions will require clarification with officer colleagues following the meeting on consultation on female rough sleepers, Open Spaces Forum, Ask Angela.

The GRT accommodation needs assessment work is still at a research stage, and the work is led by South Cambridgeshire District Council and there is no date as yet for this to be presented to Members.

 

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 scrutiny committee considered a joint report from the Head of Housing Development and the Head of Finance (s151 Officer) concerning a potential site acquisition to enable further development toward the new city council housing programme target for 1,000 net additional Council rented homes over the next 10 years.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

To recommend to Council to provide a budget of £33.94 million for a loan to the Cambridge Investment Partnership to cover land acquisition for the scheme explained in the confidential appendix to this recommendation.

 

To delegate authority to the Section 151 officer in consultation with the Executive Councillor to agree the final terms of the loan including the interest rate.

 

To note the risk that, due to revised MRP rules and PWLB funding rates at the time of the transaction, alternative funding arrangements may be more advantageous for CIP and the proposed scheme. In this case, CIP would make the decision on the choice of funding route from available options.

 

To note that the current scheme is an estimate and will require further detailed development. A final scheme and costs will be brought to the Housing Scrutiny Committee to consider the purchase of the affordable housing on this site.

 

To Delegate to the S151 officer to build the necessary funding requirement into the Medium Term Financial Strategy and to negotiate and agree terms for development finance to support this project in consultation with the Executive Councillor.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The outturn report considered and attached reflects the Executive Portfolios for which budgets were originally approved (which may have changed since, for example for any changes in Portfolio responsibilities).

 

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

To recommend to the Council carry forward requests totalling £2,132,920 of revenue funding from 2021/22 to 2022/23, as detailed in Appendix C of the attached report ; to approve additional budget in 2022/23 of £22k for Arboriculture and £12k for Project Delivery funded from reserves, as detailed in Paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 in the attached report and ; to carry forward requests of £71,909,000 of capital resources from 2021/22 to 2022/23 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the attached 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 resolved by 6 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 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.

 

The report considered and attached meets the requirements of both the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice 2021 (the Code) and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities 2021 (the Prudential Code) in respect of 2021/22.

 

During the 2020/21 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 the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and to Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

To recommend to Council the report with the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2021/22 [and; a loan of £50,000 to Cherry Hinton Community Benefit Society for their contribution to the building costs of the Cherry Hinton Hub].Postscript to the meeting, the Strategic Project Manager, Community Services advised that the loan was not being progressed, the same postscript is minuted in Council 21 July 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 unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To consider recommendations on changes to the budget policy framework and budget process following an independent review commissioned by the Council of current arrangements.  To also reflect, consider and prioritise the wider governance issues recommended by both the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny and Independent Remuneration Panel earlier this year.

 

Matter for Decision

An independent review, attached at Appendix 1, has been commissioned assessing the Council's budget policy framework and process. This builds on wider work the Council is developing to enable and support its transformation journey. This report considers the review’s recommendations for changes to current arrangements.

 

The review makes ten wide-ranging recommendations, covering political management arrangements, member training and development, as well as specific recommendations relating to the budget process and timetable. Whilst some recommendations can be implemented immediately, others require changes to the council’s constitution and further consideration of their wider impacts.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

Note the recommendations in Section 10 of the review report attached at Appendix 1.

 

Agree to transition to the new budget process this year, with further changes being brought in next year, both subject to constitutional change.

 

Ask officers to draft proposals for changes to the council’s constitution arising from the review of the budget setting process, to be brought forward for approval by Civic Affairs and Full Council.

 

Ask officers to work with the Leader/Executive to develop a broader consultative process, with input from opposition Group Leaders, to consider how to take forward the recommendations of the Independent Renumeration Panel and Council-commissioned analysis of its decision making, and democratic processes undertaken by Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Finance. The Independent Consultant, Chris West was also present to answer questions.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report presents the findings from a project carried out between Cambridge City Council (CCC), Cambridge City Housing Company Ltd (CCHC) and Social Finance (a not for profit organisation who seek to tackle social problems in the UK and abroad).

 

The project has explored the potential for CCHC to expand its property portfolio by up to 250 homes over a 5 year period, offering affordable homes to lower income residents, living or working in Cambridge City, in an operationally efficient, cost effective and carbon neutral manner. 

 

An initial feasibility study was carried out in the summer of 2021, with the positive findings from this early work prompting a more in depth project to be conducted. This project has however noted significant changes in the market assumptions since last summer, culminating in more cautious recommendations than initially hoped.

 

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

To recognise that the proposed expansion of the CCHC portfolio by 250 new homes over the next 5 years, is not financially feasible at this time, in the current market conditions.

 

To agree that CCHC keep the expansion metrics under review on a quarterly basis, reporting back to the Council, as shareholder, on an annual basis as part of the business plan update, unless a quarterly review results in a recommendation for moving forward with the expansion. If this is the case, a report will be presented to the Council for an expansion decision at the earliest opportunity.

 

To authorise officers to explore in detail the potential for equity injection of an estimated £25 million, or a contribution towards the operating costs of the business, from partner organisations employing essential workers, in return for nomination rights to the homes acquired, presenting any proposals to the Council for consideration as shareholder.

 

To agree that CCHC continues to explore expansion opportunities on a smaller scale, presenting independent funding requests for Council consideration and approval.

 

To note that the Council, following a recent decision at Housing Scrutiny Committee, can now deliver some new affordable homes to be let at 80% of market rent, subject to award of Homes England Grant, to be managed within the Housing Revenue Account.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

Councils are required to review their Council Tax Reduction scheme annually and determine whether to revise it or not.

In October 2019 it was agreed for an annual, light touch review, to be delegated to Head of Service followed by consultation with preceptors and for a full review and comprehensive consultation in 2022 for the 2023-2026 Council Tax Reduction Schemes.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

outline proposals and consultation process for the review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for Universal Credit households;

retain the Non-Universal Credit scheme and approve annual uprating based on September CPI figures.

approved delegation of the Council Tax Reduction schemes and annual review to the Head of Finance, and subject to the final recommendations post consultation being adopted, that these schemes continue (subject to uprating) until 31 March 2026.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The committee noted a paper providing an update on the following areas:

·                The progress made on preparing the council for transformation since the inception of the Our Cambridge Programme (OCP) in October 2021

·                The programme’s scheduled activity during the next 3 months that will establish the strategic design of future council services

·                The current investment made in by the council in the OCP and an explanation of any variance against pre-programme forecast

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation

 

Noted the approach and progress of the Our Cambridge Transformation Programme outlined in the report; and noted the proposals for the development of the organisation design for presentation to S&R in October 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 noted that the descriptions in the revenue improvement section (page 163 of the agenda) will be adapted to reflect the work on transformation and Our Cambridge which has taken place since October 2021.

 

The Committee and Executive Councillor noted the update report.

 

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 covers the Annual Report against the Corporate Plan 2021/22 and associated key performance indicators; the Annual Complaints and Customer Feedback Report 2021/22; and a State of the City profile.

 

The Corporate Plan 2019-22 set out the objectives the Council has been planning to achieve over the past three years, grouped under three key themes.  The Annual Report provides a summary of progress against those objectives during 2021/22.  Appendix B provides the latest available figures for the key performance indicators in the Corporate Plan 2019-22.  The Annual Complaints and Customer Feedback Report 2021/22 at Appendix C provides an overview and summary of complaints, compliments and feedback received during 2021/22.

 

The State of the City profile at Appendix D provides a brief analysis of how Cambridge measures up on a range of social, economic and environmental factors.  This provides a broad overview of the context in which the council and its partners operate.  It is intended that a fuller analysis will be developed over the coming year to provide a richer “City Portrait”, which would then be replicated, developed and reported each year.

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council

Noted the contents of the Annual Report against the Corporate Plan 2021/22, the Annual Complaints and Customer Feedback Report 2021/22, and the State of the City profile.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee considered a report from the Assistant Chief Executive.

 

The following points/clarifications were made:

 

Further information on the reduction of Crematoria market share volume (page 64 of the agenda) would be provided.

Clarification on how missed bins are defined (page 78)

Explanation of increased share of total waste going to landfill

Performance of complaints arising from planning enforcement

Clarification on the increase on complaints about Councillors (page 108).

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance, Resources and Transformation proposed that the thanks for councillors was conveyed to officers for their continued impressive work and to the Head of Human Resources for retaining the Investors in People accreditation.

 

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.

This item was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair)

 

Matter for Decision

As part of a programme of energy efficiency improvements to the Council's existing housing stock it was planned to procure contractor(s) to install various measures including external wall insulation, cavity wall insulation, ventilation upgrades and solar PV panels to Council properties in various locations.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.          Approved the issue of tenders and authorised the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to deliver energy efficiency and associated works to Council housing from 2022 -2024, with an option to extend for one or more periods up to a maximum of two years.

 

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 Corporate Energy Manager.

 

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

i.    External wall insulation had been installed on 150 properties in 2020/21 and it was hoped that it would be installed in 80-90 properties this year.

ii.  The contract would be awarded following a formal procurement process and bidders would be assessed against certain criteria including value for money. There was an option included in the recommendation for the contract to be extended for up to 2 years subject to satisfactory performance by the contractor.

iii. Noted that some of the council housing stock did have ‘E’ energy ratings but these were being reviewed and prioritised for retrofit works where possible.

iv.Noted that retrofit improvements to properties could include solar panels, new windows / doors and insulation.

v.  New energy efficient improvements would be considered for example underfloor insulation and air source heat pumps had been installed in a couple of council owned properties.

vi.Noted that delays in the implementation of the MRI Asset Management ICT system was due to a national issue.

vii.  Council Tenants could contact the Council to check if their property had loft insulation. Whether a property had loft insulation would be checked when the housing stock condition survey was carried out.

viii. The Council is planning to submit a bid to the ‘Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund wave 2’ later this year which if successful would be used to undertake additional improvements in terms of energy efficiency of council homes.

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.