Decisions

Matter for Decision

This report summarises a complaint upheld by the Housing Ombudsman Service relating to a housing repair, acknowledges that there were shortcomings in relation to working practices and sets out the action taken in response.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

·      Noted the findings of the Housing Ombudsman Services in respect of this case and the actions taken by the Council in response to these findings.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

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

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted 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 Interim Risk and Compliance Manager.

 

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

      i.         The asbestos register included garages as it covered solid structures.

    ii.         Would follow up whether the emergency lighting had been fixed.

   iii.         Had requested the Internal Audit Team considered potential for learning in relation to the gas safety issues, with a report coming back to this committee when that work is completed.

  iv.         Future reports would include an update on Hanover and Princess Courts and Kingsway until works had been completed.

    v.         Nobody would be left without heating for their home. If tenants had gas central heating, the proposal was to change them to electric central heating. 19 homes to date had been capped off.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve the revised Empty Homes Policy for adoption.

Matter for Decision

The Empty Homes Policy is due for review every three years. The review of the Empty Homes Policy 2017 was delayed due to the Covid19 pandemic. The revised Policy reflects operational changes at Cambridge City Council, mainly the removal of the Empty Homes Loan and the inclusion of partnership working with Town Hall Lettings, the Council’s social lettings agency.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved and adopted the revised Empty Homes Policy 2021 attached as Appendix 1 to the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Empty Homes Officer.

 

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

        i.       Asked to see a table showing the number of empty properties and length of time empty. Also for a link to the Empty Home Officer’s list of empty properties to the Council tax list of empty properties.

      ii.        Said it would be interesting to see if there were clusters of empty properties.

    iii.        Asked how many properties were empty due to probate delays.

    iv.       Queried if more information could be included on the Council’s website to explain why properties may remain empty for some time.

 

The Empty Homes Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

        i.       There were 2 long term empty properties, over 10 years on their list due to probate delays.  There was not a list of which properties were empty solely due to probate.

      ii.        Asked to be sent details of empty properties that the committee were aware of.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report presented the revised Under Occupation Scheme Policy. The proposed changes reflected the Council’s intention to provide help to more tenants who wished to move but lacked the financial resources to do so.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the revised Under Occupation Scheme Policy as set out in appendix 2 of the officer’s report.

    ii.         Approved the implementation of the revised Under Occupation Scheme Policy from 1st April 2022.

   iii.         Extend the spending limit under this scheme in Financial Year 2021/22 by £10,000 to a total £31,900 through virements from underspent budget areas, with BSR adjustments applied if necessary through the next budget cycle

 

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.       The fundamental driver is that no-one suffers financial hardship.

 

Councillor Dalzell proposed the following amendment, additional text underlined and deleted text struckthrough.

Under ‘2. Recommendations’ add an additional recommendation:

‘2.3  To extend the spending limit under this scheme in Financial Year 2021/22 by £10,000 to a total £31,900 through virements from underspent budget areas, with BSR adjustments applied if necessary through the next budget cycle.’

 

Under ‘3. Background’, amend:

3.7   To address the issues outlined, the council seeks to introduce the following:

·      In the current financial year, raise the financial cap on this scheme by £10,000 now through virements from underspend budgets, or through adjustments in the 2022/23 HRA Budget Report if required.

·      From 1 April 2022, reduce the under-occupation payment so that more tenants can benefit from the scheme

·      Introduce a Financial Statement assessment so that those who may be experiencing financial hardship are prioritised and the burden of debt is minimised or avoided.

 

Under ‘6. a Financial implications’

Approval would be given for overspends on the current budget for 2021/22 by up to £10,000 funded through virements from other budgets, which can be further supported by additional funding in 2022/23 HRA Budget Setting Report if required.

The budget of £21,900 for 2022/23 will remain unchanged and a mid-year review of the impacts of the new policy will take place in September 2022. To help inform the mid-year review, additional performance monitoring will be implemented to assess if the aims set out in this report have been achieved and financial adjustments considered within the MTFS.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to accept the amendments.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended 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 sets out a car parking strategy for both existing residents’ car parking and future new build sites. Its aim is to provide a template for parking management at new and existing City Homes neighbourhood car parking areas across the City. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Agreed to the approach to parking as set out in Figure 1 of the officer’s report and utilise this approach across new build sites, except for those that are managed by third parties (e.g. Management Company).

    ii.         Agreed to use Cambridgeshire County Council’s Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) enforcement on the existing resident car parking areas identified by City Homes in the future.

 

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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.         Noted the system for issuing permits was poor and the proposals should improve services.

    ii.         Queried provision for active travel and access for the deliveries.

   iii.         Queried car club provision and expressed concern with the equality implication that ‘the issue of carers will be looked at’ and noted that informal carers would have no-where to park.  Noted that tension could arise if there were no spaces for workmen or contractors to park.

  iv.         Noted there were no EV charging points and queried the council’s strategy taking into consideration that the deadline for when diesel and petrol cars would no longer be produced would be 2030.

 

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

        i.       Noted the report was the start of the process and hoped it would make the process easier.

      ii.        Officers were working with the County Council regarding access and an area had been identified for e-cargo bikes. Access for deliveries and contractors where a barrier existed typically worked on a fob system with the ability to ring a flat for deliveries. In terms of e-cargo bikes, they wouldn’t expect them to use the barrier as there would usually be a cycle lane out. If not, a fob system would allow them entry and exit.

    ii.         Car Clubs were part of the Council’s Design Guide and would become increasingly important as car park ratios declined. The amount of car club spaces would also depend on how close and how many bays there were to the development.

   iii.         Noted that Environmental Health Officers were working with County Council Officers on a pilot on-street EV charging scheme.

  iv.         Noted that new build sites would be well served for EV charging provision but that further consideration needed to be given to existing sites.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

This report provided an update on the housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

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

    ii.         Noted the work undertaken to date toward development of the new housing programme for 2022-2032.

   iii.         Delegated authority to the Section 151 officer to start the process to set- up a housing company as a Registered provider with a full report of the details of this proposal to be brought to a future committee.

 

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.

 

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

Two garage sites had been identified for a proposed Net Zero Carbon pilot: St Thomas's Road Garages and playground (Coleridge) and Paget Road Garages (Trumpington).

 

The scheme was being brought forward because it represented an opportunity to redevelop existing garage sites to create new additions to the Councils rented housing stock, built in accordance with Net Zero Carbon Standards. It was hoped that the project would be seen as an exemplar for the region and will facilitate knowledge transfer of Net Zero Carbon technology

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the scheme budget of £3,947,000. This is split between St Thomas’s Rd Garages (£2,105,000) and Paget Rd Garages (£1,842,000). Part of the scheme budget totalling £265,0000 (£141,000 and £124,000 respectively) is subject to a successful bid to the ERDF to cover the cost of the uplift from Passivhaus to Net Zero. 

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

 

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.

 

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 report updates the committee on work undertaken to date toward outlining regeneration opportunities across the councils stock, and recommends approval by the Executive Councillor of proposed approaches to regeneration activities. This report is accompanied by an updated regeneration policy detailing the council’s approach to engaging with local residents and stakeholders.

Matter for Decision

 

The Council committed to a proposed new delivery programme of 1,000 new Council homes at the Housing Scrutiny Committee on 24th September 2020.

 

The city’s constrained boundaries as well as emerging differences in quality standards across new and old council housing stock has led to a proactive approach by council officers to reviewing the potential for estate regeneration as part of the programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the progress made to date towards identifying possible suitable candidate sites to be considered for regeneration as part of the new housing programme and the estates that have already been identified.

    ii.         Noted that the programme of review of estates will be carried forward including survey work and consultation with residents. Ward Members will be consulted prior to the commencement of survey work and prior to the commencement of consultation with residents on particular estates.

   iii.         Approved the revisions to the Council regeneration policy as set out in Appendix 2 and discussed in Part 5 of the officer’s report and to add the policy to the council’s lettings policy.

  iv.         Approved that the scheme be brought forward at Aylesborough Close with an indicative capital budget of £19,030,000 to cover all site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees.

    v.         Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme at Aylesborough Close including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in this report. 

  vi.         Approved that, subject to Council approval of the budget, delegated authority be given to the Executive Councillor for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to enable the Aylesborough Close 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.

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

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

  ix.         Noted the work done to date toward investigating the potential for modular rooftop and infill development across the Council’s holdings as outlined in Part 7 of the officer’s report.

    x.         Approved the inclusion of airspace developments in the programme of new housing development for which finance has already been made available.

  xi.         Approved the outline approach of proceeding with a Joint Venture partnership as the preferred method for implementation of modular rooftop (airspace) development, subject to further investigation and a further report.

 xii.         Authorised the Head of the Housing Development Agency to approve a site for a pilot project subject to consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing, the Head of Housing, the Head of Finance and the Ward Members.

 

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.

 

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

        i.       Tenant and Leaseholder representatives had insisted that a letter was sent to tenants and leaseholders if their estate was being considered as part of the regeneration programme.

      ii.        Noted that a rigorous examination of sites proposed for regeneration would be undertaken and that this would include what further works were needed and any alternative options.

    iii.        Noted the proposal to use a joint venture to deliver the air space programme and queried if local people would be trained to retain specialist knowledge and skills in Cambridge.

    iv.       Questioned why a tenant in rent arrears might not be offered alternative housing. Referred to page 284 of the agenda.

      v.       Noted reference to compulsory purchase powers and demolition notices in relation to Aylesborough Close and queried what steps were taken to inform the community about these processes.

    vi.       Noted reference to roof top developments and queried if this could happen on existing homes. Asked what steps would be taken to support existing residents. Did not want the living standards of existing residents lowered as a result of these proposals.

  vii.        Noted that the number of units on site was doubled and asked if the density on all sites would be increased.

 

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

        i.       Confirmed that they were only in the early stages of the joint venture air space project and that local labour and supply chains would be encouraged.

      ii.        Most tenants were on social rent, new homes would be built for affordable rent. There were clear provisions in the Council’s Lettings policy; tenants who were affected by redevelopment would be awarded emergency housing status and would therefore get top priority for rehousing.

    iii.        Confirmed that modular roof top developments would involve building on top of existing houses. There were benefits to this type of development as it was a good way to get improvements to existing housing stock for example adding a lift to the development.

    iv.       The recommendations proposed in the officer report were the same as those used on previous reports in relation to formal notices. Compulsory purchase powers had not had to be used before as they had been able to work with existing tenants. If it got to the point where there was only one tenant preventing the development going ahead then more serious options may need to be considered.

      v.       Noted that each site needed to be assessed on its own merits. Development was a planning led process, they were not working to a fixed density on sites.

 

The Executive Councillor commented:

        i.       That the council was only at the initial stages of exploring potential sites for redevelopment, no decisions had been made, they were only at the start of the process.

 

The Committee resolved:

- unanimously to endorse recommendations 2.1 and 2.2.

- unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.3.

- unanimously to endorse recommendations 2.4 to 2.8.

- by 7 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations 2.9 to 2.12.

 

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 HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy provided an opportunity to review the assumptions incorporated as part of the longer-term financial planning process, recommending any changes in response to new legislative requirements, variations in external 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 (Part 1)

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

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

·      2021/22 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 delegated authority be given to the Strategic Director to be in a position to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner status with Homes England.

 

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

   iii.         Approved proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 21 October 2021.

  iv.         Approved proposals for new housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 21 October 2021.

    v.         Approved 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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

        i.       Queried the cost of building new homes versus the cost of retrofitting older properties.

      ii.        Asked to see the greenhouse gas impact of the development proposals (ie: the effect on emissions if the council didn’t do anything).

 

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

      i.         No councils had been successful in gaining partnership status with Homes England, officers had a meeting with them the following day for feedback on their application. The benefit of having strategic partnership status was that it would have guaranteed a grant for the whole of the development process.

    ii.         Some registered providers had been successful in gaining strategic partnership status and these were generally larger organisations than the City Council.

   iii.         Ditchburn Place had some issues with void properties whilst refurbishments were being carried out but this was necessary to enable the refurbishment to be undertaken.  The Covid pandemic also had an impact as the vulnerable nature of residents and the number of communal areas meant that they weren’t able to re-let the properties. They were now able to re-let and were down to the last few properties.

 

The Committee resolved:

- by 10 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations 2.1 – 2.2.

- by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations 2.3 – 2.5.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

A Shared Ownership Policy has been produced to outline the Council’s approach to the management of the current units of shared ownership within the Housing Revenue Account, as well as the approach the Council will take to support current shared owners in working towards or achieving 100% ownership.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the Shared Ownership Policy for current stock.

    ii.         Agreed that the Council promotes staircasing, to 100% ownership where financially feasible, with current Shared Ownership Leaseholders.

   iii.         Agreed the revised approach for deciding on the repurchase of shared ownership units

 

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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

        i.       Noted that flexible tenure allowed leaseholders to sell back shares to the Council in times of hardship and expressed concerns about the removal of an option for people who were struggling financially.  Asked if there were any current examples and the costs involved of offering flexible alternatives.

      ii.        Queried who set the cost of re-buying shares in a property.

 

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

           i.          Short of repurchasing shares in a property (which as the report outlines the Council would only do if it made strategic sense for the Council to do so) the Council does not directly offer any intermediate housing options. With regard to social/affordable housing, there is a paragraph in the Council Lettings Policy which states:

 

4.12.1 In line with the ‘Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in England’, Cambridge City Council will usually only allocate social housing to homeowners in exceptional circumstances. However, the City Council may allocate housing that is in low demand. Applicants who are homeowners will usually be allocated a Band D status. In exceptional circumstances Cambridge City Council may consider a homeowner’s status. For example, Cambridge City Council may allocate housing to applicants who require support and whose age qualifies them for housing for older people, but who have insufficient financial resources to access housing for older people in the private sector.

 

If, like any other potentially homeless applicant, a shared owner has to sell their shares or defaults on the mortgage, is facing repossession and does not have the financial means to secure an alternative housing option the Council, through its homelessness prevention services, can assist an applicant to access the private rented sector through rent in advance and a rent deposit or via our Housing Benefit Plus scheme which offers a one or two year rent subsidy and employment support to help a household get back on its feet.

    iii.        The Council used a valuer to calculate the buy-back value of shares in a property. This was based on market value and depended on the percentage of the share.

 

The Committee resolved:

- unanimously to endorse the recommendation 2.11

- unanimously to endorse the recommendation 2.12.

- by 10 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation 2.13.

 

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.

·       Approve updated and amended actions for the Council’s Climate Change Strategy.

·       Note progress achieved during 2020/21 in implementing the existing actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on progress so far in 2021 on the 2021/22 actions of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26. As part of this, the report includes an update on progress in implementing the projects to reduce our direct carbon emissions from our corporate buildings, fleet vehicles and business travel as detailed in the Council’s Carbon Management Plan 2021-26.

 

The Officer’s report also provides an update on: 

·                 The council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2020/21

·                 UK100’s Net Zero Pledge as in Appendix C

 

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

      i.          Noted the progress achieved in the first five months of 2021/22 in implementing the actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.

     ii.          Approved the updated Climate Change Strategy action plan presented in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

   iii.          Agreed to sign the UK100’s new Net Zero Pledge as detailed at Appendix C 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

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

      i.          The Council had approximately 7,000 properties. It was looking at measures to retrofit these to net zero. Residential and commercial properties with the lowest energy efficiency performance would be targeted first.

     ii.          The City Council has lower emissions when benchmarked against neighbouring and similar authorities.

   iii.          Climate Change Strategies of similar authorities have been reviewed to see if the City Council can learn from them.

   iv.          The Environmental Services Team were reviewing the electric vehicle charger trial:

a.    Rapid chargers that took 1 hour.

b.    Fast chargers that took 2-7 hours.

c.    Capacity/resources would determine if/where chargers could be placed in other wards after the trial. The City Council would have to work with power networks and Central Government to implement this, the City Council could not do work on its own.

d.    The pilot would be reviewed after March 2022. The Council would then decide if it would bid for more funding to take action.

e.    The following were needed in order to put in chargers:

1.                   Power.

2.                   Demand for chargers.

3.                   Parking spaces.

    v.          Traffic regulation orders were in place in carparks to ensure only electric vehicles used spaces where chargers were available. Pulse were the company awarded the contract to install and maintain these.

   vi.          A report on Corn Exchange boilers would be brought to committee in March 2022. Gas boilers were installed as the previous ones were at request of failure. The new boilers were more efficient and would have 20% lower emissions.

 vii.          The Council Environmental Awareness e-learning course could be promoted as good practice to other organisations.

 

Councillor Copley said the City Council could better inform residents of the nature of the climate change emergency and how Central Government needed to take action. Personal action was not enough to effect change. For example, housing was at risk of flooding. The City Council could explain that residents could lobby Central Government direct.

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre replied:

      i.          Agreed that Central Government should take action. The City Council was trying to engage residents on how to lobby Central Government, for example, through Cambridge Matters. Welcomed ideas on how to do more.

     ii.          There were 2 electric vehicle charging point projects:

a.    One with the County Council for on-street parking. Another separate one for City Council carparks.

b.    There had been issues regarding infrastructure in place to support electric vehicle charging.

   iii.          The intention was to insulate all council homes as per the aims of Insulate Britain. It was unclear if this could be achieved by 2025. Sufficient funding from Central Government and a skilled workforce were required to do this.

 

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.

1. Approve the establishment of Visit Cambridge as a legally incorporated destination management organisation
2. Approve the City Council's representation on the Board of Visit Cambridge
3. Approve Visit Cambridge's proposal to appoint an official walking tours partner(s)

Matter for Decision

This paper sets out the work being undertaken by the Council and its partners, Cambridge BID, Fitzwilliam Museum Enterprises (trading arm of the University of Cambridge) and King’s College, to establish a new destination management organisation (DMO), following the closure and liquidation of the former DMO (Visit Cambridge and Beyond) in July 2020. 

 

The four partners had established an DMO ‘working group’ and brand known as ‘Visit Cambridge’, using the former VCB branding and other intangible assets, which they successfully acquired last autumn.  The working group has identified the need for the new DMO to be legally incorporated to enable it to be independent and effectively fulfil its organisational development and management needs, including business banking, entering into legal agreements/ contracts and procuring goods and services to support its DMO function and the recovery and development of a sustainable visitor economy. 

 

The Officer’s report set out the proposed business case for the new DMO and its proposed incorporation as a Community Interest Company (CIC), informed by learning from the former VCB business model performance and the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on the city’s visitor economy.  The decision to pursue CIC incorporation was informed by independent legal advice sought by both the Visit Cambridge working group and, separately, by the Council.

 

Subject to the Council supporting the incorporation of Visit Cambridge as a CIC, the Visit Cambridge working group is inviting the Council to nominate a representative to sit as a company director.  Based on legal advice and the predominantly operational nature of the DMO business, the Officer’s report recommended the Council nominated an Officer, rather than elected Member, to sit as a Director on the CIC Board.

 

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

      i.          Approved the establishment of Visit Cambridge as a Community Interest Company (CIC).

     ii.          Delegated authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities to complete all practical, financial and legal matters to enable Visit Cambridge CIC to be established including approval of the final form of all necessary legal documentation.

   iii.          Approved the City Council's officer representation on the Board of Visit Cambridge CIC, with the officer nominee decision to be delegated to the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities.

 

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

      i.          It was important to have a fixed place where people could find tourist information in the city.

     ii.          Requested that more than 1 councillor was appointed to the stakeholder group so that representation could be cross-party.

   iii.          Queried how to get a net positive impact of tourism on the city and environment.

 

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

      i.          An independent Community Interest Company was being set up, it was not for the City Council to dictate to the independent company what it should do. Would pass on councillors’ request that more than one councillor was invited to participate in the stakeholder group, but it was up to the Community Interest Company to make operational decisions.

     ii.          Most tourists to the city were local or from the region. International tourism had declined since lockdown. There were things the council could do to encourage sustainable tourism such as encouraging tourists to stay longer and not make short trips.

   iii.          Tourism was important to the city economy. For example it provided jobs and revenue for cultural venues.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention 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 uses S106 contributions to mitigate the impact of development on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. Through its 2021 generic S106 funding round, the Council has invited proposals for improvements to open spaces and play areas, focused on those parts of the city where the relevant generic S106 funding is still available.

 

Sixteen proposals for improvements to open spaces and play areas have been received through this 2021 funding round. The Council thanks all those who have taken the time and effort to apply. The proposals have been assessed against the relevant S106 selection criteria. Seven (either in whole or in part) were eligible, affordable and ready to be allocated S106 funding now. A number of other eligible proposals were also being actively considered, subject to S106 funding availability. In addition, three other projects allocated S106 funding in the 2020 round were recommended for additional funding, which has become available.

 

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

Recommendations i, ii & iv were subject to business case approval and project completion or significant progress within 18 months.

 

      i.          Allocated informal open space generic S106 funding to the following projects (see the assessments in paragraphs 4.1-4.2 and Appendix B of the Officer’s report).

 

Table 1: Recommended 2021 S106 funding proposals

 

No.	Project proposal	S106 funding
2.1.1	Alexandra Garden Rec: additional seating (West Chesterton ward)	£5,000
2.1.2	Jesus Green: seating, benches and additional trees (Market ward)	£13,000
2.1.3	Midsummer’s Common community orchard: improved seating, bins, paths and new raised beds (Market ward)	£15,000
2.1.4	Coldham’s Lane play area: benches, bins noticeboards (Romsey ward)	£10,000
2.1.5	Parker’s Piece tree-planting: supplement for information boards (Market ward)	Up to £5,100
2.1.6	Trumpington Rec Ground environmental enhancements (Trumpington ward)	£70,000

 

     ii.          Delegated authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods & Communities to allocate open space and play area generic S106 funding formerly from Trumpington ward but now in Petersfield, still available for eligible open space and play improvements in Petersfield (see paragraphs 4.3‑ 4.4). This could include some play area improvements at St Barnabas Court play area. These allocations would be in consultation with Petersfield councillors, the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing, Opposition Spokes and the Chair of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee.

   iii.          Instructed officers to seek detailed updated estimates of the likely construction costs of the Coldham’s Common BMX track improvement project and to take appropriate follow-up action (see paragraph 4.5 of the Officer’s report).

 

   iv.          Allocated additional informal open spaces S106 funding to the following projects supported in the 2020 S106 funding round (paragraph 4.6 of the Officer’s report).

 

Table 2: Recommended additional allocations to existing projects

 

No.	Project proposal	S106 funding
2.4.1	Chesterton Recreation Ground wheelsports project: landscaping (East Chesterton ward)	£15,000
2.4.2	Five Trees open space: wildflower and tree-planting (East Chesterton ward)	Up to  £10,000
2.4.3	Pearl Close play area and community garden improvements (East Chesterton ward)	£5,000

 

    v.          Instructed officers to take a more targeted approach for the 2022 generic S106 funding round to seeking eligible proposals for open space and play improvements from the remaining generic S106 funds, with a greater focus on dialogue with councillors (see paragraph 4.7 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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors asked why Donkey Common (skate park) was not allocated funding? The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the project did not meet eligibility criteria. Offices had engaged with proposers already and signposted alternative streams to s106 where limited funding was left to allocate in Petersfield Ward.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To approve the S106 Community Facility Grants following assessment of applications received.

Matter for Decision

The Council uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of development on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. As part of its 2021 generic S106 funding round, the Council has invited grant applications from local groups for improvements to their community facilities (to be made available for wider community use). This has focused on those parts of the city where community facilities generic S106 funding is still available.

 

All six community facilities grant applications received have been assessed against the Council’s S106 selection criteria. Officers recommend two proposals for a grant based on generic S106 funding, while another proposal qualifies for funding from an already agreed specific S106 contribution. Other proposals are either not yet ready for consideration (and could be developed further ahead of the next funding round) or would not be eligible for S106 funding: in the case of the latter, alternative sources of funding have been suggested to the applicants.

 

The use of generic S106 contributions for sports facilities is managed separately from the annual S106 funding round (that is, without an application process) because funding is normally focused on needs identified by the Council’s sports strategies. This report recommends allocating outdoor sports S106 contributions to several projects which could be taken forward soon.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed the following community facilities S106 grants and funding allocations, detailed in paragraphs 4.5 and Appendix C, subject to business case approval, project completion or significant progress within 18 months and the signing of a community use agreement (see paragraph 6.1 of the Officer’s report):

 

Table 1: Recommended uses of community facilities generic S106 funding

 

	Facility (and ward)	Purpose	Award
a.	Akeman Street Community Centre (Arbury)	Equipment and furnishings for new centre	Up to £40,000
b.	Trumpington Village Hall (Trumpington)	Disability access and an outside meeting space	£3,450

 

     ii.          Deallocated community facilities S106 generic funding from the following two projects (see paragraph 4.6 of the Officer’s report):

a.    £55,000 allocated to Cromwell Road community meeting space (Romsey) as part of the nursery as it is no longer viable; and

b.    £100,000 earmarked for St James’ Church community facilities improvements (Queen Edith’s) as they are not ready to progress now but have been encouraged to reapply in the next funding round.

   iii.          Agreed the following sports facilities S106 grants and funding allocations, (detailed in paragraphs 5.2-5.6), subject to business case approval, project completion or significant progress within 18 months and the signing of a community use agreement (see paragraph 6.1 of the Officer’s report):

 

Table 2: Recommended uses of outdoor sports generic S106 funding

 

	Facility (and ward)	Purpose	Award
a.	Abbey Leisure Complex (Abbey)	3G pitch enhancement	£100,000
b.	Chesterton Rec. Ground Pavilion (East Chesterton)	Building costs supplement	£54,000
c.	Nightingale Avenue Pavilion (Queen Edith’s)	Building costs supplement	£60,000
d.	Coleridge Rec. Ground fit kit equipment and pavilion upgrades (Coleridge)	Repurposing on an existing allocation for improvements to Coleridge Rec & pavilion.	£70,000 (re-purposed)
e.	Outdoor fitness area at Abbey Leisure Complex (Abbey)	Installation of new ‘kettlebell’ frame alongside existing ‘fit kit’	Up to £20,000

 

   iv.          Instructed officers to place even greater emphasis in the 2022 generic S106 funding round on welcoming applications from local community and sports groups for small-scale improvements to the equipment, furnishings and equipment at their facilities, which could help them to provide additional benefit to their local communities (see section 6 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 made no comments in response to the report from the Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of development in Cambridge. As part of its 2021 generic S106 funding round, the Council has invited grant applications from community groups working with professional artists for small-scale (say, up to £20,000) public art projects in Cambridge. This has focused on those parts of the city where off-site public art generic S106 funding is still available. All eight public art grant applications received have been assessed against the Council’s Public Art S106 selection criteria. Officers recommend six of these proposals for funding (subject to further information to address queries raised on five of them).

 

A further Public Art report would follow in January 2022, focusing on the Public Art Commissioning Strategy and how the remaining off-site public art generic S106 contributions can be used effectively and on time.

 

The January 2022 report will also look again at the progress made by two applicants (for proposals D and H) that require further work to meet the public art S106 selection criteria.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

The Executive Councillor agreed to:

      i.          Allocate generic S106 funding to the small-scale public art project identified in the ‘allocate’ column of Table 1 (as detailed the Appendix), subject to business case approval, a public art agreement and project completion or significant progress within 18 months.

     ii.          Delegate authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities to allocate generic S106 funding to projects to the small-scale public art projects identified in the ‘delegate’ column of Table 1 (as detailed in the Officer’s report Appendix) that make sufficient progress towards meeting the eligibility criteria set out in paragraph 4.1 by the 30^th November 2021.

 

Table 1: Public art proposals that require further clarification

 

	Small scale public art proposals	Allocate	Delegate
A.	Abbey People’s Creative canopy (Abbey ward)	c.£20,000	-
B.	Birdwood Area Art project (Coleridge ward) Dinky Doors	-	Up to £10,000
C.	Cherry Hinton Brook mural (brook runs through Romsey, Coleridge & Cherry Hinton wards)	-	c.£6,600
E.	Jesus Green community art project (Market ward)	-	Up to £20,000
F.	Living at Mitcham’s Corner (West Chesterton)	-	Up to £12,000
G.	Ride with Pride (City-wide)	-	£18,900

 

   iii.          Instruct officers to seek further details from projects (summarised below and detailed in the Appendix) and work with the applicants to further develop their applications and report back to the next Scrutiny Committee with a further recommendation.

a.    D.      Coldham’s Lane Bridge public artwork (Romsey ward);

b.    H.      Romsey Rec Ground public art installation (Romsey ward).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee made no comments in response to the report from the Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

A review of certain areas of the Children and Young People’s Participation service.

Matter for Decision

The Play Pods scheme is a chargeable service operated by the Council’s Children and Young People’s Participation service (ChYpPS). It was set up in 2014, in part to raise funds to support other ChYpPS work. However, a review of the service in February 2019, found that staffing costs in fact outweighed any income benefit, and the service has a net annual cost to the Council of £26k. The review also found that, since 2015, only four Play Pods had been delivered to city schools, but eighteen had been delivered to schools outside of the city.

 

On 26th February 2019, the Strategic Director took an operational decision to cease delivery of any more out-of-city Play Pods, and to implement exit routes for schools to secure training support and scrap top-ups from other providers. The loss of anticipated Play Pod income (which offsets some of the net cost) has been managed in year by the ChYpPS service through a staff vacancy freeze.

 

The proposal now is for the Council to cease Associate Membership of the Bristol Scrap Store Play Pods scheme, and to discontinue the ChYpPS Play Pod service from 31st March 2022. There is potentially scope for other associate members to provide a Play Pod service to city schools from 1st April 2022.

 

The Council helped set up the Scrap Store scheme in 1988, and it was initially managed by The Castle Project. In 2000, for viability reasons, the Council agreed to take this on, and it was delivered as a mobile project from community centres. In 2012, Scrap Store moved into a commercial unit, The Box on Barnwell Business Park, under the management of the ChYpPS team.  In addition to providing materials for the Play Pod scheme, city residents could also pay a membership fee to source arts, crafts and play materials at a low cost.

 

Like the Play Pod scheme, one of the intentions of Scrap Store was to raise income to support other areas of ChYpPS work. However, the 2019 review found that, like Play Pods, once staffing costs had been attributed to the Scrap Store, the service has a net annual cost to the council of £46.5k. Even if footfall to The Box were to double, the Scrap Store scheme would still not be able to generate sufficient income to cover staffing costs. The service uses The Box Unit, a council commercial unit at Barnwell Business Park for £5k per year rent, but the council could let The Box commercially to generate £18k income per year. 

 

There are currently 9 staff posts which include an element of delivering either the Play Pod or Scrap Store schemes, or both.  A staffing review is planned to support the council’s corporate transformation programme, and this will include community development, community facilities and ChYpPS services. The review will aim to minimise redundancies and maximise opportunities for staff development and progression.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed to cease delivering the ChYpPS Play Pod scheme from 31st March 2022.

     ii.          Agreed to complete feasibility work for a revised scrapstore-style scheme, aligned to support anti-poverty work, and for this new service to be launched as soon as possible in the 2022-23 financial year.

   iii.          Noted the staffing implications.

 

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 Community Services.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report. Councillor Porrer said the intention was to remove a ‘hard stop’ to the service.

 

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

      i.          Agenda P96 set out an indicative timetable for when the Scrap Store service would cease. It was hoped there would be a smooth transition not a hard deadline to stop activities.

     ii.          Staff and stakeholders would be involved in developing the new model. It was hoped that the Scrap Store service would be retained in some way during the transition period.

   iii.          Officers wished to invite councillors to input into the work.

   iv.          A progress report could be brought back to committee in March 2022.

 

Recommendation No 2 of p95 of the agenda pack (additional text underlined)

 

Proposer: Councillor Porrer

Seconder: Cllr Copley

 

2: To complete feasibility work for a revised scrap store-style scheme, aligned to support anti-poverty work, and for this new service to be launched as soon as possible in the 2022/23 financial year, having been scrutinised by a future ECSC to allow public and member views to be taken into account, and for the existing scrapstore service to be maintained until a new scheme is approved and launched.

 

The amendment was lost by 4 votes to 6.

 

Opposition Councillors asked what lessons had been learnt if the Council had lost money over 7 years of the ChYpPS service?

 

The Head of Community Services said the following in response:

      i.          Officers working in these areas had provided an excellent service.

     ii.          The review had uncovered higher staff costs than originally budgeted when these ChYpPS services were set up. The trading services now require subsidy rather than contributing revenue. Both have considerable out of city usage. It was not feasible to continue.

   iii.          Action has not been taken earlier due to the focus on supporting the community during the pandemic. There is now an opportunity to evolve the scrapstore project to support other anti-poverty work.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (i).

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (ii) by 6 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (iii).

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council has a legal obligation to publish equality objectives at least every four years to assist it in its performance of the Public Sector Equality Duty. The Officer’s report provided recommended objectives and priorities covering 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2024 relating to this.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Approved the Single Equality Scheme 2021 to 2024, including the objectives and priorities for the Scheme (Appendix A of the Officer report) and Actions listed for the first year of the Scheme (Appendix C of the Officer report).

     ii.          Noted actions undertaken relating to the three recent council motions around equality and diversity and approve recommended actions to be carried forward relating to them in the new Scheme.

 

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 Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

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

      i.          Members of the Gypsy and Traveller community:

a.    Needed access to Addenbrokes Hospital.

b.    May not trust the City Council and so not interact with it. Therefore, evidence may not be available for a needs assessment.

     ii.          Queried how to protect women and girls in the city, particularly at night.

 

The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The City Council was working with South Cambridgeshire District Council to implement phase two of the Government’s Syrian Vulnerable Persons Refugee Resettlement programme. The  Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer would check to see if Afghan refugees were also included in the programme.

 

The Councillor for Communities said she would seek to add Afghan refugees Refugee Resettlement programme after committee.

 

     ii.          A refugee’ needs assessment was undertaken in 2016 which identified there was a need for provision. National legislation issues prevented an identification of exact needs, but the subject could be revisited in the 2022 need assessment.

   iii.          Members of the Black community were 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched than others. Would advise councillors after committee on any updates regarding use of police stop and search powers as details from the Police were not available at present.

 

The Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing said she would follow up issues with the Police after committee.

 

   iv.          There was a community panel to liaise with the Police on the impact of ‘force’ on the community.

    v.          Cambridge City Council employees valued the staff group who reported minority group issues to the Chief Executive. The intention was to do more to assist members of the minority community progress through their careers eg obtain promotion.

   vi.          The Council was implementing the new ‘digital first’ customer services model, ensuring that vulnerable people were provided with opportunities to have face-to-face support from the Council. People could also use the internet or phone to contact the Council. If they wanted other support, face-to-face was an option to cover all needs, not just a lack of internet access.

 vii.          The City Council was an accredited member of the White Ribbon Campaign which was set up to end male violence against women. The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer would share information with Councillors after committee about the Celebration of Women Event.

viii.          Streets and open space lighting around the city were the responsibility of the County Council.

   ix.          The City Council was working with other organisations to signpost the intersectionality (joined up approach) of its Single Equality Scheme as good practice.

 

Agenda P34: Key priorities and approaches for the Single Equality Scheme 2021 to 2024 Part 4 - For services to consider intersectionality in responding to residents’ and customers’ needs (where groups have more than one protected characteristic that taken together create overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage).

 

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

      i.          Re-iterated that Officers undertook a needs assessment as the first point of contact when visiting unauthorised encampments. Enforcement was a secondary option. Officers tried to build positive relations with the Gypsy and Traveller community.

     ii.          The Traveller community may leave the area to seek winter work. Consultants undertaking the transit site needs assessment will try to interact with the community elsewhere.

 

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.