Matter for Decision: Approval of funding towards fitting out of the community kitchen and rooms and starting up the Cherry Hinton Hub (Planning Ref: 19/1713/FUL)

 

FOR PUBLICATION

 

Why the Decision had to be made (and any alternative options): The Cherry Hinton Hub scheme is nearing practical completion. The specification of works and bill of quantities for fitting out the community kitchen and rooms were not included in the construction contract, and no provision was made to support the start-up costs of the hub operator, the Cherry Hinton Community Benefit Society Limited.

 

The Council requested the Benefit Society to raise £50k towards the above costs. However, these costs are forecast to exceed £100k.

 

To date, the Benefit Society has raised £43k. Of this sum, Thalia has approved a £30k grant specifically towards the community kitchen fit out costs of £50k, subject to confirmation of a lease from the Council. The balance of £13k has been raised by the community. 

 

A council grant of £50k is required as follows:

a) £20k towards the £50k cost of fitting out the community kitchen,

b) £20k to fund the cost of furnishing and equipping the community rooms, and

c) £10k towards the community hub start-up costs.

 

A cash flow forecast provided by the Benefit Society identifies that funding is required to cover start-up costs before any room hire income is generated. This is to purchase café stock and meet building service charges. Local community donations received to date of £13k will contribute to these initial start-up costs, pending break even.

 

Thalia require confirmation of match funding by 30^th June 2024 to approve a grant funding application, and this is why an out of cycle decision is required before any future scrutiny committees or as part of the council’s next standard budget setting process.

 

Practical completion of the building and handover is due to take place on 24th June, and so this decision will allow access to the building for commencement of fitting out works, required for the earliest possible opening of the hub. A Council grant decision will enable the Community Benefit Society to demonstrate funds required for Thalia and to let contracts to fit out the kitchen, furnish and equip the community rooms and acquire equipment and stock required for starting up the new community hub.

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision: Approval of £50,000 funding for Cherry Hinton Community Benefit Society.

 

Reason for the decision: As detailed in the Officers supporting briefing report.

 

Scrutiny Consideration: As special urgency the Chair of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee has to agree the use of special urgency. This has now been confirmed by the Chair.

 

Conflict of interest: None

 

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

1.    a matter of urgency (this is correct)

2.    it is not practical to convene a quorate meeting of the Council, (this is correct); and

3.    the Chair of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee agrees the matter is of urgency (the Chair to agree).

 

The decision will be reported back to S&R Committee on 30^th September 2024 and Full Council on 10^th October 2024.

 

Recommendation:

·      To approve £50,000 additional capital funding towards the costs of fitting out and equipping the community kitchen and rooms and supporting the start-up phases of the Cherry Hinton Community Hub.

 

Background:

·      The councils Community Centre Strategy identified a gap in access to community facilities for high need residents in Cherry Hinton. New community facilities planned for nearby growth sites at Marleigh, GB1/2 and Land North of Cherry Hinton will not provide access for the existing community to facilities within a 15 minute walk time

·      A new community facility for Cherry Hinton therefore remains a strategic priority for the council and a priority for residents who do not have currently have access to facilities

·      Residents have been working with the council since 2006 to bring forward a scheme to extend the existing library building to create a Community Hub

·      Following extensive consultation with residents, planning approval was granted for the Cherry Hinton Hub scheme in September 2020

·      Following design work and competitive supplier and contractor quotations, a contract was let for the required demolition and structural works, mechanical heating and ventilation, access control and interior finishes at a capital cost of £1,643,089

·      Having been set a requirement to raise £50k, the Cherry Hinton Community Benefit Society has identified a requirement for £90k + to fit out the community kitchen (£50k), furnish and equip the community rooms (£20k) and operating start-up costs (£20k +). Of this sum, the Benefit Society has secured a £43k, of which £30k is subject to a lease. To address the funding gap, the Benefit Society has requested a £50k grant from the Council to be paid in two tranches of £25k. The special conditions to be attached to the deed require prior to the Community Hub opening: submission of quotes received for the works; adoption of the policies for Health and Safety, Safeguarding (child and vulnerable adults), Equality and Diversity, Confidentiality / Data Protection (GDPR), Complaints and Environmental; submission of necessary insurance documents, a budget for the first year of operation, and proof of expenditure of the first payment prior to the release of the second grant payment. 

 

Why an out of cycle decision is required:

·      An out of cycle decision is now required because:

1.    The next opportunity for scrutiny at Strategy and Resources Committee (S&R) of the additional capital requirement would be S&R Committee on 30^th September 2024, but this would be too late to allow the hub to fitted out ready for opening in a timely manner.

2.    The next opportunity to include a capital request as part of the council’s financial cycle would be the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) in October 2024.

 

 

Matter for Decision: To approve Councillor Appointments to the Local Highways Improvement Panel for municipal year 2024/25

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

 

The County Council have requested that two city councillor representatives are appointed to the Local Highways Improvement Panel for municipal year 2024/25. As these appointments were not made at the Council’s Annual Meeting, an out of cycle decision is required so that city councillor representatives can attend meetings and represent the Council at Panels. 

 

Local Highways Improvements (LHIs) is a countywide County Council led programme of work which considers suggestions from Councillors and communities for improvements to their local highways. The proposed programme of work will be taken to the Cambridge Joint Area Committee (CJAC) for comment prior to any bids being taken to the County Council’s Highways and Transport Committee for approval.

 

It is the intention for CJAC to approve City Councillor appointments to any future LHIP from October 2024. 

 

The City Council made provision within its budget to contribute up to £35,000 per annum for 2024-2028 towards Cambridgeshire County Council’s managed programme in order for the top prioritised schemes to proceed. Local community contributions are a fundamental principle of LHIs, and without this support from the City Council a programme would be unlikely to proceed in Cambridge. The involvement of City Councillors in the prioritisation process ensures that thorough representation and scrutiny takes place.

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision: The appointment of Councillor Baigent and Councillor Young to the Local Highways Improvement Panel for municipal year 2024/25

Reason for the decision: As above.

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

Report: None

Conflict of interest: [None].

Comments: The Chair of the Planning and Transport Committee, Councillor Nestor and the Liberal Democrats Opposition Spokes, Councillor Porrer both provided comment they supported the decision and noted that this would be undertaken by Cambridge Joint Area Committee in future years.

 

Matter for Decision

The Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Committee received a report detailing a finding of fault by the Ombudsman, in respect of an anti-social behaviour related service, against this authority. The Officer’s report provided elected members with some brief detail on the case, why fault was found and outlined actions the council has taken to remedy the matter for the customer and identify areas for improvement in the future.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and Community Safety

      i.          Noted the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Approved the remedial actions outlined and measures established to reduce or eliminate the risk of repeat mistakes in future cases.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Safety Manager.

 

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

Matter for Decision

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommended that Councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Executive Councillor for Communities and Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 27 January 2022.

 

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

 

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and Community Safety

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

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

   iii.          Approved the general surveillance policy in Appendix 1 to the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee made no comments in response to the report from the Head of Legal Practice.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

Following a S106 agreement made on 11th Sep 2013, the University of Cambridge and Council established a trust to run Storey’s Field Community Centre.

 

The centre opened to the public in February 2018, and the operating model was originally intended to be direct management by Storey’s Field Community Trust. Since June 2016 the Council has operated the centre under a contract for services with the Trust. It was always the Council’s intention this would be a medium-term arrangement, to support Trustees in the process of recruiting suitable staff, and establishing the centre programme.

 

At the request of Storey’s Field Community Trust, the council’s contract for services has been extended several times since 2016, to enable the Trust to undertake a review of the centre’s future direction, and to complete an open procurement process to appoint a new operator. The tender process was completed in July 2022, but was not successful.

 

With the centre team and programme now successfully established, Cambridge University and the Council consider that there is potential for efficiencies in operations and decision making, and the future strategic success of the centre, by revising the current governance model.

 

Options appraisal work has been completed by Cambridge University and the Council as part of developing a jointly agreed proposal for future governance, and this identified a preferred position for both organisations. This involved dissolving the Trust and removing the Council from the governance of the centre. Cambridge University, as the building owner, would then assume full responsibility for future investment and the strategy for overseeing management and operation of the centre within the Estates Division, and under the purview of the Property Board. This may be direct management or contracting this service out.

 

The Councils current contract for services would end 31st March 2024, and a further extension was required until 31st March 2025, to give sufficient time to complete the legal steps required to dissolve the Trust and to ensure a smooth transition to the new governance arrangements. Specifically, a new Community Use Agreement will be needed to replace the existing Trust documentation and set out the long-term commitment of Cambridge University to the delivery of community development activity at Storey’s Field Centre.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed to extend the councils contract for management services with Storey’s Field Community Trust, until 31 March 2025, if required.

     ii.          Agreed to simplify existing governance arrangements by dissolving and winding-up Storeys Field Community Trust, working jointly to do so with Cambridge University. Cambridge University may need to retain the trust for tax purposes in which case they will assume complete responsibilities for any governance structure.

   iii.          Agreed to Cambridge University assuming responsibility for management, oversight and meeting any operational deficit for Storey’s Field Centre, following dissolution of Storey’s Field Community Trust.

   iv.          Delegated responsibility to the Director of Communities, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes of Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee, to approve an updated Community Use Agreement that reflects the revised governance arrangements.

    v.          Delegated responsibility to the Director of Communities to ensure a smooth transition and handover of management of the centre to Cambridge University.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Project Manager.

 

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

      i.          Revised terms of reference were expected from the University setting out details of community use requirements for the centre in perpetuity eg the amount of time the centre was available for community use hire.

     ii.          The City Council would monitor s106 community use terms. This would be an ongoing role.

 

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 agree the strategic principles for Creativity and Cultural for All: Cambridge City Council’s Cultural Strategy (2024-2029).

Matter for Decision

The Cultural Strategy strategic principles were developed as a pre-cursor to a final Strategy. It set out a framework for proposals around the impact Culture has on key aspects of wider Council activity; commitment and role across the City’s cultural activity and development.

 

Between now and the final strategy, officers would focus on:

- Alignment with wider work in the City.

- Understanding how best to measure the impact of such a Strategy.

- Continued discussion on a shared focus for Cultural Development in the City.

- Internal action plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Agreed the strategic principles for Creativity and Culture for all: Cambridge City Council’s Cultural Strategy (2004 – 2029).

 

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 Culture & Community Manager.

 

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

      i.          Officers consulted with the community, the City Council did not take a top down approach to culture. The final strategy was expected in March 2024. A broad principles document was being considered at this committee members. It was  a high level document. The more detailed final strategy would set out the Council’s accessible approach to culture so it could be enjoyed by all, including children and disabled people.

     ii.          A Youth Strategy was in development.

   iii.          Officers acknowledged in the Cultural Strategy they could do more to measure the success and impact of work they do.

   iv.          A matrix of success was planned. This would include community cohesion, digital inclusion, skills and learning, involvement of residents in their neighbourhoods and city centre (place making)  alongside economic benefits.

 

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

In 2023/24 the S106 funding round for community and sports facilities sought proposals from community groups, sports clubs and schools (as well as council services) between £5,000 and £30,000 for improving equipment and/or storage at sports venues or community buildings with meeting space in Cambridge. The first phase of applications (for projects deliverable by the end of April 2024) took place summer 2023, with over £125,000 of S106 funds allocated to nine projects at last October’s Committee. The second phase continued until 31/10/2023, seeking eligible project proposals that could be completed by October 2024.

 

The Officer’s report recommended allocating over £420,000 of S106 funds to 22 proposals relating to the community facilities and outdoor/indoor sports contribution types. Consideration of applications from the first phase for improving swimming pool infrastructure were deferred until now, so the report also seeks approval for investing over £73,500 in a new approach to delivering swimming pool disinfection at Parkside Pools.

 

The allocation of £40,000 Public Art S106 funds for a project at Nightingale Recreation Ground was also recommended.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Agreed to:

      i.          Allocate generic S106 funding from the relevant S106 contribution types, subject to business case approval and community use agreement (as appropriate) and possible part-funding by specific S106 contributions where relevant and available (see paragraph 4.5 of the Officer’s report), to the following project proposals:

 

	Project proposals	Amount	S106 type
a.	Chesterton Indoor Bowls Club: lighting upgrades	£14,847	Indoor sports
b.	Trumpington Village Hall: furniture provision	£8,565	Community facilities
c.	Netherhall Sports Centre: outdoor court improvements	£39,606	Outdoor sports
d.	Netherhall Sports Centre: fitness equipment provision	£10,285	Indoor sports
e.	Campkin Road Community Centre: equipment & furnishings	£30,000	Community facilities
f.	Squared Circle Boxing Club: storage and equipment	£5,242	Indoor sports
g.	St Matthew’s Piece: basketball improvements	£17,722	Outdoor sports
h.	Scotland Road Rec Ground: basketball improvements	£12,115	Outdoor sports
i.	Green End Road Rec Ground: basketball improvements	£14,184	Outdoor sports
j.	Cambridge Dive Club: diving facility improvements	£16,250	Indoor sports
k.	St Paul’s Primary School: football equipment and storage (also subject to conditions set out in paragraph 4.3)	£13,276	Outdoor sports
l.	Ross Street Community Centre: kitchen improvements	£28,000	Community facilities
m.	Ross Street Community Centre: audio-visual (AV) equipment & Storage	£10,000	Community facilities
n.	The Junction: AV & presentation equipment	£24,852	Community facilities
o.	Cambridge Canoe Club: additional storage	£40,000	Outdoor sports
p.	Christ The Redeemer Church: storage, furniture & equipment	£8,275	Community facilities
q.	Coldham’s Common: outdoor fit kit storage	£7,500	Outdoor sports
r.	Abbey Pool Fitness Studio: gym equipment provision	£22,687	Indoor sports
s.	St. Philip’s School: community meeting area & canopy (also subject to conditions set out in paragraph 4.3)	£25,000	Community facilities
t.	Cambridge United Foundation: AV equipment	£15,000	Community facilities
u.	King’s Hedges Learner Pool: pool-based fitness equipment	£20,000	Indoor sports
v.	Christ’s Pieces Tennis Courts: court improvements	£37,371	Outdoor sports

 

Note: At 18/01/24 Committee Members agreed to delay grant funding for Canoe Club until planning permission was received.

 

See Section 4 and Appendices A and B of the Officer’s report for more details.

 

     ii.          Allocate £73,666 of Swimming Pool S106 contributions towards a new approach to delivering swimming pool disinfection at Parkside Pools with ultraviolet disinfection and salt-based hyproliser for onsite chlorination generation, subject to a business case approval;

   iii.          Allocate generic S106 public art funding of up to £40,000 for a public art project at Nightingale Recreation Ground, Community Garden and Pavilion, subject to business case approval.

 

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 (Officer).

 

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

      i.          Ultraviolet disinfection was commonly used in pools in the country. It was an effective system to kill pathogens and an environmentally friendly way to clean pools and reduce the amount of chlorine in them.  A salt-based hyproliser was another option to dechlorane pools.

     ii.          Parkside Pool was the main council pool but Officers could look at introducing ultraviolet disinfection and salt-based hyproliser at Abby Pool and Jesus Green too if the initiative worked at Parkside Pool.

 

Councillor Glasberg requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report to remove (O) ‘Cambridge Canoe Club additional storage’. Grant funding could be delayed until planning permission was received for the Canoe Club extension.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

The approval of the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations subject to the budget approval in February 2024.

Matter for Decision

This was the annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It provided an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget.

 

The report also provided an update on the work of the Grants Team carried out to date in 2023-24.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2024-25, as set out in Appendix 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2024 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

      i.          Agenda P42: Funding for United with Ukraine Community Grants Scheme had been doubled by Central Government, not the City Council.

     ii.          The approach introduced in 2022 would continue in future where a simpler application process was offered when lower level funding amounts were sought. As Area Committees had paused, a blended approach could be offered to communities of interest, geography and identity so they could navigate a simpler process but potentially with a slightly higher funding ceiling to align more with the Area Committee grants. More than one funding window in a year could be considered. Proposals would be set out in June 2024.

   iii.          Where groups are awarded funding that is £20,000 or more, they submit six monthly monitoring reports to demonstrate funding was being well spent. Applicants where the award has a value less than £20,000 submit annual reports. Officers were working on some guidelines to help applicants produce good quality monitoring information.

   iv.          Feedback was sought on the application process from small groups. The Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager was reviewing responses currently. For the 2024-25 round a question was included on the area committee grant form as well as the small group grant form. Feedback could also be sought through partners such as CCVS.

    v.          The small events budget was in place before 2020. Spending was paused in lockdown as no events were held, and then resumed. It originally focussed on volunteering events but now covers a wider range of activities.

   vi.          Would consider in future if it would be practicable to provide Ward Councillors with details on why grants were recommended for a nil award. A report would not be brought back to Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee.

 

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

i.                The purpose of this report is to seek approval relating to Council Tax premiums - as provided within the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act – which received Royal assent on 26th October 2023, and is due to become effective from 1st April 2024.

ii.                The Act provides additional discretionary powers for Council Tax premium options in respect of Long-Term Empty property and Second Homes. Those options enable the Council to impose additional Council Tax premiums on Long Term Empty property and Second Homes with effect from 1 April 2025.

iii.             Government has confirmed that billing authorities that wish to adopt any changes are required to make a resolution confirming their requirements at least 12 months prior to the financial year in which the changes come into effect; meaning the earliest these changes can be adopted is the 1 April 2024 with new premiums being applied from 1 April 2025. This ‘notice’ period provides that a minimum of 12 months notice must be given before the financial year from which the changes to a premium can be applied.

Decision of the Executive Councillor

i.                Support in principle that the following additional Council Tax premiums be applied from 1 April 2025 or as soon as possible thereafter, subject to the required legislation or further guidance being in place:

· 100% premium for properties which have been empty and unfurnished for a period of between 1 (previously 2) and 5 years. This brings forward the charging of an Empty Homes premium so that it would be charged after 1 year of being empty instead of the current 2 years, and

· A premium of up to 100% for second homes subject to any exception being applicable.

ii.                Delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer (s151 officer) to implement the introduction of these additional premiums taking into consideration any future guidance and best practice issued by Government.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

Scrutiny Considerations

The Local Taxation Manager said the following in response to Members questions:

 

i.                Expect to be able to manage the project with current resources within the Council Tax team.

ii.               Premiums would not come into effect until 2025.

iii.             There would be an element of data cleansing to get the correct information.

iv.             There could be challenges and appeals. There was an appeals process though the valuation tribunal.

v.              Were proposing a 100% charge, not up to 100%.

vi.             Only applies to people with a second home within Cambridge.

vii.           Only allowable exemption was if you were required to live elsewhere for work.

viii.         There was an inspection process in place for empty properties.

ix.             Normal rental properties were excluded, as were student accommodation.

Members proposed amendment to wording of Recommendation 2.1 to: Up to 100% or maximum allowable in regulation.

 

The Committee unanimously approved the amendment.

 

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

This report presents details of any anticipated variances from budgets, where resources are requested to be carried forward into the 2024/25 financial year in order to undertake or complete activities which were originally intended to take place in 2023/24.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

The Executive Councillor, is recommended, following scrutiny and debate at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee:

a) To agree the provisional carry forward requests, totalling £220,700 as detailed in Appendix A, subject to the final outturn position.

b) To agree the principle of the learning and development proposal including the creation of a permanent post as detailed in paragraph 3.4, and delegate the detailed budget adjustments to vire up to £100k of budget from services to the training and development budget to the Chief Finance Officer or Acting Chief Finance Officer in the 2024/5 financial year.

c) To agree the virement of £60,000 across portfolios for the creation of the one-year fixed term post within Procurement outlined in paragraph 3.5 and delegate the detailed budget adjustments to the Chief Finance Officer or Acting Chief Finance Officer in the 2024/5 financial year.

d) To agree to use the budget headroom resulting from the review of cost apportionment of the shared 3CICT service for the establishment of the permanent post of Strategic Digital Lead as outlined in paragraph 3.6.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

i.                Regarding empty property, and how long it had been vacant, and if realistic prospect to be be re-let, stated did not have information at hand. Would investigate and report back to Committee.

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

 

1. Approve the request of South Cambridgeshire District Council to continue the working arrangements for SCDC staff delivering shared services with Cambridge City Council.

 

2. To note the decision taken by SCDC to present an update report to S&R scrutiny committee, no later than the end of July 2024.

Matter for Decision

This is a short paper setting out next steps and recommendations in relation to the four-day working week trial at South Cambridgeshire District Council. It is presented at this scrutiny committee because SCDC operate two shared services on behalf of Cambridge City Council, the Shared Waste Service and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service.

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council and Executive Councillor for Transformation

 

      i.          Approve the request of South Cambridgeshire District Council to continue the working arrangements for SCDC staff delivering shared services with Cambridge City Council (shared waste and Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, in line with the decision taken by SCDC Cabinet, as follows: a. To continue the four day week working arrangement for both desk based and waste service operational SCDC colleagues until:

1)             information is provided by the Government regarding potential future financial levers they might impose on Councils using this working practice, as announced in their Local Government Financial Settlement consultation in December 2023, and

2)             a subsequent consultation is carried out by the Council, analysed, and all trial data is presented to SCDC Full Council for a final decision. b. for all SCDC colleagues working a four-day week (desk-based and waste operations), the hours are harmonised at 32 hours per week (pro rata for part time colleagues) at 86.5% of contracted hours from 1 April 2024.

     ii.          To note the decision taken by SCDC to present an update report to this scrutiny committee, no later than the end of July 2024, providing data on the trial periods (desk-based and waste), up to the end of March 2024, including information about the ongoing effectiveness, including recruitment and retention, costs and savings of a four-day week working model

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Chief Operating Officer (Cambridge City Council), Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire County Council, Head of Climate, Environment and Waste, Head of Transformation, HR and Corporate Services (South Cambridgeshire) and Chief Operating Officer (South Cambridgeshire) said the following in response to Members questions:

i.                Agency savings had been significant, There were several posts that previously could not be filled. The majority of savings from Planning Services.

ii.               Were seeing better staff retention. Less vacancies for posts. Less recruitment costs.

iii.             Had seen a reduction in sickness, however still need to analyse data regarding that.

iv.             Recruitment had been more successful.

v.              Have data regarding the trial, would not analyse from May-July.

vi.             If other Councils started apapting a 4 Day Week (4DW), that could cause a challenge regarding recruitment.

vii.           The year long trial allowed for the newness to wear off and for work to normalise and stabilise.

viii.         If the 4DW was stopped now, there would be morale issues.

ix.             Currently there were less meetings taking place on Monday’s and Friday’s.

x.              Staff have the ability to drop out of the trial if they so wished.

xi.             SCDC had staff drop in sessions with HR.

xii.           Had regular meetings with unions.

xiii.         Issues included study time for apprentices.

xiv.         The review of waste services was for growth and the 4DW. The growth review had already taken place.

xv.          The new refuse collection rounds that had been put in place will be in place for at least 3 years, unless there was further growth.

xvi.         SCDC would be doing a residents survey and a consultation.

xvii.       Would provide update at a future meeting of this Committee.

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.

 

Cambridge City Council

Record of Officer Urgent Decision

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority- Appointment of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee reserve (substitute) member

Decision taken: To appoint the reserve member for the City Council on the CPCA Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

Decision of: Chief Executive

Reference: 24/OfficerUrgent/SR/01

Date of decision: 1 February 2024

Matter for Decision: To appoint Councillor Cameron Holloway as the City Council’s reserve (substitute) member on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

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 15 February 2024), an urgent decision under Section 9 paragraph 2, Council Procedure Rules was necessary to enable the reserve (substitute) member to attend a CPCA meeting before the next Full Council meeting.

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

 

To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Matter for Decision

This is a regular report to the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee each cycle providing an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board since the meeting of this Scrutiny Committee on 29 January October 2024.

 

Decision of the Leader

To invite the Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board, Councillor Anna Smith, to provide an update on the Board and issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority Board held on 31 January 2024 and 20 March 2024.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board Councillor A. Smith provided a verbal report.

 

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.                Disappointed by changes made by Stagecoach. Bus reform was needed.

ii.               UKREiiF was an investment conference. Was trying to get investment into the region by marketing Cambridgshire and Peterborough.

iii.             Could provide further details about UKREiiF.

iv.             There was not currently a wider plan for more affordable homes.

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

 

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

 

Decision of the Leader

 

i.                 Approve Officer’s recommendation.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

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

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

 

      i.          The Council’s General Fund Asset Management Plan updated in March 2023 and in the Future Office Accommodation Strategy approved at Strategy and Resources Committee in October 2022 are an important part of the Council’s transformation programme ‘Our Cambridge’ to achieve significant annual savings for the General Fund which can protect frontline services.

     ii.          There have been some initial quick wins. In the Guildhall, the Council has piloted space for small businesses working with Allia to establish a Future Business Centre, generating income. The development of an operational hub at Cowley Road has merged two existing sites and 171 Arbury Road Office has been vacated and those premises are being rented out to two charities reducing operational costs as well as generating income. The next steps are to consider: the remodeling of the Council’s office accommodation to ensure that it meets modern requirements and expectations of council staff, tenants and the public; reducing operational costs across the whole building lifecycle; how to reduce costs to attain Net Zero; and generating more income for the council.

   iii.          This report outlines the findings from the feasibility report undertaken for the Guildhall in November 2023. The findings demonstrate that the consolidation of Council offices with £16m generated from the disposal of Mandela House and refurbishing the Guildhall for £35m (Option 1) produces a positive Net Present Value of £22m for the Council in 30 years with a payback in 9 years when compared to the Do Nothing option.

   iv.          Option 1 generates:

·       significant operational savings of £918k per annum for Mandela House and £1.342m for the Guildhall.

·       an opportunity for an enhanced commercial revenue stream, through both commercial office letting and more flexible and accessible events spaces generating over £700k in net revenue per annum.

·       a reduction in the Council’s exposure to an estimated c. £500k annual cost if refurbishment is to Net Zero

    v.          The recommended next steps are to further develop design work to RIBA 2 for the Guildhall and to develop a more detailed appraisal analysis for both the Guildhall and Mandela House.

   vi.          In March 2022 a report to the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee approved the updated vision for the Market Square:

·       “An inspiring, strategic public realm heart to the city centre, the market square will be welcoming to all to work, visit and spend time here. A 21st century international and local multi-generational and multi-cultural space, celebrating Cambridge’s history and heritage, it integrates a thriving, sustainable, accessible, safe and open environment, connecting the surrounding streets with spaces to shop, wander, stop and socialise. A bustling 7-day market, space for seating and eating, additional business and social opportunities and engaging and inclusive cultural events will add to the richness of the area, making this an active day and evening hub in the city centre for local businesses, residents, and the wider community.”

 vii.          Having reported in March 2022 on the initial design work and consultation already undertaken on the Market Square, the recommended next steps are to: progress the current designs on the agreed vision; support the market, its shoppers and its traders by continuing with the essential business as usual maintenance works; and for the Executive Councillor to consider a report at the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee in March 2024 on the current market legal status.

viii.          Should procurement be approved, the winning design and consultant team will be asked to provide decanting options that maintain current levels of trade which, if there is future approval, will be part of the planning submission for refurbishment.

   ix.          The Corn Exchange is one of the largest venues for concerts outside London and within East Anglia, but has significant operating costs per annum (excluding staff costs) and the 10 year projection of capital costs required for the listed building based on a 2021 condition report is in the region of £5.5m This includes some carbon reduction measures.

    x.          With recommendations to take forward designs to RIBA 2 for the Market Square and Guildhall in place, this report makes the case for a feasibility report including RIBA 2 designs for refurbishment to be undertaken for the Corn Exchange to consider how operating costs can be reduced and how the spend per head can be improved by offering a more attractive destination generating more income for the Council.

   xi.          By creating a Civic Quarter project including the Guildhall, Market Square and Corn Exchange, the Council will consider how it can create a more attractive destination and increase visitor numbers for the Market, Corn Exchange and businesses in the area, whilst providing modern flexible office facilities for its own staff to improve staff retention. With a more attractive Civic Quarter destination, with increased visitor numbers the Council will be looking to enhance the economic multiplier effect in the quarter as well as reducing annual operating costs of its civic spaces through the Net Zero refurbishment designs and enhanced placemaking.

 xii.          This work will also contribute towards the Business Case for matched funding of £1.5m announced by the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority on November 30th 2023.

xiii.          Creating a single project team with a single design and consultant brief for the Civic Quarter offers an enhanced placemaking opportunity, better value for money in procurement and a more robust business case for the Council in maximizing revenue income, reducing operational costs and an enhanced destination.

xiv.          £1,450,000 is recommended, based on advice from independent cost consultants, for the overall budget to procure design and consultancy services to RIBA 2 for the Civic Quarter managed through a single project and professional team.

xv.          It is proposed that the work undertaken by the appointed design and consultant team will provide design proposals and detailed appraisal analysis on a range of refurbishment options allowing the Council to make an informed choice on the next steps for its Civic Quarter at the November 2024 S&R Committee.

xvi.          Should approval be granted to proceed with full design team procurement, stakeholder engagement will be channelled through two Civic Quarter Steering groups. An Internal Civic Quarter Steering group will focus on the design requirements for the Civic, Office, Customer Services and Cultural Events spaces required by the council.

xvii.          An External Civic Quarter Steering Group will consider the views of market traders, the public and the Civic Quarter Liaison Group. The Civic Quarter Liaison Group will replace the Market Square Liaison Group. A communications company with a track record in Cambridge will be appointed to assist the Council with this external stakeholder engagement and the Council’s online consultation portal (Citizen Lab) will be used to ensure all views are captured. This engagement will start in January 2024 with meetings held with Market Traders and the Civic Quarter Liaison Groups.

xviii.          A members steering group will provide feedback to the appointed design team on civic requirements.

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

      i.          Note the report and the development of the Proof of Concept on the Guildhall and associated cost and revenue estimates for the Options 1 and 2.

     ii.          Approve the delegated authority to Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Strategy & Resources to appoint a design team through a compliant procurement exercise for the Civic Quarter project.

   iii.          Agree that:

·       A budget proposal of £1m for progression to the end of RIBA stage 2 for the Guildhall, is put forward to be considered as part of the Council’s budget setting process, funded from the Civic Quarter Development Reserve, and

·       In principle, £0.450m should be allocated for progression to the end of RIBA stage 2 for the Market Square and for a feasibility and refurbishment RIBA 2 design for the Corn Exchange with final approval delegated to the Executive Councilor for Strategy and Resources. £0.300m to be allocated from the Civic Quarter Development Reserve and £0.150m from the existing Market Square capital scheme.

   iv.          2.5 Note the review by Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) of the options of Mandela House to provide a capital receipt and profit return for the Council.

    v.          2.6 Request that a further report and recommendations be brought back to Committee in November 2024 to enable review and approval of:

·       the business case options for Mandela House, including redevelopment, disposal and refurbishment, and for the refurbishment of the Civic Quarter

·       progression to planning applications

·       a procurement strategy of a construction or development partner

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Development Assistant Director said the following in response to Members questions:

 

      i.          Sections of the appendix were not in the public domain due to significant information that was considered intellectual property and commercially sensitive.

     ii.          The Market, Guildhall and Corn Exchange was about the public realm. To create a greater sense of space.

   iii.          There are synergies between the Guildhall and the Corn Exchange, as conferencing facilities would be available at both.

   iv.          By putting the bids in for all three (Guildhall, Market, Corn Exchange) better for value that doing three separate bids.

    v.          There would be extensive stakeholder engagement.

   vi.          If numbers were increased in the Civic Quarter area, would demonstrate increased income for the area. That would require creative work from bidders.

 vii.          The Customer Service Centre in Mandela House would not close until there was another space for them to move to.

viii.          Would undertake extensive surveys and design work and bring back to Committee in November.

   ix.          A high-level appraisal had been done on Mandela House. When returning to the Committee in November, Members would be given business case options on how to proceed next.

    x.          The design input would be workshops from design consortium, including Members steering group.

   xi.          There would be flexibility around the amount of desk space for the City Council and commercial use.

 xii.          Concerns about design had already been captured through meetings with Market Traders. Further input would be sought from Market Traders regarding the design of future market.

xiii.          Wished to explore what design improvements could have an effect on business for the Corn Exchange.

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations 7-1.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To agree the purpose for the Corporate Group and the Policy & Partnerships Unit.

This report summarizes the outputs of the research and development phase of the Our Cambridge corporate design programme. It focuses on the proposed Corporate Hub which brings together functions from across the Corporate Group and the Chief Executive’s Office. It sets out the purpose of the proposed Corporate Hub, what it will do, and what functions it will have. It also sets out how it will co-ordinate those functions across the organisation. This is an integral part of the wider Our Cambridge programme.

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council

 

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

 

      i.          Agree the purpose, value statements, high-level functions and operating model as set out in this paper;

     ii.          Agree to delegate decisions in relation to the detailed operational design to the Chief Operating Officer, and for consultation and implementation of changes to staffing structures, in line both with the direction recommended in this paper and our Organisational Change Policy.

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Chief Operating Officer said the following in response to Members questions:

 

      i.          Fundamental role of corporate hub was to work with managers to understand how they know they were achieving their goals. That would be monitored by senior management.

     ii.          Rather than doing work for managers, need to ensure managers had the tools and capacity to do this for themselves.

   iii.          Regarding shared services, were in a position to be clear what the council wants and to work with partners.

   iv.          Regarding a question as to whether a more detailed organogram of staff would be useful, stated would look into it. The current ‘who does what’ document which had corporate management team on it, should be able to find the right entry point for any query.

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

 

This is a regular report to the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee each cycle providing an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board since the meeting of this Scrutiny Committee on 2 October 2023.

 

Decision of the Leader of the Council

 

i.                To invite the Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board, Councillor Anna Smith, to provide an update on the Board and issues considered at the meeting of the Combined Authority Board held on 29 November 2023.

ii.               To invite Nick Bell, the Director for Resources and Performance at the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to take questions from committee members on issues relating to the CPCA budget.

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board Councillor A. Smith provided a verbal report:

 

      i.          Cambridge bus routes to be discussed at next CPCA meeting.

     ii.          Bus reform.

The Executive Director of Resources and Performance of the CPCA addressed the Committee.

 

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board and the Executive Director of Resources and Performance of the CPCA and the said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          Currently running a non-regulated system for busses and there is not yet public control of the bus network.

     ii.          Recommend in principle to go to bus franchising.

   iii.          Bus subsides were still apart of the budget.

   iv.          Regarding improvements to Cambridge Park & Ride, would need to come back with further details. If more funding were available in the future, it may change.

    v.          Would wish to get more bus routes in outlying areas to reduce need for cars, thus slightly reducing congestion.

   vi.          Would enquire about electric busses and report back.

 vii.          Looking at supporting the bus operators with driver training to support bus routes.

viii.          Discussion of cost efficiency of route 7A had been taking place. Was subject of bus review and would not be moving forward in its current form but in a different, more efficient form.

   ix.          Auditor for franchising bid would be Grant Thornton, that was in the public domain.

    x.          Source of funding would be to see if CPCA could secure include:

·       government funding

·       borrowing to fund capital investments

·       transport levy, funds provided by the Transport Authorities

·       Precepts

·       Biggest potential source would be if central government could be persuaded to allow CPCA to keep all business rates.

   xi.          Regarding bus reform, cost was a sliding scale. Franchising could potentially offer financial advantages.

 xii.          There were budget proposals coming to the next CPCA meeting with two potential capital schemes for Cambridge City Council, one for the Civic Quarter project which would be for £1.5 million pounds. The second for £3 million for work around the Cambridge Junction area to create a potential creative industries area.

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

This report contains exempt information during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting subject to determination by the Scrutiny Committee following consideration of a public interest test. This exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Committee voted 4-3-1 and 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 voted 5-1-2 to endore the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2022-2023.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

 

      I.          Approved the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2022-2023 (included as Appendix A) for publication on the Councils’ websites.

    II.          Agreed to delegate any further minor editing changes to the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2022-2023 to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Policy Planner.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Policy Planner and Planning Policy Manager, Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.          The joint consideration of five-year housing supply and delivery across Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire had been agreed by both Planning Inspectors when assessing the Local Plans.

     ii.          Government reporting of the Housing Delivery Test currently reported Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire separately. Officers had requested to DLUHC were assessed jointly but this has not yet been changed. Further efforts would be made to highlight the issue to DLUHC.

   iii.          Both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire meet the threshold on the latest Housing Delivery Test results such that no action was required. Consequences of not meeting the test were set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Where a Council falls below 95% of the housing requirement it must publish an action plan showing how it will increase housing delivery.

   iv.          Acknowledged it was difficult to monitor the change of use for retail units that did not require planning permission. Officers were monitoring permissions using both the old use class order and the new use class order so there was a consistent data set from 2011.

    v.          Where retail units did not require planning permission for a change of use, a planning permission may still be required if building work was being undertaken.

   vi.          Several of the district centres within Cambridge were being monitored by Officers visiting the sites and recording the use of each property.

 vii.          Officers had been engaging with CBC (Cambridge Biomedical Campus) Ltd as part of the Local Plan to seek to agree a coherent set of development principles for the site within an SPD.

viii.          The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites set out the need to identify need and secure provision for sites for gypsies, travellers and travelling show people. A new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment was currently being completed to identify the scale and nature of need which would inform the emerging Local Plan.

   ix.          The AMR included planning data on sites permitted for travellers sites and data from the Traveller Caravan Count.

    x.          The current affordable housing policy thresholds do not appear to be causing a viability issue regarding the delivery of affordable housing; all residential permissions in Cambridge meeting the threshold have delivered or exceeded the required level of affordable housing.

   xi.          Student accommodation was monitored in line with Local Plan policies.

 xii.          Noted the comment that colleges were buying domestic properties in the city and converting them to student accommodation on a small scale each time that did not require any regulatory approval.

xiii.          Work had been undertaken on the current Local Plan to understand the student accommodation needs in terms of provision.  A new survey was being undertaken by Officers and the issue of colleges buying domestic properties would be reported to those Officers to investigate the matter.

xiv.          The subject of wellbeing was one of the four main threads of the Local Plan. The pandemic had highlighted the importance of the open spaces within the community. It was important to note the conclusions of the health communities on a range of issues including childhood activity levels and obesity. A careful and considered view on how the Council could promote activity, reduce loneliness, improve community and a sense of belonging through open spaces would be required. It’s not about a particular quantum of space, but how spaces support achieving healthy outcomes, and we want to explore this further through the joint local plan.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that she welcomed the range of questions that had been put forward, particularly the comments on class E and student accommodation. The report had been presented to address the Local Plan requirements, but the data could be used far more widely than Local Plan monitoring.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

None

 

Matter for Decision

Howes Place, off Huntingdon Road, had been identified as an area to be considered for designation as a Conservation Area following the 2008/9 Suburbs and Approaches Study

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

Approved the designation of a conservation area at Howes Place, the boundary of which was shown on the Townscape Map in the Appendix 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 Committee received a report from the Principal Conservation Officer

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Conservation Officer and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.          Any trees within the boundary of the conservation area had additional protection without a Tree Protection Order (TPO). Any work required to those trees would require prior authorisation from Tree Officers.

     ii.          The target for the periodic review of the Council’s Conservation Area designations and boundaries was every five years, although this was not absolute. This work had to be undertaken alongside other projects.

   iii.          Currently undertaking a five-year programme of conservation area reviews with the aim of completing five per year. A schedule of reviews had out been outlined for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. Information on the programme could be circulated to the Committee Members.

   iv.          Noted the comments that Howes Place was a good example of an area where social history and natural history intersected.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

Matter for Decision

 

      i.          This report updates the financial context for budget setting and presents GF budget proposals and allocations of general reserves for scrutiny (Appendix 1).

    ii.          Following scrutiny and the completion of the budget consultation, the GF budget setting report (BSR) will be produced for consideration by The Executive on 5 February 2024 and recommendation to Full Council for 15 February 2024.

 

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

The Executive Councillor is asked to:

 

      i.          Approve the GF revenue and capital proposals as presented in Appendices B(a), B(b), and C, pages 16 to 23, of the attached report, for inclusion in the GF BSR.

 

     ii.          Note the impact of the revenue proposals on the five year savings requirement identified in the GF Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), section 3 page 9.

 

   iii.          To approve for inclusion in the GF BSR:

 

· the creation of the Civic Quarter Development Reserve with the remit set out in section 5, pages 11 and 12.

· the allocation of £20m of general reserves to this new reserve.

· the allocation of £750k of general reserves to the Climate Change Fund, as set out in section 5, page 11.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Chief Finance Officer.

 

The Chief Finance Officer, City Services Director, the Assistant Chief Executive, The Leader, the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services, the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure and the Council’s representative on the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          Reserves were being brought forward for substantial Capital schemes.

     ii.          The title Civic Quarter was a working title. It encompasses the refurbishment of the market and the Corn Exchange. That coincided with successful bid to the CPCA with a contribution of £1.5 million. Council required to prepare an outline business case. All government arrangement would be reported to 29 January Committee.

   iii.          The Guildhall would also be refurbished as part of the Council’s accommodation strategy.

   iv.          £20 million would be earmarked for Civic Quarter project, the funding arrangements are currently confidential due to competitive tender. This would be reported in due course.

    v.          Business rates retention scheduled to be reset in 2025/2026, however need to campaign for it to continue to Government.

   vi.          Central provision had been reduced. There was approximately £300,000 remaining.

 vii.          Income had reduced at the crematorium. Mitigations in place include:

·       Entering into new markets.

·       Partnering with other District Councils.

·       Partnering with the Rosie bereavement.

·       Would reduce operational costs.

viii.          Reduced income from Market, however Cambridge was considered a successful market. Mitigations in place include:

·       Cutting down fixed costs.

·       Encourage traders to manage their own waste.

·       Reviewing electricity usage.

·       Exploring satellite markets.

·       Would review casual trading policy which may boost occupancy.

   ix.          There was a green burial option at the crematorium, it was advertised on the Councils website however there had been a low take up.

    x.          Recruiting younger market stall holders was a national problem.

   xi.          There was a dedicated team of 3-4 people who operate the market service and who seek new customers.

 xii.          The purpose of £50,000 contribution to Innovate Cambridge from the Council was assisting with the University and affiliated business’s goal to promote Cambridge as a city and to support local residents and communities. Chief Executive of Cambridge City Council Robert Pollock sat on the Innovate Cambridge board.

xiii.          The removal of the bus subsidy was due to the confidence that the Council had that the CPCA would take it over. It was currently in the proposed budget of the CPCA.

xiv.          The bus subsidy of the CPCA was not conditional on additional precept. That was something that has already been factored into budget.

xv.          Allotment income had increased not due to an increase in fees but due to an increase in plots.

xvi.          There was a 7% increase in fees and charges for events. The number of events on open spaces would remain the same.

xvii.          The number of events taking place on open spaces is constrained by the event policy. There was still an opportunity for councillors to provide feedback on what events take place during scrutiny committee.

xviii.          The priorities for use of Donkey Common uses were still a work in progress.

xix.          Resources would be provided for the District Heat Network project and Energy Efficiency works and retrofit on the Council’s corporate assets.

 

 

The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations by a vote of 6-1 (2 abstentions).

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 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

 

      i.          The Council is required to receive and approve, as a minimum, three main treasury management reports each year.

     ii.          The first and most important is the Treasury Management Strategy (this report), which covers:

· capital plans (including prudential indicators);

· a Minimum Revenue Provision policy which explains how unfinanced capital expenditure will be charged to revenue over time; · the Treasury Management Strategy (how investments and borrowings are to be organised) including treasury indicators; and

· a Treasury Management Investment Strategy (the parameters on how investments are to be managed).

   iii.          A mid-year treasury management report is produced to update Members on the progress of the capital position, amending prudential indicators as necessary, and advising if any policies require revision.

   iv.          The Outturn or Annual Report compares actual performance to the estimates in the Strategy.

    v.          The statutory framework for the prudential system under which local government operates is set out in the Local Government Act 2003 and Capital Financing and Accounting Statutory Instruments. The framework incorporates four statutory codes. These are:

· the Prudential Code (2021 edition) prepared by CIPFA;

· the Treasury Management Code (2021 edition) prepared by CIPFA;

· the Statutory Guidance on Local Government Investments prepared by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) (effective 1 April 2018); and

· the Statutory Guidance on Minimum Revenue Provision prepared by DLUHC (effective 1 April 2019).

   vi.          The Council’s S151 Officer has considered the deliverability, affordability and risk associated with the Council’s capital expenditure plans and treasury management activities. The plans are affordable. Where there are risks such as the slippage of capital expenditure, or reductions in investment values or income, these have been reviewed and mitigated at an acceptable level. The Council has access to specialist advice where appropriate.

 vii.          Treasury Management Reports are required to be adequately scrutinised before being recommended to the Council. This role is undertaken by the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

The Executive Councillor is asked to recommend to Council:-

 

      i.          That this report, including the estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2024/25 to 2027/28 (inclusive) as set out in Appendix C, be approved.

 

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 Deputy Chief Finance Officer.

 

The Deputy Chief Finance Officer and the Chief Finance Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          The amount of money borrowed were set during the budget setting process. Amount borrowed must be approved by Full Council.

     ii.          There was a reserves policy presented with the MTFS.

   iii.          The use of reserves always comes to Committee for scrutiny principally through the MTFS and the budget setting report.

 

The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 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 presents the capital strategy of the council together with a summary capital programme for the General Fund (GF) and Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The previous capital strategy was approved by Council on 23 February 2023. The strategy is focused on providing a framework for delivery of capital expenditure plans over a 10-30 year period. These plans cover spending on operational assets to support service delivery and on investments which provide an income for the council alongside meeting the council’s objectives in relation to economic development and place-making, regeneration and climate change mitigation. Governance arrangements are also outlined in order to ensure the capital programme continues to deliver value for money.

 

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

The Executive Councillor is asked to:

·       Recommend the capital strategy to Council; and

·       Note the summary capital programme

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Deputy Chief Finance Officer.

 

The Deputy Chief Finance Officer and the Chief Finance Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Regarding heritage assets, within the capital strategy the approached decision making about the capital programme, part of the process of producing that document was to understand that there may be non-financial considerations that form part of the Councils overall objectives.

     ii.          There was a recognition within the capital strategy of the alignment of the Councils corporate plan. The capital strategy was about ensuring there were prudent arrangements for financing that expenditure.

   iii.          Regarding the restrictions in place in terms of the acquisition of assets for commercial benefit or investments for yield, the government guidance on the topic is clear in prohibiting investments which were purely for yield however it does give local authorities through their section 151 officer the flexibility to consider other motivations regarding proposed investment which could include regeneration. The proceeds of any regeneration were required to be recycled rather than fund delivery of future services.

   iv.          Councillor Bennett requested a list of the Council’s peppercorn leases.

    v.          The change assurance team is led by the Head of the Shared Internal Audit Service. Does not currently have the list available of members however it had representatives from Finance, HR, Legal, Procurement and others. A full list could be provided.

   vi.          The commercial property income target was less than 50% because it was seen as a risk. Whereas income received from government was seen as more secure.

 vii.          In the general fund the level of reserves would be reduced in the next year or so due to significant investments being made. The report showed figures that do not include business rates growth. That would increase the need for the Council to borrow in order to deliver the capital expenditure that was set out in the report.

 

The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 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.

The Democratic Services Manager introduced the report and outlined the key aspects to members.

 

The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny compiled a report in February 2022 which found that the Council’s current arrangements lead to a lack of collective democratic accountability, was resource heavy, opaque, did not result in improved outcomes for the Council and was not as inclusive as it could be for residents to engage with.

 

The Governance Reference Group (GRG) was established to consider the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny and Independent Renumeration Panel (IRP) findings and develop proposals for the Civic Affairs Committee that could be put to full Council.

 

The GRG in December 2023 came up with four principles for good governance and highlighted the below:

 

·      Decision making is timely / prompt, focussed and efficient

·      Decision making is accountable

·      Our governance system and decision-making processes are transparent

·      Encourages collaboration

 

The CfGS review went to great lengths to emphasise the importance of behaviours and culture.

 

The City Council’s written constitution already incorporated the Leader and Executive/Cabinet form of governance. The constitution provided for collective Executive decision making at public meetings (e.g. Cabinet), and an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. However, in practice the Council operates what has been termed a ‘hybrid-hybrid’ system because it blended elements of the two distinct forms of governance available to local authorities - the Committee and Leader-Cabinet systems.

 

The GRG also commissioned officers to provide some hypothetical options for the Leader and Executive/Cabinet model based on current best practice; and that these options should consider members’ desire for new arrangement to provide for strong scrutiny and enable non-executive members to have a role in the decision-making process. 

 

Members of the Committee commented on the report which included:

 

·      There was no overall consensus on the best model within the GRG, however the majority of the GRG were supportive of the Leader and Cabinet model.

·      The Liberal Democrat Group as a whole was not supportive of the Leader and Cabinet model for a few grounds namely that there could potentially be less involvement in decision-making for non-executive councillors.

·      The recommendations in the report were about working towards implementing a revised Leader and Cabinet model, which would give the opposition opportunities to contribute and have more democratic debates on key items that affect the City.

·      It had been two years since the CfGS report had been completed and it was time that the Council moved forward towards a new system, stepping away from being unique in comparision with other local authorities. The work of the Chair of the GRG was noted for being collaborative.

·      It was important that non-executive councillors from across all parties were given the opportunity to scrutinise the decisions of the Executive.

·      There were potentially opportunities for non-executive councillors and for opposition to be involved in policy formation, before political groups ask members to project certain ideas before a later stage. More councillors could be involved within the creative stage of decision-making.

 

 

Resolved (4 votes for, 2 votes against, 0 abstentions) to recommend to Council:

 

a.    That the Council design and implement a revised ‘Leader and Cabinet’ model of decision making and authorises the Chief Executive to enable changes to be implemented from the Annual Council Meeting in May 2025

b.    To establish a member-officer design group with external technical support to develop a revised 'Leader and Cabinet' model with final proposals including an updated constitution being presented to the Civic Affairs Committee and then to full Council for adoption.

 

The Democratic Services Manager introduced the report and explained that the recommendation to grant the Honorary Freedom of the City was reserved for the extraordinary Annual Council Meeting.

 

Members welcomed the recommendation and asked that strong communications were put out explaining the close links HMS Protector has with Cambridge.

 

HMS Protector carried out a lot of work for the British Antartic Survey (BAS), which was based in Cambridge as well as working closely with the Scott Polar Institute. This was also the only ice breaker the British Navy had. In addition, this recommendation also addressed the serious nature that the City takes towards climate change.

 

It was also noted that the previous captain was the first female appointed to captain a vessel of this sort in history.

 

Resolved (Unanimous) to recommend to Council:

 

a.    To confer the Honorary Freedom of the City of Cambridge upon HMS Protector. (Nb. Granting the Freedom of the City will require at least two thirds of the Councillors present to agree to the recommendation).

 

To consider the proposed Committee allocations by party and the nominations received. Also to consider the nominations for Chairs and Vice Chairs of Scrutiny and Regulatory Committees.

The committee will recommend to Council to agree the number and size of committees, agree to depart from proportionality on Planning Committee, and to note the nominations.

The Committee received a report on the appointments to committee’s and Chair’s/Vice Chair’s.

 

It was noted that on the Cambridge Joint Area Committee that this Municipal Year the Green party would take a seat and the Lib Dems would have a seat but that for the following Municipal Year the Lib Dems would take this seat back so they would have two seats.

 

Resolved: (unanimously) to recommend to Council:

 

i.               Appointments to city council committees and joint partner bodies below:

 

Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee 8 (5 Labour + 2 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

Pounds, Nestor, Swift, Divkovic, TBC

 

Payne, Hauk

 

Glasberg

 

Alternates – Griffin, Sheil, Martinelli, Flaubert, Tong

 

Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee 8 (5 Labour + 2 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

Nestor, Baigent, Swift, Griffin, Divkovic

 

Porrer, Bick

 

Clough

 

Alternates – Pounds, Todd-Jones, Lee, Lokhmotova, Bennett

 

Housing Scrutiny Committee 9 (6 Labour + 2 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

Griffin, Robertson, Gawthrope Wood, Baigent, Swift, Thittala

 

Martinelli, Lee

 

Tong

 

Alternates: Nestor, Pounds, Young, Porrer, Bennett

 

Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee 8 (5 Labour + 2 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

Robertson, Gawthrope Wood, Sheil, Baigent, Todd-Jones

 

Bick, Young

 

Bennett

 

Alternates – Lab TBC, Lab TBC, Porrer, Martinelli, Clough

 

Civic Affairs Committee 6 (4 Labour + 1 Lib Dem +1 Green)

 

McPherson, Gawthrope Wood, Sheil, Robertson

 

Young

 

Bennett

 

Alternate – Holloway, Bick, Clough

 

Employment (Senior Officer) Committee 6 (4 Labour + 1 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

Davey, Carling, Gilderdale, Moore

 

Bick

 

Bennett

 

Alternates: Labour TBC, Porrer, Clough

 

Licensing Committee 10 (6 Labour + 3 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

McPherson, Bird, Moore, Griffin, Pounds, Wade

 

Blackburn-Horgan, Young, Lib Dem TBC

 

Clough

 

Alternates – Davey, Lib Dem TBC, Bennett

 

Planning Committee 9 (6 Labour + 2 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

Smart, Baigent, Thornburrow, Gilderdale, Carling, Dryden

 

Porrer, Lokhmotova

 

Bennett

 

Alternates – Nestor, Todd-Jones, Flaubert, Young, Howard

 

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority - 1 seat

 

A.Smith

 

Alternate - Davey

 

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2 Labour

 

Lab TBC, Lab TBC

 

Alternate – Lab TBC

 

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Audit and Governance Committee 1 Labour + one alternate

 

S.Smith

 

Alternate – Lab TBC

 

Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly 3 (2 Labour + 1 Lib Dem)

 

S.Smith, Thornburrow, Bick

 

Joint Development Control Committee - Cambridge Fringes 6 (4 Labour+ 2 Lib Dem)

 

S.Smith, Baigent, Smart, Thornburrow

 

Porrer, Flaubert,

 

Alternates – Gilderdale, Nestor, Young, Lokhmotova

 

Cambridge Joint Area Committee 6 (4 Labour + 1 Lib Dem + 1 Green)

 

Thornburrow, Robertson, Baigent, Moore

 

Young

 

Bennett

 

Alternates – Carling, Lab TBC, Martinelli, Tong

 

ii.             Nominations for Chairs and Vice-Chairs 2024/25

 

Environment and Communities Services

Chair - Pounds

Vice-Chair – Nestor

 

Planning and Transport

Chair – Nestor

Vice-Chair – Baigent

 

Housing

Chair – Griffin

Vice-Chair (nb. Tenant/Leaseholder is Chair of Part 1 of the meeting) - Robertson

 

Strategy and Resources

Chair – Robertson

Vice-Chair – Gawthrope Wood

 

Civic Affairs

Chair - McPherson

Vice-Chair – Gawthrope Wood

 

Licensing

Chair - McPherson

Vice-Chair - Bird

 

Planning

Chair - Smart

Vice-Chair (Labour) – Baigent

Vice-Chair (Lib Dem) - Porrer

 

JDCC

Chair – S.Smith

 

 

 

Matter for Decision: To agree the Council’s response to the public consultation on the submission version of the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan. The consultation closes on 18 June 2024.

 

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

 

The South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum is preparing a neighbourhood plan for their area. The Council has a duty to support neighbourhood forums in preparing their plan. Officers have considered the contents of the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan against the basic conditions tests, including general conformity with national planning policy and the policies of the adopted Local Plan. The response will provide the independent examiner with the Council’s comments on the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

An alternative option would be for the Council not to respond to the submission consultation, but the Council has a duty to support neighbourhood forums in their plan-making. If no response is made the neighbourhood forum and the independent examiner would not be made aware of the Council’s views.

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision: Agrees the response to the submission consultation on the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Appendix 1.

Document Meeting 240924_RoD_Appendix 1_.South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan Response to consultation on the submission plan - Cambridge Council

 

Reason for the decision: The Council has a duty to support neighbourhood forums in preparing neighbourhood plans and is keen to support these local communities so that their plan is successful at examination. The response will provide the independent examiner with the Council’s comments on the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan.

 

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

 

Report: The response from Cambridge City Council to the submission consultation on the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan is attached as Appendix 1 (including Appendix A).

Document Meeting 240924_RoD_Appendix 1_.South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan Response to consultation on the submission plan - Cambridge Council

 

Conflict of interest: None.

 

Comments: No adverse comments made.

Councillor Porrer (Lib Dem Spokes) said the following - Thank you also to officers for all their very detailed work on this, which I support, in particular the references to the need to make the plan clearer about water usages in paras 21 and 22.

 

Briefing paper

The South Newnham Neighbourhood Area was designated on 9 January 2017. The neighbourhood area is for the southern part of the ward of South Newnham.

 

Officers have met with the Neighbourhood Forum ahead of the submission consultation process and recognise the hard work that has been put into preparing the plan. The Forum has worked hard to engage with the local community and has ensured that they have had an opportunity to input into the final plan.

 

A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening was undertaken on a draft version of the Neighbourhood Plan, and a screening determination was published in April 2023.

 

Pre-submission public consultation on the draft Neighbourhood Plan was undertaken by the Neighbourhood Forum from 12 June until 30 July 2023. Officers provided a formal response to the consultation, providing constructive comments about the plan to assist the Neighbourhood Forum with finalising the Neighbourhood Plan. Officers have met with the Neighbourhood Forum to discuss these comments and are aware that the submission version of the plan has taken on board many of the suggested changes.

 

On 15 April 2024, the South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum submitted their Neighbourhood Plan to Cambridge City Council. Officers have confirmed, as set out in the Legal Compliance Check for the Neighbourhood Plan, that the submitted version of the Neighbourhood Plan and its accompanying supporting documents comply with all the relevant statutory requirements at this stage of plan making. The Neighbourhood Plan and its accompanying supporting documents are published on our website.

 

We therefore were able to carry out a consultation on the South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan from 7 May 2024 until 18 June 2024.

 

Officers, in conjunction with the South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum, are in the process of appointing an independent examiner to consider this Neighbourhood Plan. All comments submitted during the public consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan will be provided to the examiner for their consideration.

 

The South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by the South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum to provide planning policies for development in the area, with the aim of providing greater clarity when determining planning applications in the area. The Neighbourhood Plan includes 15 planning policies that cover a range of issues including:

(i) Protecting and enhancing local green spaces

(ii) Protecting and maintaining the connectivity network

(iii) Improving and enhancing neighbourhood community assets

(iv) Protecting and supporting homes and facilities for older people

(v) Conserving additionally identified Local Heritage Assets

(vi) Achieving sustainable and well-designed development in Character Areas

 

To successfully proceed through its examination to a referendum, a Neighbourhood Plan must meet a number of tests known as the ‘Basic Conditions’. These tests are different to the tests of soundness that a Local Plan must meet. The Basic Conditions are set out in national planning guidance and are summarised as follows:

(a) having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the Neighbourhood Plan.