A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register

Decisions

Decisions published

16/01/2020 - Review Of Use Of The Regulation Of Investigatory Powers Act ref: 5060    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Decision published: 07/02/2020

Effective from: 16/01/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

A Code of Practice introduced in April 2010 recommends that Councillors should review their authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Leader and Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships and Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on the 17 January 2019.

 

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

 

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Transport 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 to ensure that surveillance is only authorised in accordance with RIPA.

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

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Legal Practice.

 

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

  i.  It was good practice (for transparency reasons) for a report to come to committee even if RIPA powers were not used.

  ii.  There were no cost implications to the City Council from having RIPA powers. It was something to keep in the locker in case powers were needed.

 

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.

Lead officer: Tom Lewis


16/01/2020 - Review of Public Spaces Protection Order for Dog Control ref: 5059    Recommendations Approved

To approve in principle the proposal to review, extend and vary the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for dog control across the city and authorise officers to carry out consultation as required.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Decision published: 07/02/2020

Effective from: 16/01/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Public Spaces Protection Order (Dog Control) 2017 (“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2020. At any point before expiry of the Order, the Council can vary or extend it by up to three years if they consider it is necessary to prevent the original behaviour from occurring or recurring.

 

The Officer’s report revisited the terms of the sealed Order (Appendix A), and asked the Executive Councillor to approve, in principle, the proposal to extend and vary the Order in respect of dog control (including dog fouling, dog exclusion, dogs on leads and restriction on number of dogs requirements) within Cambridge, in the form set out at Appendix B and the locations set out in Appendix C; and to authorise officers to publicise the proposed orders and to consult, as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“The Act”).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

  i.  Approved in principle, the proposal to extend and vary the Order for dog control within Cambridge in the form set out at Appendix B [of the Officer’s report] and the locations set out in Appendix C;

  ii.  Authorised officers to publicise the proposed orders and to carry out consultation as required by the Act.

 

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 Engagement and Enforcement Manager who corrected a typographical error in paragraph 1.1:

 

The Public Spaces Protection Order (Dog Control) 2017 (“Order”) is due to expire on the 19 October 2019 2020.

 

In response to the report Councillors sought clarification on the community survey. The Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager said that the previous consultation survey had been sent to stakeholders in electronic format (Survey Monkey) and was available in hard copy format. It was sent to resident groups, charities and voluntary groups who used or were involved with dogs. The survey was also distributed via community centres, the City Council website and social media. It was proposed that this consultation would also do use the same methods.

 

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.

Lead officer: Wendy Johnston


16/01/2020 - Walking Tours ref: 5058    Recommendations Approved

To consider the recommendations on walking tours in terms of frequency and scale.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Decision published: 07/02/2020

Effective from: 16/01/2020

Decision:

Public Question

A member of the public made the following points:

i.  The report showed that the council was listening to residents’ concerns about walking tours.

ii.  Expressed interest in how the City Council planned to manage the tour coaches, parking locations and reduce visitor groups to a maximum of 20 people.

iii.  Requested a pilot study at Madingley P&R and Cambridge North rail station for range of coach-users: language school pupils, conference groups, tourists, school parties.

iv.  Recommendations to Executive Councillor:

a.  Point 2: Alongside the ongoing monitoring of the situation, would the council include a pilot study with the County using, eg Madingley P&R site for coach parking? 

b.  Point 4: It seems a little vague and non-committal to recommend a continued dialogue with the County when this has already commenced.  Will alternative parking locations to Queens Road as drop-off points be explored?

 

The Executive Councillor said a pilot study would be welcome. The County Council were responsible so the City Council would try to influence them.

 

The Safer Communities Manager said she had looked at the issue of walking tours from a community safety point of view. There was no evidence of safety issues, so this was more of a city centre management issue than a nuisance enforcement one.

 

The member of the public made the following supplementary points

i.  Sought a way to limit group numbers to 20, particularly groups from coach tours.

ii.  Facilities in the city centre would not be able to match those at a P&R site eg a ticket booth and timed visit slots.

iii.  The City Council could work with the County Council, but the City Council should take urgent action now for reasons of air quality and public safety.

iv.  Queried if points could be reported to the Head of Environmental Services to incorporate into the Tourism Strategy.

 

Matter for Decision

At the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee of 27 June 2019, the Executive Councillor approved a recommendation to monitor the situation with regards to how walking tours were sold. Also to monitor the frequency of excessively large tour groups in the city centre, including on King’s Parade during the summer, by:

  i.  Advising coach companies and tour groups and other organisations hosting large visitor groups that the City Council supports a maximum of 20 people in any single group, and

  ii.  Reviewing the issue of walking tour groups and reporting to Committee in January 2020 if the problem of large walking tour groups persists, including considering the option of consulting on a Public Spaces Protection Order and other options to set a maximum tour group size if there is assessed to be a serious problem.

 

Following the approval of the recommendation, a Working Group was set up to look at possible solutions to the issues raised in relation to walking tours.  The Group included representation from the City Council’s Community Safety Team, Corporate Marketing, Streets and Open Spaces, Property Services, Legal Practice and (externally) Visit Cambridge and Beyond and Cambridge BID.

 

The Officer’s report detailed the actions considered by the Working Group and recommendations for the future.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Agreed to:

  i.  Officially request Visit Cambridge and Beyond to include the management of walking tours in the development of their Destination Management Plan (DMP).

  ii.  Approve the continuation of the monitoring of the sale and size of walking tours during the 2020 season in order to inform the development of the DMP.

  iii.  Continue the dialogue with the County Council to examine the possibilities of coach permit parking in the city to include conditions to limit the numbers in any tour group.

  iv.  Start a dialogue with the County Council to consider making park and ride sites more attractive to coach tours and to include incentives to direct groups from the sites to official walking tours of limited numbers.

  v.  Use the outcomes from the negotiations to inform the development of the DMP.

 

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 Safer Communities Manager.

 

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

  i.  The issue of group size had been reviewed from a community safety point of view. There was no evidence of anti-social behaviour. The Working Group discussed the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) but considered this to be an inappropriate way to manage walking tours as the issues raised (such as the size and inconvenience caused by the tours) were unlikely to fit the criteria for the introduction of a PSPO. Also the Working Group believed it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.

  ii.  There was disagreement on the effectiveness of parking permits to control coach parking. The County Council said that permits were not respected. The Working Group said parking control would be respected. Officers would follow this up.

  iii.  Cambridge Ambassadors were asked to monitor walking tour group sizes during the tourist season, but this ceased when tourist numbers dropped out of season. Monitoring could resume in the new tourist season.

  iv.  A limit of 20 people in a group was set in-line with Blue Badge tour group size guidance.

 

The Head of Community Services said points from this discussion would be recorded in the meeting minutes and forwarded to the Head of Environmental Services (City Council) and Head of Tourism and City Centre Management (Tourist Information).

 

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.

Lead officer: Lynda Kilkelly


16/01/2020 - Community Grants 2020-21 ref: 5057    Recommendations Approved

Approve Community Grants for 2020-21.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities

Decision published: 07/02/2020

Effective from: 16/01/2020

Decision:

Councillor Hadley took part in the debate on this item, but did not vote due to her declaration of interest.

 

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2020-21, as set out in Appendix 1 of this report, subject to the budget approval in February 2020 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 Development Manager.

 

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

  i.  People were supported and guided through the application process.

  ii.  Workshops were held before the current funding application cycle started. Information and advice was given on funding available, plus signposts to alternative funding streams if these appeared more appropriate for applicants.

  iii.  Officers continued to offer support to people after they submitted applications. Officers involved in the process came from the Communities Team, as well as others, who could provide expert advice to check if projects were pertinent for funding.

  iv.  Officers did not just say “no” to applications, they tried to ascertain if community funding or another fund was more appropriate.

  v.  Applicants could reapply several times in the same funding cycle if they were unsuccessful on the first attempt.

  vi.  There were several projects to help people get into volunteering. A fund was available to provide help/training to do this. Training/supervision of volunteers could be issues that affected recruitment/retention. The City Council was working with the Council for Voluntary Services to address this.

 vii.  The same application process applied to new Applicants and those who had previously made applications. New Applicants were encouraged to liaise with Officers who could then support them through the application process.

viii.  Different levels of information were sought from Applicants depending on the level of funding applied for.

  ix.  Funding was not allocated to projects where:

a.  They were not appropriate for the funding stream.

b.  They were duplicates of an existing project.

c.  There was insufficient information on the application form.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 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.

Lead officer: Jackie Hanson


16/07/2019 - A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Preferred Route consultation ref: 5056    Recommendations Approved

1. Discuss and agree key points to make in response to the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Preferred Route consultation.
2. Agree to delegate the wording of the final joint response and any individual response to the consultation to the Strategy & Economy Manager, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Community Safety.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 16/07/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to inform Cambridge City Council’s response to the current A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Detailed Alignment consultation, by setting out response points to inform discussion and agreement of key issues to inform a full response being agreed by the Executive Councillor in an out of cycle decisionin consultation with Chair and Spokes and submitted ahead of the consultation deadline.

 

Decision of Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety.

 

  i.  Noted the key response points to the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Preferred Route consultation.

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

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

The report set out key response points for discussion, to be refined following the meeting. Discussion with South Cambridgeshire District Council suggests that there is potential to include Cambridge’s comments within a joint response, potentially also with other partners.

 

In response to Member’s comments and questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following:

  i.  The preferred choice for the Oxford to Cambridge arc would go either via Cambourne or Bassingbourn entering Cambridge via the south.

  ii.  The draft response would expand on the different projects undertaken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership schemes and the impact on the city acknowledged.

Following a general discussion the Committee noted the critical importance of the A428 being considered as part of a coherently planned local and regional transport network, that of necessity should interact and integrate with capacity being provided elsewhere.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officer 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.

 


19/07/2019 - Local Transport Plan 2019 – Consultation Response ref: 5055    Recommendations Approved

To agree a response to the draft Local Transport Plan consultation prepared by the Combined Authority.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 19/07/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to inform Cambridge City Council’s response to the Cambridgeshire Peterborough Combined Authority Draft Local Transport Plan consultation.

 

Decision of Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety.

 

  i.  Noted the initial response to the Local Transport Plan consultation as set out in appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

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

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

The report referred to the Devolution Deal of 2017 which gave the Combined Authority (CPCA) the role of the Local Transport Authority from Cambridgeshire County Council. One of the key responsibilities of the Local Transport Authority was the development of a new Local Transport Plan (LTP), to set out plans and strategies for maintaining and improving all aspects of the local transport system.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  Noted the comment regarding the need for a mid or even short term strategy to reduce traffic within the city and improve transport links which should not be ignored when considering the long term local transport plan.

  ii.  Acknowledged a new dual-carriageway standard route, from Cambridge to Chatteris, March and Wisbech would encourage investment in north Cambridgeshire, and share the benefits of the success of the Greater Cambridge area. However this was not a priority project but there were plans for the fenland area to improve rail links, including Wisbech station.

  iii.  The issue of maintenance had been picked up in the plan under policy theme 19.

  iv.  Policy theme 18 of the plan proposed to identify a key local road network, identified parts of the network which should be prioritised for management and maintenance. This policy would also address measures to reduce number of vehicles, picking up on issues addressed in other policy themes.

  v.  Reference to social context and issues had been referenced throughout the document such as affordable travel for all.

  vi.  Discussion of the Dutch-type segregated walking and cycling infrastructure was to give an idea of what could be achieved but did not mean that this was the preferred choice.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officer 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.

 

Lead officer: Caroline Hunt


19/07/2019 - 19/31PnT Making Space for People: Vision, Principles & Strategies - Working towards a Supplementary Planning Document ref: 5054    Recommendations Approved

To approve the draft Supplementary Planning Document for public consultation.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 19/07/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

 

The report referred to the public consultation for the Making Space for People interim consultation for work to inform a future Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  The interim consultation document will be consulted for a period of six weeks, ensuring the needs and aspirations of communities and stakeholders were understood and taken into account in drafting the Making Space for People SPD.

 

Decision of Executive Councilor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces and the Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety

 

  i.  Agreed the draft Making Space for People: Vision, Principles & Strategies document (Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for consultation purposes.

  ii.  Approved the draft Baseline Report (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) for consultation purpose as amended.

  iii.  Noted the consultation period would take place for six weeks between Monday 2 September and Monday 14 October 2019.

  iv.  Approved the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development was granted delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councilor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces, the Executive Councilor for Transport and Community Safety and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any editing changes prior to commencement of the consultation period.

 

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 Urban Designer referring to the Making Space for People project which would lead to the production of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This would provide planning guidance for the streets and public spaces that formed the public realm in Central Cambridge. 

 

The Principal Urban Designer informed the Committee of an amendment to recommendation 2.1.2 of the Officers report which would read as follows (additional text underlined).

 

 

 

The draft Baseline Report attached to this committee report at Appendix 2 for consultation purposes is noted and published as part of the evidence base for the Making Space for People: Vision, Principles & Strategies document

 

The Committee unanimously agreed the amendment.

 

The Chair welcomed the Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre to the meeting who made the following comments following the Committee discussion:

 

  i.  A separate review of car parks in the city centre and the Council’s office strategy were currently being undertaken.

  ii.  Did not believe the Council had ever supported the notion ‘the more tourists the better’.

  iii.  The Council did not have the power to determine where coaches parked in the city but had worked with the County Council to create a coach strategy.

  iv.  The coach strategy outlined plans for coaches to park at the Park and Rides sites (but more coach parking would be required). Spaces at Cambridge Backs would have to be pre-booked, however did not agree that coach parking along the Backs was the most suitable.

  v.  Visit Cambridge had been in discussion with other heritage cities regarding the introduction of a tourist tax. Ultimately this would be down to Central Government. A tourist tax would be based on overnight stays in the city.

  vi.  The Council and Visit Cambridge had been working hard to reduce the number of day trippers and encourage overnight stays and would continue to do so.

 vii.  Disputed the claim that the city centre was ‘grubby’.

viii.  A recent Cambridge Improvement District (BID) survey had approximately 80% of responses agreeing that the City was clean or very clean.

  ix.  Would enquire with Officers about the possibility of transferring a proportion of County Council’s food and drink licenses to the City Council concerning those restaurants in the city offering outside seating.

 

 

 

The Principal Urban Designer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  The impact that an increased bus service in Emmanuel and Drummer Street would have on the city centre would be further investigated while working with the Greater Cambridge Partnership and as the SPD was further developed.

  ii.  Was not in the Council’s gift to grant a clean air policy in the city centre but the consultation document made reference to this and how it could be achieved, such as electric vehicles, traffic enforcement and working with outside agencies.

  iii.  Further work would be carried out detailing reliable enforcement mechanisms to underpin motor vehicle access controls.

  iv.  The document references that inclusive design will be paramount to create a City Centre which was accessible, inclusive and safe.

  v.  It was imperative to ensure that disabled users enjoyed the same access to the city centre as all users: the document made reference to inclusivity for all. 

  vi.  Recognised there would be a challenge to balance the allocation of spaces for pedestrians, cyclists and public with transport links in and around the city.

 vii.  Would look at how the dispersal of tourists could be encouraged around the city centre.

viii.  Traffic audits would investigate the flow of traffic into the city centre and parking and how to inspire the use of park and rides services. 

  ix.  The SPD would pick up the issue of city centre street furniture, including ideas around management of table and chairs, when considering the reallocation of space; whilst examining the quality of the space for the hierarchy of users.

  x.  The document looked the rebalancing of streets and spaces looking at the streets of the city as spaces and not just movement corridors.

  xi.  Would look at the wording of the document to ensure it was clear that Cambridge was a working city as well as a tourist attraction and home to local residents living in the centre. 

 xii.  The document acknowledged the importance of local businesses in the city centre and the contribution they made to the local economy; it was imperative the day to day operational needs to support those businesses were not disrupted.

 

 

xiii.  The SPD would explore delivery strategies in the city such as last mile deliveries and delivery hubs.

xiv.  The document would focus on the vision and principles while the SPD would concentrate on the more detailed strategies and how they could materialise. 

xv.  Noted the comment regarding overreaching; concepts were being explored early in the process while the SPD would focus on strategies that would fit within the context of the Greater Cambridge Partnership and the work they were undertaking. 

xvi.  With reference to the term ‘alternative to car parking’, this could mean creating cycle to work schemes, promoting public transport, moving barriers to sustainable movement in the city.

xvii.  Would work on the term ‘demand management’ to how to achieve a 24% reduction in vehicles in the city referenced in the document.

xviii.  There was a separate project looking at the market place which the document would make reference to.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officer recommendations with amendments.

 

The Executive Councillors approved the recommendations as amended.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillors

 

Lead officer: Caroline Hunt


19/03/2019 - SHARED SERVICES 2019/20 Business Plans for 3Cs Building Control, and Greater Cambridge Planning Service ref: 5053    Recommendations Approved

To approve the 3C Building Control Business Plan 2019/20.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 19/03/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report sought approval for the Building Control Business Plan and Greater Cambridge Planning Services Business Plan 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

i. Approved the Business Plans for each of the Shared Services, Building Control Shared Services Business Plan & Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan 2019/20.

ii. Authorised the Shared Services Management Board to approve final amendments to the Business Plans in line with comments received from all partner councils.

 

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 joint report from the Strategic Director, the Director of Planning and Economic Development and the Head of Building Control.

 

In response to the Committee’s comments the Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

i. There had been a total of 27 job vacancies advertised across the shared services since April last year.

ii. Had recently appointed four planning officers from the process that was started earlier in the year.

iii. The Shared Planning Services consultation would allow the organisation to make improvements to the personal development and growth of officers; this would allow an additional learning opportunity into the planning service.

iv. The consultation would also allow development of the induction process and ensure that support was available.

v. Important to develop staff to enable them to progress, whether inside or outside the organisation; in turn they would promote the level of service experienced to external organisations and members of the public.

vi. Work had taken place on benchmarking and job evaluations; salary levels were competitive with other local authorities.

vii. There was a recruitment timeline which was being followed, although there was a slight delay there.

viii. Lessons had been learnt from the first round of the consultation process as there had been a series of workshops involving staff to discuss ideas and to put forward suggestions

ix. Could be possible to include the offer of accommodation in the future as this was an important consideration when looking at job opportunities.

x. Research had shown that there was a consistent pattern in the number of planning applications submitted between Cambridgeshire City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council; 42% and 58% which had allowed previous budget to be based on ratio of work.

xi. As part of the shared services project a memorandum of understanding has been drafted using planning applications and policy delivery outcomes such as the joint Local Plan, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents. Based on this a resources plan had been designed as it was important to understand the resource allocation for budgetary purposes.

xii. The budget had been historically based on ratio but in future officers would have the capacity to account for their time to the relevant authority with the implementation of a single ICT system.

xiii. The benefit of a shared planning service brought resilience; officers should be able to cover both authorities if required. Therefore the way that officers recorded their time was critical.

xiv. Cambridge City Council had limited areas of geography for development which would have an impact on future income for the Council.

xv. Important to create a new culture under the shared services so that officers did not see themselves as working for one or the other local authority, there is the opportunity for flexible working and working at various locations.

xvi. Citizens and businesses required a good, responsive and accessible planning service, wherever they were located, which is what the shared services would offer.

xvii. The strategy of the business plan would account for the cost of officers and allow the recruitment for a range of specialist officers whose services could be used by outside agencies and charged for their time.

 

The Committee then received an executive summary on the Business Plan for 3c’S building control.

 

In response to Members questions the Head of Shared Service said the following:

i. Post Grenville there was a discussion to be part of a joint competency agency which would only include Local Authority Building Control.

 

Certain buildings in scope would only be dealt with by the Local Authority Building Control Department and not by Approved Inspectors. This model was currently being tested by Central Government.

ii. Individual local authorities and developers were being encouraged to take forward their own initiatives.

iii. The Hackett report referred to the introduction of gateways; at planning stages there would be enforced consultations with the Fire Authority and Local Authority Building Control. Further discussion on this matter would be taken forward.

iv. Looking to ensure tighter communication between Building Control and Planning Services.

 

The Committee then resolved by 5 votes to 0 to exclude the press and public during the discussion of Appendix 2 of this item by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Committee:

 

The Committee resolved 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.

Lead officer: Fiona Bryant


07/10/2019 - Corporate Fire Risk Management Strategy & Policy ref: 5046    Recommendations Approved

Endorsement and adoption of the Fire Risk Management Strategy for CCC which will cover all council owned buildings (including council housing).

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Fire Risk Management Strategy (FRMS) set out how Cambridge City Council would implement its Fire Safety Policy. The strategy aimed to reduce the risks posed by fire through a risk based approach, supported by fire safety management processes and procedures to reduce the risk as far as reasonably practicable.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.  Approved the Fire Risk Management Strategy subject to the minor amendments tabled at the committee meeting.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets.  A short list of amendments to the wording within the appendices was tabled which set out the fire prevention and protection measures to achieve the fire safety aim of the Fire Risk Management Strategy (additional wording underlined).

 

As stated in item 1.2 (page 67) 2.2 (Page 70) 3.2.1 (page 72) 3.3.1(page 75) 3.4.1 (page 77) 3.5.1 (page 81)

“……a carbon monoxide alarm where gas installations are present” should be read as “……a carbon monoxide alarm where open flued gas or solid fuel installations are present”

 

As stated in item 1.2 (page 68) “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing houses and an LD2 Grade D system in new houses.” should be read as: “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing houses and an LD2 Grade D system in new houses or when materially altered.”

 

As stated in item 3.2.1 (page 72) “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing flats.” should be read as: “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing flats and an LD2 Grade D when materially altered.”

 

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

  i.  Asked if the Fire Service had seen the strategy.

  ii.  Questioned the compartmentalisation (stay put) strategy.

  iii.  Referred to the Council’s Zero Tolerance Policy on p73 of the agenda, which dealt with means of escape and asked whether the Council would impose a blanket ban of items being placed in shared areas which were means of escape.

  iv.  Questioned how tenants could be convinced to follow a ‘stay put’ policy following the Grenfell tragedy.

  v.  Commented that the Zero Tolerance Policy had been fully debated at Housing Scrutiny Committee and alternative measures could be put in place for residents.  Gave an example in Arbury where residents used to keep bicycles in shared areas and extra bike rack provision had been provided so that bicycles did not need to be stored in shared accessible areas.

 

The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets and the Corporate Health and Safety and Emergency Planner and said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  Confirmed the Fire Service had been consulted in developing the strategy.

  ii.  The compartmentalisation strategy complied with the British Standard. There was an assumption that a building complied with the Fire Strategy unless there was evidence to the contrary.

  iii.  Confirmed the Council owned 8 semi-detached properties which had been converted into flats.

  iv.  A zero tolerance report was brought to the Housing Scrutiny Committee in August, certain concessions had been made but the council were trying to address safety concerns and means of escape out of buildings. Understood that personal space was at a premium in a shared building but this should not be at the expense of the safety to other residents in a shared building.

  v.  Work was being undertaken with the Home Ownership Team and information was being put in the publication ‘Open Door’ to advise tenants about the ‘stay put’ policy. Commented that if members had any further ideas, officers would be happy to explore these.

 

The Executive Councillor referred to paragraph 3.8 of the officer’s report and confirmed that all Council buildings had been checked to ensure that they did not contain materials which were present in the Grenfell accommodation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation subject to the officer’s tabled amendments.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation subject to the officer’s tabled amendments.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Lead officer: Lynn Thomas


07/10/2019 - Shared Services Joint Scrutiny ref: 5045    Recommendations Approved

Whether to proceed with the establishment of a Joint Shared Services Scrutiny Committee from May 2020

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

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

i.  It was his view that Scrutiny needed to be retained at each respective Council; the Councils would continue to work closely and jointly with each other in relation to shared services.

ii.  There were various sizes of shared services, there were medium size shared services for example Building Control and Legal services and then there were larger shared services for example Planning, Waste and Recycling and ICT and governance should be appropriate to the needs of that particular service.

iii.  Noted there was a Joint Local Planning Advisory Group (JLPAG) for the new shared Local Plan with South Cambridgeshire District Council reflecting that joint arrangements worked well where joint assessment decisions were needed.

iv.  Several shared services were still evolving, for example there was a large development workload coming up regarding ICT and Councillor Robertson would be working with officers and counterparts at the other two Councils regarding the Council’s priorities for transformation.

v.  Executive Councillors were responsible for shared services which fell within their portfolio. The Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and other relevant Scrutiny Committees would continue to be updated on the progress of shared services and committee members would scrutinise the shared services through the presentation of the annual business plans and annual performance reports.

vi.  Noted that there was no longer a plan to share Finance and Housing Management services at this time.

vii.The City Council focussed on pre-scrutiny, the other council’s operated different scrutiny arrangements.

viii.Acknowledged work was continuing to build the Planning Service as a joint service.

 

Lead officer: Fiona Bryant


07/10/2019 - Park Street Car Park Redevelopment Update on Final Scheme ref: 5047    Recommendations Approved

Update on the proposed scheme and approval of the final legal arrangements.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out an update on the Park Street Car Park Redevelopment Final Scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

  i.  Approved Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

Following the debate members suggested amendments to the officer recommendations.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Strategic Director (FB)


07/10/2019 - Local Government Ombudsman Case ID 18005464 Decision ref: 5048    Recommendations Approved

To note the Local Government Ombudsman case decision and recommendations and endorse the action taken by officers in response.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The LGO upheld a complaint relating to the application of the Council’s Moorings Policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.  Noted that LGO had upheld a complaint relating to an unauthorised mooring;

ii.  Noted that the Head of Legal Services as the Council’s Monitoring Officer had an obligation to report the findings to the Council

iii.  Noted that the Committee was satisfied with the action that had been taken (detailed in section 6 of the officer’s report)

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Development Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors queried what the council had failed to do.

 

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

  i.  There were delays in the consideration of this case due to the complexity of the issues involved. The Local Government Ombudsman felt the Council did not consider the individual’s circumstances in a timely way.

 

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.

 

 

Lead officer: Alistair Wilson


07/10/2019 - Treasury Management Half Yearly Update Report 2019/20 ref: 5050    Recommendations Approved

Recommend this report to Council, which includes the Council's estimated and Treasury Indicators 2019/20 to 2022/23. Also, to revise any counterparty limits as applicable.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

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

 

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

 

The half-year report had been prepared in accordance with CIPFA’s Code of Practice on Treasury Management and covers the following:-

 

·  The Council’s capital expenditure (prudential indicators);

·  A review of compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits for 2019/20;

·  A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2019/20;

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

·  A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2019/20; and;

·  An update on interest rate forecasts following economic news in the first half of the 2019/20 financial year.

 

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

 

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

  i.  Approve the report which included the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2019/20 to 2022/23.

  ii.  Approve an increase in the Authorised Limit for External Debt from £300m to £400m (paragraph 5.3 of the officer’s report).

  iii.  Note the inclusion of loans to the Cambridge City Housing Company and Cambridge Investment Partnership on the Current Counterparty list shown in Appendix B of the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Steve Bevis


07/10/2019 - Cambridge Junction Redevelopment RIBA Stage 1 Works ref: 5049    Recommendations Approved

To approve a capital budget following completion of an OJEU procurement for the appointment of a Lead Designer and multi-disciplinary team to complete i) A RIBA Stage 1 design report for the redevelopment of Cambridge Junction to provide additional venue facilities and work space ii) A RIBA stage 1 site wide master plan and report which identifies commercial opportunities in addition to the venue redevelopment.

Cambridge Junction would like to replace Junction 1 (which has lifecycle issues), and expand the arts and cultural venue with additional event, studio, work and office spaces with a vertical redevelopment scheme on this site. Cambridge City Council would like to further explore the potential of the Cambridge Junction site for additional commercial capital development including a potential partnership with Cambridge Junction CDC to assist their future financial sustainability.

The team will be contracted to complete RIBA stage 1 work in order to submit an application for the next Capital funding round to be launched by Arts Council England (ACE) in April 2020. If successful, ACE will then fund RIBA stage 2-5 works.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding Cambridge Junction Redevelopment RIBA Stage 1 works.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

  i.  Approved Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The ScrutinyCommittee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

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.

 

 

Lead officer: Allison Conder


23/01/2020 - Review of Council Tax Reduction Scheme ref: 5052    Recommendations Approved

To recommend Council to resolve to adopt a new or revised Council Tax Reduction Scheme and any changes to Local Council Tax Discounts.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 23/01/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme sought to deliver three primary objectives:

· Move towards a scheme that was more adaptable to Universal Credit regulations.

· Provide clarity to Universal Credit claimants as to what their entitlement to Council Tax Reduction would be.

· Mitigate against expected reduction in Government administration grants for processing Council Tax Reduction claims.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.  Approved the proposed localised Council Tax Reduction schemes (as set out in the officers report) subject to the requirement for the Head of Revenues and Benefits to bring a report back to Committee if there were any changes to the core schemes in the officers report, or to the universal credit timeline (2023).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Benefits Manager.

 

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

  i.  Queried the proposal that the Annual Review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme should be delegated to the Head of Revenues and Benefits as commented that he would be keen to see the reports coming back to the committee. 

 

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

  i.  The Scheme would be uprated in accordance with CPI.

  ii.  It was difficult to predict universal credit migration, the City Council had 900 people on universal credit and South Cambridgeshire District Council had 500 people on universal credit.

 

Following concerns raised regarding the delegation of the annual review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme to the Head of Revenues and Benefits. The Executive Councillor suggested the following amendment to the summary of key recommendations from April 2020 (additional text underlined):

 

i.  To adopt earnings based banded local Council Tax Reduction scheme for Universal Credit claimants and to have fixed non-dependant deductions for these claims.

ii.  To continue with the current Council Tax Reduction scheme (to include annual uprating) for working age claimants who are not in receipt of Universal Credit.

iii.  To agree uprating equal to September CPI for income bands, amounts to pay and non-dependant bands and deductions.

iv.  To approve delegation of the Council Tax Reduction schemes annual review to the Head of Revenues and Benefits, and subject to the above recommendations being adopted, that these schemes continue (subject to uprating) until March 2023. Any changes to the core schemes in the officer’s report, or to the universal credit timeline 2023 will be brought back to Committee.

v.  To provide transitional protection for households transferring to the banded scheme on 1 April 2020.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Alison Cole


07/10/2019 - General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy 2019 ref: 5051    Recommendations Approved

To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2020/21, the net savings requirements, by year for the next 5 years, and revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

This report presented and recommended the budget strategy for the 2020/21 budget cycle and specific implications, as outlined in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) October 2019 document, which was attached and to be agreed.

 

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

 

At this stage in the 2020/21 budget process showed the range of assumptions on which the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) published in February 2019 was based need to be reviewed, in light of the latest information available, to determine whether any aspects of the strategy need to be revised. This then provides the basis for updating budgets for 2020/21 to 2024/25. All references in the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to the MTFS Version 3.0.

 

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

 

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

 

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

ii.  Agree the incorporation of changed assumptions and indicative net unavoidable budget pressures identified in Section 4 [pages 20 to 22 refer]. This provides an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years, and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Section 5 [page 23 refer] and reserves [section 7 pages 30 to 33 refer] of the MTFS document.

iii.  Note the changes to the capital plan as set out in Section 6 [pages 24 to 29 refer] and Appendix A [pages 37 to 41 refer] of the MTFS document and agree the new proposals.

Ref

Description/ £’000s

19/20

20/21

21/22

22/23

23/24

24/25

Total

SC646

Redevelopment of Cambridge Junction

250

 

 

 

 

 

250

SC658

CCTV infrastructure – additional cost

75

 

 

 

 

 

75

SC691

HR and payroll – new system

20

150

 

 

 

 

170

SC699

Corn Exchange fire doors

37

 

 

 

 

 

37

SC672

Mill Road redevelopment – development loan to CIP

 

1,142

 

 

 

 

1,142

SC695

Cromwell Road redevelopment – equity contribution

 

329

333

 

 

 

662

SC696

Cromwell Road redevelopment loan to CIP

2,376

5,481

1,000

 

 

 

8,857

SC701

Dales Brewery – replacement fire alarm system

24

 

 

 

 

 

24

 

Total Proposals

2,782

7,102

1,333

 

 

 

11,217

 

iv.  Agree changes to General Fund reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £5.51m and the target level at £6.61m as detailed in section 7 [pages 30 to 33 refer] and Appendix B [pages 42 and 43 refer] of the MTFS document.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

  i.  Noted an ambitious capital programme and questioned whether there were adequate staffing levels to deliver the services.

  ii.  Questioned if the Executive Councillor had a view on the increase in the amount of the Council’s reserves.

  iii.  Referred to p171 of the agenda and noted that this was the second time that savings from shared services would not be realised.  Asked about the progress of shared services.

  iv.  Referred to savings requirements on p183 of the agenda and asked if the figures were abstract estimates or based on factors from the current situation.

  v.  Referred to page 177 of the agenda and queried if the New Homes Bonus was being used to fund officers supporting growth eg: within the Planning Service. 

 

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

  i.  There had been an increase in reserves through underspending and growth in the business rates revenue. Reserves were seen as contingency funds. There was a high level of uncertainty with the local government funding settlement, reserves would provide some flexibility for funding.

  ii.  Referred to comments raised in relating to savings targets on p183 of the agenda, these were realistic targets of unavoidable pressures based on an average officers believed to be realistic.

  iii.  Commented that it was likely that the New Homes Bonus was likely to disappear in the next 4-5 years and funding would be distributed in another way. 

 

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

  i.  Referred to p198-201 of the committee agenda and commented that there were too many specific projects. He acknowledged there had been some delays finalising some projects. Noted that there was some s106 funding which needed to be spent otherwise there was a requirement to return the funding back to developers. Noted there were items where the council was waiting to obtain funding from external agencies. Commented that the Council had staff who were capable of delivering projects but that sometimes there were issues beyond the Council’s control which prevented projects going ahead.

  ii.  Savings had been achieved for Shared Services through management restructures.  Shared Services overheads needed to be looked at.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Caroline Ryba


07/10/2019 - Combined Authority Update ref: 5044    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

Decision published: 23/01/2020

Effective from: 07/10/2019

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the 1 July Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

i.  Noted the update provided on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on the 31 July and 25 September 2019.

 

Following the meeting the Executive Councillor confirmed the following appointments to the Combined Authority Committees:

·  Skills Committee – Cllr Davey, (Cllr Sargeant Substitute)

·  Housing Committee – Cllr Sargeant (Cllr Davey Substitute)

·  Transport Committee – Cllr Massey (Cllr Sargeant Substitute)

·  Confirmed a change to the Labour substitute member for the Overview and Scrutiny committee from Cllr Davey to Cllr McQueen.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive.

 

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

  i.  Questioned how well the constituent Councils in the Combined Authority worked together.

  ii.  The Combined Authority’s economic review referred to 3 discreet economic sub-regions, which did not coincide with local authority boundaries.  For example the Greater Cambridgeshire economic review would include areas which fell under East Cambridgeshire District Council’s local authority area. 

 

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

  i.  The Combined Authority could work better with the constituent Councils.

  ii.  There needed to be greater strategic focus on the southern part of Cambridgeshire as a defined economic zone, both to our benefit as a city and to maximise benefits for the wider adjacent area.  Work under the Local Enterprise Partnership didn’t take Greater Cambridgeshire seriously enough in the past. The Combined Authority Local Industrial Strategy was a big step forward and looked at planning, sustainability, jobs, housing etc. East Cambridgeshire District Council had been originally invited to play a greater part in the Greater Cambridge Partnership (previously City Deal) but declined to do so at the time. 

 

The Chief Executive commented that the Combined Authority had taken a pragmatic approach when creating the economic sub-regions.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to note the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Antoinette Jackson