Agenda, decisions and minutes

To authorise the Leader to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2014 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

Councillor Simon Edwards declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 7 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Draft Charging Schedule, as this matter had been discussed at Oakington Parish Council, but he stated that he came to this meeting with a fresh and open mind.

Councillor Nick Wright declared a non-pecuniary interest in any references being made to the A14 upgrade, as he owned land that the new A14 would go through. There being no decisions directly related to this matter, Councillor Nick Wright participated in all debates and votes throughout the meeting.

Following the agenda item “Reports from Member Champions” the Leader announced that prior to this meeting, Cabinet had met with representatives of Huntingdon District Council to discuss sharing services between the two authorities. It was noted that this was not the first step towards setting up a unitary authority. The first service to be shared was likely to be building control.

None.

Cabinet

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL     the endorsement of the principles of the Greater Cambridge City Deal.

Councillor Ray Manning introduced this item by outlining the principles of the “City Deal” offer that the Government had announced in the 2014 Budget statement. The Government were offering a grant of £500 million to be spent on infrastructure and to be paid in three tranches. It was expected that the first two tranches would be paid in 2015-19 and 2019-24. Both Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council had endorsed the principles of the Greater Cambridge City Deal and it was hoped that following Cabinet’s recommendation, Council would also agree to these principles at its meeting on Thursday 24 April 2014.

The Government had made it clear that this was extra money and would not be paid for by cuts to other funding to the three authorities. It was expected that the funding would indirectly lead to extra money, for example from an increase in the New Homes Bonus and collection of business rates.

Political changes

It was noted that given the timescales involved there were likely to be changes in Government, which could affect the City Deal. In response to this the Leader explained that whilst originally the Government had been asked for a loan, the fact that it was now grant money that was being offered limited the financial liabilities to the authority.

Governance arrangements

It was noted that the exact details regarding the governance arrangements would have to be agreed following the signing up of the three authorities. The authorities would be represented on the Joint Committee by their three leaders. Cambridge University and the Local Economic Partnership would have representatives without voting rights, although it was expected that all decisions would be taken by consensus. It was noted that a change in the political balance at any of the three authorities could lead to a change of Leader and so a change in the Committee’s membership. However, it appeared that all major political groups wanted good relations and that there was cross-party support for the City Deal. Councillor Simon Edwards explained that there had been no mention of the setting up of a Unitary Authority during discussions on the City Deal.

The Leader stated that he was delighted that Cambridge University an organisation of such local and international importance were supporting the City Deal.

Spending the funding.

It was expected that joint plans such as the Local Transport Plan and the South Cambridgeshire Transport Strategy would shape the way in which the extra funding was spent in order to maximise economic growth.

The Leader thanked for officers for their time and effort, especially during out of work hours to make the City Deal possible.

Cabinet unanimously

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL    the endorsement of the principles of the Greater Cambridge City Deal.

Cabinet agreed to remove reference to “unallocated development and windfall development” from Appendix F of the report on the Regulation 123 infrastructure list.

Cabinet

AGREED        To

A)              Note summary of representations to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) consultation

B)              Approve the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) for public consultation

C)              Approve the draft Regulation 123 list (as amended above) for public consultation

D)              Approve the draft CIL instalment policy for public consultation.

E)              Give the Director of Planning and New Communities delegated authority to submit the Draft Charging Schedule and draft Regulation 123 list for examination following the public consultation

Councillor Nick Wright presented this report, which invited Cabinet to agree to put the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Charging Schedule and a draft Regulation 123 list, out for public consultation.

Amending the 123 List

Councillor Wright explained that the suggested amendment to the 123 List, as recommended by the Scrutiny Committee, was to ensure that developments of a particular size (i.e. 200 or more) could be dealt with by way of Section 106 agreements. Cabinet agreed to remove reference to “unallocated development and windfall development” from Appendix F of the report on the Regulation 123 infrastructure list. The Leader praised the Scrutiny and Overview Committee for their work on this.

Councillor Lynda Harford suggested that the word “centres” be amended to “projects” in the Regulation infrastructure list in Appendix F. It was also suggested that children’s playground equipment should be included on this list. The Senior Planning Lawyer advised that the list was only a draft for consultation and advised against amendments at this stage. These suggested amendments were rejected. It was noted that the current plan was to revise the regulation 123 list every two years.

Funding to parish councils

It was noted that in most circumstances the introduction of CIL would lead to a reduction in funding received by parish councils and whilst understanding that each individual case was different it was hoped that clear guidance on the consequences of the new arrangements could be given to parish councils, as it was noted that not all parish councils had attended the workshops that they had been invited to.

Those parish councils which had Neighbourhood Plans would receive 25%, compared to 15% to those without a Neighbourhood Plan. The Planning Lawyer explained that a note of clarification would be issued to parish councils shortly regarding the CIL and Neighbourhood Plans. Councillor Wright pledged that the Council would assist any parish council that wanted to draw up its own Neighbourhood Plan.

Rule of 5

It was noted that once CIL was adopted by the Council, each particular project could only receive funding from five Section 106 Agreements and that the relevant date for calculating whether five Section 106 Agreements had been completed in relation to any particular project was 2010, and which in some cases would need careful wording to ensure that essential projects do not lose out.

The Leader thanked officers for their report and contributions at the meeting.

Cabinet

AGREED        To

A)              Note summary of representations to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) consultation

B)              Approve the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) for public consultation

C)              Approve the draft Regulation 123 list (as amended above) for public consultation

D)              Approve the draft CIL instalment policy for public consultation.

E)              Give the Director of Planning and New Communities delegated authority to submit the Draft Charging Schedule and draft Regulation 123 list for examination following the public consultation

Cabinet

AGREED       

A)           the ‘in principle’ creation of a single, shared waste service, subject to preparation of a detailed business case formal consultation.

B)           the Ambition, Scope, ‘Core’ & ‘Design’ Principles and Objectives of the project highlighted in paragraphs 7 – 10 and Appendices 1 & 2.

C)           to contribute £50k each towards jointly funding the programme manager and other related business model costs with these being repaid as part of the business case following implementation.

D)           to delegate authority to Director of Health and Environmental Services in consultation with the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder to progress this work.

Cabinet

NOTED

A)           the preparation of Outline and Detailed Business Cases to be delivered by a joint SCDC/Ccc project Team for consideration and agreement.

B)           the project Governance, Resourcing and Timetable proposals highlighted in this report.

Councillor Mick Martin presented this report which recommended that Cabinet support in principle the establishment of a single waste and recycling service shared by this authority and Cambridge City Council. He stated that under the current timescale a shared service could commence in April 2015 and be fully completed by April 2016.

Councillor Martin explained that it had not yet been decided how the savings will be distributed between the two authorities.

In response to questioning Councillor Martin stated that the high level of service would be maintained and would not decline as a result of the shared service arrangement. It was noted that waste targets were changing from maximising recycling to minimising waste to landfill.

Cabinet

AGREED       

A)           the ‘in principle’ creation of a single, shared waste service, subject to preparation of a detailed business case formal consultation.

B)           the Ambition, Scope, ‘Core’ & ‘Design’ Principles and Objectives of the project highlighted in paragraphs 7 – 10 and Appendices 1 & 2.

C)           to contribute £50k each towards jointly funding the programme manager and other related business model costs with these being repaid as part of the business case following implementation.

D)           to delegate authority to Director of Health and Environmental Services in consultation with the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder to progress this work.

Cabinet

NOTED

A)           the preparation of Outline and Detailed Business Cases to be delivered by a joint SCDC/Ccc project Team for consideration and agreement.

B)           the project Governance, Resourcing and Timetable proposals highlighted in this report.

To receive any recommendations arising from the Scrutiny and Overview Committee meeting of 3 April 2014. As this meeting occurs after the publication of the Cabinet agenda, any recommendations will be circulated as an agenda supplement.

These had been examined under the item “Community Infrastructure Levy: Draft Charging Schedule”.

The Partnerships Review Committee is scheduled to meet on 11 April 2014; any recommendations to Cabinet will be reported to the next meeting.

Councillor Ben Shelton reported that the Partnerships Review Committee would be scrutinising Policing, Crime and Disorder at its next meeting on 11 April 2014

The following suggestions were made:

·         Action was required to reverse the trend of lowering attendance at Neighbourhood Panels.

·         Rural crime often went unreported and this needed to be addressed to ensure crime statistics for South Cambridgeshire were accurate.

Councillor Pippa Corney stated that she had not considered attendance at the City and South Cambridgeshire Area Partnerships meeting as a top priority, but would consult with officers on this issue.

None.

Report from Councillor Ben Shelton, Member Champion for Policing is attached.

None.