To receive apologies for absence from Cabinet members. 

No apologies for absence had been received.

To receive declarations of interest from Cabinet Members.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To authorise the Leader to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2024 as a true and accurate record.

Cabinet authorised the Leader to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 12 March 2024.

There were no announcements from the Leader of the Council.

If you would like to ask a question or make a statement, then please refer to the

Document called Public Speaking Scheme (Physical Meetings)

and contact Democratic Services by no later than 11.59pm on 10 April 2024.

The Leader advised that a late request to speak had been received from Mr Fulton. As this had not met the necessary notice requirements the Leader declined the request but invited Mr Fulton to submit his question to the Monitoring Officer.

Cabinet noted the Scrutiny and Overview report summarising the meeting held on Thursday, 21 March 2024. Councillor Richard Stobart was in attendance on behalf of the Committee, and made the following comments in relation to agenda item 7, ‘Peer Review Action Plan’:

·         It was felt that the six-month deadline was reasonable and appropriate, however that some actions would extend beyond that initial period.

·         Concerns were raised by the Scrutiny and Overview Committee regarding the rationale behind some of the actions.

·         In relation to the second recommendation, the committee considered what ‘reset’ meant, and felt that this would depend on the quality of existing relationships with Council partners. The Member role was a crucial one within these relationships.

·         Recommendation six was also discussed by the committee, where it was felt that a community development strategy may help join up existing discussions and “mini initiatives” that were already in place.

·         Further consideration was given by the committee to the ongoing requirement to review the Council’s KPIs to ensure that they remained justified and appropriate.

·         It was also noted that the Scrutiny and Overview Committee should keep items that were considered to be of higher risk under review. 

·         Committee members made comment that the Council should make efforts to target residents who were considered to be hard to reach for the upcoming residents survey.

a)    Cabinet approved the action plan in Appendix 1 to the report.

b)    Cabinet further agreed that progress against the plan would be reported alongside the quarterly Key Performance Indicators until complete.

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Williams extended his thanks to the peer review team for their work, as well as to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee for their input, which it was felt demonstrated the strength of the pre-scrutiny approach. The appendix to the report set out how the Council planned to address each of the 12 recommendations from the peer review.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Bridget Smith. Councillor Smith noted that a number of the recommendations had already been actioned and completed.

Cabinet Members raised the following points during consideration of the report:

·         It was noted that the Council had invited the Peer Review and recognised the value in independently reviewing its own performance.

·         There was some surprise expressed at the recommendation around relationships with partner organisations, with comment made that that a event was taking place on 17 April for Parish Clerks, with more workshops and training sessions in the pipeline.

Non-Cabinet Members raised the following points:

·         Members urged those writing such documents as the action plan to use plain and understandable English.

·         Reassurance was sought that comments from opposition groups would be taken on board in relation to the action plan and, in response, Members advised that an advantage of the peer review was that it gave all those involved a voice, including opposition Members.

·         It was noted, however, that KPIs needed to be measurable to have an impact, and comments around quality of performance and how this could be measured would be taken into consideration.

Resolution

a)    Cabinet approved the action plan in Appendix 1 to the report.

b)    Cabinet further agreed that progress against the plan would be reported alongside the quarterly Key Performance Indicators until complete.

Options Considered

Cabinet could have chosen to reject the plan in its entirety. Although this would potentially reduce officer workload in the short term, it would also pass up opportunities for delivering improvements to residents and would potentially be contrary to the council’s best value duty.

Cabinet could have adopted the plan in part accepting the proposed response to some recommendations and rejecting or amending the proposed response to others.

Reasons for Decision

The peer review process required that the Council considered the recommendations of the peer challenge team and responded with an action plan to deliver improvements in line with those recommendations. The action plan needed to be published and the peer challenge team would re-visit again in September 2024 to consider the Council’s progress against that plan.

Cabinet:

a.    Approved the Council administering Homes England’s Activation Grant Fund as set out in paragraphs 8-10 of the report.

b.    Approved the scheme criteria and guidance for the Community Activation Fund as set out in Appendix A to the report.

Councillor Bill Handley, Lead Cabinet Member for Communities, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Handley advised that Homes England would be the master developer for Phase 2 and 3 of Northstowe and would be providing funding for community needs through its Section 106 agreement. Homes England had identified that Section 106 funding did not always fall at the most appropriate time and had, therefore, proposed a grant scheme to deliver £120,000 over 6 years. As South Cambridgeshire District Council had experience in implementing such grant schemes, Homes England had asked the Council to administer this scheme for a 5% administration fee, which would be on top of the £120,000 grant.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Tumi Hawkins. Councillor Hawkins highlighted the proposals as an example of the Council and partners working well together for the benefit of local communities.

Resolution

Cabinet:

a)    Approved the Council administering Homes England’s Activation Grant Fund as set out in paragraphs 8-10 of the report.

b)    Approved the scheme criteria and guidance for the Community Activation Fund as set out in Appendix A to the report.

Options Considered

To agree and accept in full the proposed grant scheme criteria, guidance and administrative arrangements.

To agree in principle to the proposal, but with changes recommended to the proposed scheme criteria, guidance or administrative arrangements, giving reasons.

To reject the proposal to administer this grant scheme, giving reasons.

Reasons for Decision

There was a genuine gap in the structure of available funding available locally to encourage larger scale community activation events and initiatives at Northstowe. Homes England recognised this but lacked the relevant capacity and experience to process and administer grants of this nature but had committed funds to enable a partner organisation to administer this fund on its behalf.

South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Communications and Communities Team was active at Northstowe and had a wide range of community contacts and knowledge of the current range of networks and activities present. It was well positioned to encourage and support applications to this fund, and the technical expertise to administer the funds effectively.

By providing the administration of this £20,000 per year, six-year fund, South Cambridgeshire District Council would be able to work in partnership with Homes England to positively influence the strength and character of the new community at Northstowe.

Cabinet agreed:

a.    Purchasing a two-year license for the Low-Income Family Tracker platform at a cost of £53,000.

b.    Employing an additional two-year fixed term Development Officer, at a total cost of £104,000, to manage and maintain the system and coordinate projects across the Council.

c.    A budget of £30,000 to support the benefits take up campaign with direct mailshots.

Councillor Bill Handley, Lead Cabinet Member for Communities, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Handley advised that the Low-income Family Tracker (LIFT) software would layer multiple Council data sets and data from external sources and provide a model that would give the Council insight as to those who might need support that wasn’t currently being addressed. The package was used by several other local authorities, including Cambridge City Council.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor John Williams. Councillor Williams explained that the proposal was for a two-year trial period to establish the benefit of the package.

Cabinet Members raised the following points during consideration of the report:

·         It was suggested that linking up with NHS data would also be useful to identify those who would benefit from support around their health needs.

·         It was noted that the total impact of unclaimed benefits in the country was approaching £19 billion a year.

Non-Cabinet Members raised the following points:

·         Comment was made in relation to the importance of confidentiality in relation to data that residents provide and ensuring that communication makes clear that information would not be shared outside of the Council.

·         Further discussion was held in regarding safeguarding obligations and the fact that any situation where it was necessary to make a safeguarding referral to another body would override the confidentiality of any data received.

·         It was felt that this should be made clear when seeking information, though should not deter people from sharing their data.

·         In response to questions raised around targets, it was confirmed that there were no targets in place, but the scheme would be closely monitored for value for money.

·         Members emphasised the importance of the Council’s flexibility remaining intact when addressing the support needs of residents.

Resolution

Cabinet agreed:

a)    Purchasing a two-year license for the Low-Income Family Tracker platform at a cost of £53,000.

b)    Employing an additional two-year fixed term Development Officer, at a total cost of £104,000, to manage and maintain the system and coordinate projects across the Council.

c)    A budget of £30,000 to support the benefits take up campaign with direct mailshots.

Options Considered

Cabinet could have chosen not to progress with any of the recommended options set out in the report and either do nothing or ask officers to carry out further work.

To defer a decision until a later date, asking officers for specific further information to allow a decision to be made.

Reasons for Decision

As set out in the report.

Cabinet agreed the revised Homes for Ukraine Landlord Incentive Scheme Policy, as set out in Appendix A to the report.

Councillor Bill Handley, Lead Cabinet Member for Communities, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Handley advised that the scheme had been launched in the Autumn, however, only one landlord had signed up. It was felt that the package was not generous enough and revisions were proposed to allow for a more comprehensive offer, which would be fully funded by central government.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor John Batchelor. Councillor Batchelor commented that the lack of success of the initial scheme was disappointing, but lessons had been learnt. The scheme was one of a number of tools the Council was utilising to support Ukrainian refugees.

Non-Cabinet Members raised the following points:

·         A query was raised around the determination of tariff levels and Members were advised that the Council received funding based on the number of Ukrainian guests in the district.

·         Members urged the Cabinet and officers to continue to consider other options, should this revised offer remain unpopular, as they may be other reasons preventing landlords getting involved.

·         Concern was raised that the package offer may cause an increase in community tension, if an in balance in support is perceived, however it was noted that there had been no grounds for any such concerns at the present time.

·         Members were advised that under the scheme the Council would pay six months rent to landlords upfront and that the Ukrainian guests would then pay the Council on a monthly basis.

Resolution

Cabinet agreed the revised Homes for Ukraine Landlord Incentive Scheme Policy, as set out in Appendix A to the report.

Options Considered

To agree the revised Homes for Ukraine Landlord Incentive Scheme as set out in appendix A to the report, but with revisions.

To defer a decision to the next Cabinet meeting and provide advice on what additional information was required.

To reject the Homes for Ukraine Landlord Incentive Scheme revision and retain the current policy.

To end the Homes for Ukraine Landlord Incentive Scheme entirely.

Reasons for Decision

A Landlord Incentive Scheme was launched on 9 October 2023 to help improve access to the private rented market for guests who had been hosted under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme. Although 25 landlords had contacted the Council to find out more information since the incentive scheme was launched, only one landlord had signed up. In general, the feedback had been that the incentive package offered was not generous enough when compared to a landlord renting using their existing methods.

A comprehensive marketing plan for the scheme was launched, which included an online editorial in the Cambridge Independent, an advert for the scheme in the print copy of the Cambridge Independent (which ran for three editions), Google and Facebook adverts and leaflet information to every home in the district alongside the Council’s residents’ magazine. Due to the lack of sign-ups a review of the scheme had been deemed necessary.

The proposed revision to the policy would enable a much more comprehensive package to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

The press and public are likely to be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the appendices to the following items in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act). Paragraph 3 relates to information about the financial or business affairs of any person, including the Authority holding that information.

Councillor Bridget Smith moved the proposal, seconded by Councillor Brian Milnes, and Cabinet agreed that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the appendices for the remaining items of business in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that, if present, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended).

Cabinet approved the acquisition, authorising the Service Manager – Acquisitions and Development to proceed to contract with the developer (Redrow).

Cabinet approved the onward sale of the relevant Shared Ownership homes (4).

Councillor John Batchelor, Lead Cabinet Member for Housing, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Batchelor advised that the proposals meet all viability criteria and quality building requirements. The decision was presented to Cabinet as it went beyond the value the Cabinet Member or Head of Service could authorise.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Henry Batchelor. Councillor Batchelor noted that it was good to see such decisions coming to Cabinet more regularly, in order to be able to supplement the Council’s housing stock.

Cabinet Members congratulated officers on their hard working in bringing these proposals forward.

Resolution

Cabinet approved the acquisition, authorising the Service Manager – Acquisitions and Development to proceed to contract with the developer (Redrow).

Cabinet approved the onward sale of the relevant Shared Ownership homes (4).

Options Considered

Cabinet could have rejected this acquisition.

Reasons for Decision

SCDC’s Business Plan set the ambitious target to double the number of New Build Affordable Homes built annually.

Prior to the submission of bids for this site a full financial appraisal of this was undertaken which has been approved by Finance.

The scheme could be considered value for money in that it paid off in 35 years – within the limit of 45 set in the New Build Council Housing Strategy (revised 2023).

Cabinet approved the acquisition, authorising the Service Manager – Acquisitions and Development to proceed to contract with the developer (Redrow).

Cabinet approved the onward sale of the relevant Shared Ownership homes (13).

Councillor John Batchelor, Lead Cabinet Member for Housing, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Batchelor again advised that the proposal met viability and quality building requirements.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Peter McDonald. Councillor McDonald was pleased to see more one and two-bed houses and flats becoming available.

Non-Cabinet Members raised the following points:

·         It was noted that the Barrington development had come before Planning Committee a number of times, and the need to check all details were in order before signing any agreement was emphasised.

Resolution

Cabinet approved the acquisition, authorising the Service Manager – Acquisitions and Development to proceed to contract with the developer (Redrow).

Cabinet approved the onward sale of the relevant Shared Ownership homes (13).

Options Considered

Cabinet could have rejected this acquisition.

Reasons for Decision

SCDC’s Business Plan set the ambitious target to double the number of New Build Affordable Homes built annually.

Prior to the submission of bids for this site a full financial appraisal of this was undertaken which has been approved by Finance.

The scheme could be considered value for money in that it paid off in 35 years – within the limit of 45 set in the New Build Council Housing Strategy (revised 2023).