ORAL QUESTIONS

1) From Councillor Herbert to the Executive Councillor for Housing:

Will she review her decision to penalise council tenants who are disabled by charging them large sums for the maintenance of, often elderly, equipment that is essential for their daily lives?

The Executive Councillor for Housing referred Councillor Herbert to her response to Written Question 5 as circulated around the Chamber.

Supplementary by Councillor Herbert:

The 2008 Committee Report did not seem to indicate that charges would be made retrospectively. People that had baths fitted in 1995 did not agree to a £300 service charge.

The Executive Councillor for Housing stated that it was very unlikely that charges would reach this figure, and the Council would make a fair assessment of any retrospective charges. It was confirmed that tenants were not charged for installation or repair of this equipment and any charges related to maintenance and insurance.

2) From Councillor Bradnack to the Executive Councillor for

Customer Services and Resources:

Will the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources ensure that the Council does not make any contractual arrangement to let 47-51 Norfolk St with City Life without first allowing other potential tenants to bid for the lease?

The Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources stated that, as members were aware, the Council's commercial property portfolio was an important source of income for the council, particularly at a time of national financial uncertainty.

As discussed at the last Strategy and Resources Scrutiny meeting the approach officers had adopted over the course of the last 12 or so months was:

A backdrop to this strategy was the general state of the retail/commercial property market in the city that had been characterised by a reduction in demand in areas of the city other than the main attractive locations in the modern out of town locations.

In relation to the Norfolk Street site, the PCT had been a tenant for approximately 15 years and there were a number of other occupants on the site such as the hairdresser that operated under a license. The PCT notified the council last year that they intended to vacate the site in April.

Officers had soft marketed the site, in part because of a desire to find a tenant who would retain the other occupants and also because of the experience over the last 12 months relating to marketing of other vacant properties the Council owned.

As with the properties, officers were seeking a market level of rent.

Officers were also keen to ensure that a solution was found in the near term in order to remove the uncertainty for the other occupants on the site.

Supplementary by Councillor Bradnack:

The County Council made the similar mistake of not fairly marketing a property and it caused a lot of ill feeling from residents in the area. If the City Council followed this same route, a lot of disquiet will be caused.

The City Council has not taken adequate steps to investigate other uses for the site. The County Council is looking for space to accommodate the changes to St Matthews School so this should be investigated.

The Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources stated that the main objective of the City Council was to guarantee a commercial rent for the space. The opposition groups had suggested that the Council needed to make better use of its commercial property, and this was what was being done.

Other potential users had been approached, and councillors were encouraged to forward any further ideas or information to the Executive Councillor. The County Council were also free to get in touch if they wanted to discuss the St Matthews School idea.

The Executive Councillor stated that he was unable to give any further information, as much of it was commercially sensitive.

3) From Councillor Walker to the Chair of the Planning Committee:

Regarding the CB1 Station Area Development Planning Application 08/0266/OUT: How much has the City Council paid PricewaterhouseCoopers and Carter Jonas for their Viability Assessment on Ashwell CB1 Ltd./Ashwell Property Group, and ongoing advice?

The Chair of the Planning Committee confirmed that, for the question as worded, the answer was “Nothing at all” because the Council had not sought, and was not entitled to seek, an assessment of the financial position of the developer. But if the question was taken to be not about the developer but about the proposed development of CB1, then the answer was as follows:

The cost of the advice to the City Council was £7,782.00. This advice informed the Planning Committee's decision on 7 October 2008. The overall cost of the viability advice was shared equally with Cambridgeshire County Council and the County Council made an identical payment.

Supplementary from Councillor Walker:

Are we able to see report?

The Chair of the Planning Committee confirmed that, as the report contained commercially sensitive information, it was not publicly available at this time.

4) From Councillor Rosenstiel to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

Can the Executive Councillor update members on the long-sought-for facilities to assist the public who wish to be able to dispose of compact fluorescent lamps in an environmentally sustainable manner?

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services stated that, as the Mayor already knew from officially opening it, one recycling collection point for compact fluorescent lamps had already been established at Sainsbury's at Coldhams lane. This was a dual container so residents could also recycle household batteries.

Officers were in liaison with the supplier of this service to introduce more sites, collecting both bulbs and batteries in each case. Five recycling points had been identified around the city and were to be introduced by July 2010.

Other than the council continuing to monitor and tidy the site (which they already had to do), the costs of the service were met by the supplier, Reco-Light.

The proposed new sites area would be at:

Arbury Court

Cherry Hinton Hall,

Focus DIY Tenison Road,

Tesco Newmarket Road and

Lammas Land.

The six sites gave a good spread across the city, and a press release would be issued to advise residents of these facilities once they were installed.

Supplementary from Councillor Rosenstiel:

I thank the Executive Councillor for his response and thanked officers for their work on this issue.

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services echoed this thanks to the officers that had worked on this project.

He was very pleasantly surprised by the success and thanked them for their hard work. In particular Rebecca Weymouth-Wood, Jen Robertson and Jas Lally. Thanks were also given to the team at City Services for continuing to support the sites.

The success of securing this service so widely, and at no extra cost to council taxpayers, was unexpected.

5) From Councillor Howell to the Chair of the Planning Committee:

When will the City Council next update its local planning policies?

The Chair of the Planning Committee stated that updating the Council's local planning policies was a continuing process rather than a single event, so that no one date could be provided for updating them. In effect, updating was already in hand and it was expected that the 2006 Local Plan would have been fully updated and replaced by the end of 2012.

The 2006 Cambridge Local Plan formed part of the existing development plan for Cambridge and provided a planning strategy to 2016 and beyond. Whilst the City Council were in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework for Cambridge, which would incrementally replace the 2006 Cambridge Local Plan, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 made provision for Councils to retain their Local Plan policies beyond a three year period by application to the Secretary of State who had agreed that most of the Cambridge Local Plan's policies could remain in force from 20th July 2009.

The City Council had also adopted Joint Area Action Plans for two of the areas (Cambridge East and Cambridge North West) now covered by the section 29 (plan making) Joint Committee (of the City, South Cambs and the County).

The central document to the Local Development Framework was the Core Strategy. The City Council was required to produce this document first, before it could update its local planning policies. The Core Strategy would set out the overall vision, spatial strategy and high-level policies for the development of Cambridge.

The current timetable for the production of the Core Strategy indicated that the informal preferred options consultation was scheduled for November 2010, with Submission to the Secretary of State in August 2011 and adoption in April 2012.

However, progress with the Core Strategy was dependant on the review of the Regional Spatial Strategy and the housing targets that would be set for Cambridge. If a lower target was set than in the current RSS (which is 19,000 new homes to 2021), then it would make sense for the production of the Core Strategy to follow the review of the RSS and be consistent with revised housing targets. Any such decision would be taken by the Executive Councillor for Climate Change for Growth and reported to either Development Plan Steering Group or Environment Scrutiny Committee.

The production of the Development Control Policies and Site Specific Allocations documents would follow the preparation of the Core Strategy. The current timetable indicated that production on these documents would start later this year and should hopefully be adopted by the end of 2012. It was at this stage that the 2006 Local Plan would have been fully updated and replaced.

Supplementary from Councillor Howell:

A lot of City Council policies are not fit for purpose and are too prescriptive. The government has proposed some radical changes - how do you see these fitting with Council policies?

The Chair of the Planning Committee confirmed that it was the intention of the City Council to produce an even better Cambridge than the one that currently existed.

There would be ample opportunity for all Councillors to feed into any process of updating the local planning policies.

6) From Councillor Herbert to the Leader:

Given his written commitment on the folk festival ticket fiasco over 13 months ago (on 6 January 2009) that `I am determined to do all we can to get our money back' can he detail the actions he has taken and the results that he has achieved so far?

The Leader stated that to go into too much detail would compromise the position of the City Council. The Head of Legal Services has agreed to forward a confidential email to all members providing a full update.

It was confirmed that the City Council were working closely with the liquidators and the enforcement agencies. It was not possible to take independent action to recover this money, so the City Council were working with the only route open to them.

Councillor Herbert had been kept fully updated and briefed on all the confidential aspects of this issue.

Supplementary from Councillor Herbert:

In 21 months could we not have progressed further - especially during the early months when we would have had a greater chance of getting the money back?

The Leader reiterated that the Council were doing all they could and working with the only route open to them. The opposition group have also never indicated how they would have handled the issue more effectively.

7) From Councillor Howell to the Chair of the Planning Committee:

What s106 agreements are currently being renegotiated or have been renegotiated recently?

The Chair of the Planning Committee confirmed that over the past year, developers had asked for four S106 agreements to be renegotiated, as follows:

1 In September 2009 Planning Committee received a report on proposed variations to the previously signed S106 Agreement for the residential redevelopment of the former Cambridge University Press site on land adjoining Fitzwilliam Road and Clarendon Road. The variation related to phasing, timing of payments, and timing of infrastructure provision. The Committee agreed the variation.

2 At its meeting in November 2009, the Planning Committee received a report on proposed variations to the previously signed S106 Agreement for the commercial and residential redevelopment of the Betjeman House site in Hills Road. The applicant sought a variation to allow off-site provision of play space and community facilities by way of a commuted sum, instead of on-site provision. The Committee refused the variation.

3 A deed of variation to the previously signed S106 Agreement was about to be completed for the residential development of the NIAB frontage site in Huntingdon Road to vary the triggers for some payments. The relevant Heads of Service of the Council were consulted and all agreed to the amended triggers. Some payments had been deferred to later dates than initially agreed. Importantly, the quantum of payments was unchanged.

4 There was currently under consideration a request by the developers of the mainly residential scheme on the former Tim Brinton site at the junction of Cherry Hinton Road and Hills Road to vary the previously signed S106 Agreement to allow for a reduction in contributions to the City and County Council. If the request was not withdrawn it would need to be reported to the Planning Committee for determination.

For the avoidance of doubt, a S106 Agreement had not yet been signed for the CB1 development. That agreement was currently being negotiated but not renegotiated.

Supplementary from Councillor Howell:

The City Council has S106 contributions as `free money' that has not gone through any scrutiny process. Council policies are now unravelling and the facilities supported by S106 are at risk

The Chair of the Planning Committee confirmed that S106 payments were essential if the Council was to achieve adequate infrastructure to support the new developments in Cambridge. He also emphasised the importance of putting S106 agreements in place as early in the development process as possible.