The Cabinet

Document Sample
The Cabinet Powered By Docstoc
					The Cabinet
Report of the meeting held on 26th September
2006



                            FOR DETERMINATION



1.   ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT FOR
     THE PREPARATION AND REVISION OF FORTHCOMING MINERALS AND
     WASTE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS AND THE CONSIDERATION OF
     COUNTY PLANNING APPLICATIONS

     Cabinet has received a report providing details of the County Council‟s
     Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).

     A key objective of the new planning system is to strengthen community
     involvement in the land use planning decisions that affect their areas. The
     aim of the SCI is to develop a consensus about what are the best methods
     and techniques of community involvement to apply to in respect of:

        o The preparation and revision of Minerals and Waste Development Plan
          Documents (M&WDPDs), and
        o County Planning Applications (i.e. minerals and waste, County Council
          service developments).

     The statement sets out the methods and techniques of community
     involvement associated with the preparation and revision of forthcoming
     Minerals and Waste Development Plan Documents and the consideration of
     County Planning Applications.

     The key stages in the preparation of the County Council‟s SCI have been:

        Pre-production” community involvement              - June 2005
        Consultation on “draft” SCI                        - Nov/Dec 2005
        “Submission” SCI submitted for examination         - 31 March 2006
        Public consultation on “submission” SCI            - April/May 2006
        Publication of Inspector‟s Report                  - Sept 2006



                                        1
The final stage following the report to Cabinet is for the formal adoption of SCI
at Full Council.

Following the completion of the earlier stages, the “submission” SCI was
submitted to the Government for formal examination on 31 March 2006. A
copy of the document can be viewed on the County Council‟s website at:

   http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6BCF9A15-7935-4C53-A9F0-
   1C63EAC16773/0/SubmisionSCI.pdf

Concurrent with the submission of the SCI for examination, a further round of
formal public consultation was undertaken that ended on 12 May 2006. The
County Council received representations from 24 bodies/individuals including
5 raising objections. All the other representations either supported the SCI or
made comments. In order to assist the Planning Inspector at the examination
stage, officers prepared a written statement summarising all the responses
received at the post submission stage and, where appropriate, making
suggested changes to the text. None of the responses received raise
fundamental points that are incapable of being satisfactorily resolved through
modest changes to the text of the SCI. The statement of post submission
consultation can be viewed on the County Council website at:

   http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ED8932F9-E7C5-49B2-B884-
   0D6C7CFCC35C/0/SCIStatementofPostSubmissionConsultation.pdf

The Cabinet noted that many of the objections received reflected general
concerns over the arrangements for the recent Minerals and Waste
Development Plan Document “Issues & Options” consultation and it has been
acknowledged in the statement that there were shortcomings with the
consultation arrangements for the early informal stages of that document.

Examination of the “Submission” SCI, including consideration of the written
representations and the Council‟s suggested changes, was completed at the
end of August. The Planning Inspector‟s Report had not been formally
published at the time of the Cabinet meeting and it was therefore agreed that
minor changes should be agreed via a delegation to the Cabinet member for
Environment and Community Services and the Deputy Chief Executive.
However, the Inspector‟s draft report has concluded that the County Council‟s
SCI is “sound” based on the various tests set out in planning guidance,
subject to a few minor changes to the text. None of the recommended
changes, which are binding, are considered to be significant. A copy of the
final report is available from Richard Wilkinson, The Development Strategy
Manager who can be contacted on 01223 712716 or e-mail:
Richard.Wilkinson@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

Once adopted, the County Council will need to ensure that all Minerals and
Waste Development Planning Documents are prepared in accordance with its
requirements in terms of community involvement (i.e. the Core Strategy, Site
Specific Proposals and Earith/Mepal Area Action Plan). Failure to comply with
the SCI may mean that an inspector may recommend that a document should
be withdrawn if they consider that its „soundness‟ has been undermined. Once
the SCI is adopted, prospective developers for those categories of major
planning applications requiring enhanced consultation, including major County

                                     2
     service proposals, will need to provide a statement of the pre-submission
     consultation which they have undertaken alongside their application. This will
     also need to identify any changes to the proposals made as a result of public
     consultation. Failure to comply with the SCI by a developer in itself will not
     allow a local authority to refuse to accept a valid application. However, it will
     increase the risk of objections being raised, which could be material to the
     outcome of the determination of the application or cause delay.

     The risk management implications of the SCI are considered to be
     manageable ; the overall financial implications will be accommodated within
     existing budgets.

     Environment, Waste & Business Service Development Group considered the
     “Submission” SCI at the meeting on the 8 September 2006 and agreed to
     recommend that Cabinet and Council approve the document as amended in
     line with the Inspector‟s binding recommendations.

            Cabinet recommends

                   That the Council approves the “Submission” SCI, as amended in
                   line with the Inspector‟s recommendations.




                             FOR INFORMATION


     [KEY DECISIONS]

2.   THE CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH MINERALS AND
     WASTE PLAN – PREFERRED OPTIONS

     Cabinet has agreed to approve the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
     Minerals and Waste Plan (Preferred Options) as set out in the report to
     Cabinet for the purposes of public consultation and has delegated to the
     Cabinet member for Environment and Community Services, in consultation
     with the Deputy Chief Executive of Environment and Community Services, the
     authority to approve the final Plan for public consultation, including any
     amendments required (that do not materially affect the content of the Plan).

     In January 2005 the County Council adopted the Cambridgeshire Minerals
     and Waste Development Scheme. This is, in effect, a project plan for minerals
     and waste policy work that will be undertaken in the next 3 years. The
     Scheme includes details of the documents to be prepared, including their
     status, timetable for preparation, and resources required.

     A key element of the work to be undertaken in the next 3 years is the
     preparation of the new Minerals and Waste Development Plan, which is being
     prepared jointly with Peterborough City Council, under the new planning
     system i.e. the Local Development Framework System. The Minerals and
     Waste Development Plan will be vital in ensuring that construction materials

                                         3
are available to support the growth agenda in this area, and that sustainable
waste management is available for new and existing communities. The Plan
period is 2003 to 2021.

The new Plan will comprise 3 elements:

       Core Strategy: a document setting out the strategic vision and objectives,
        and including a suite of development control policies to guide minerals and
        waste development

       Earith / Mepal Area Action Plan: this is an area where there are
        interrelated minerals and waste issues, and other issues such as
        transport, flood protection, and opportunities to make sustainable use of
        land and water resources together with a significant contribution to the
        achievement of bio-diversity targets through quarry restoration.

       Site Specific Policies: a document setting out site specific proposals for
        mineral and waste development and supporting site specific policies

The main stages of the timetable for the preparation of the Plan have so far
been as follows:

        Informal Issues and Options Consultations      June - July 2005 (completed)
        Stakeholder Consultation                       Jan – April 2006 (completed)

The next stage will be the Preferred Options Consultation to be undertaken
between November – December 2006. Following the consultation on the
Preferred Options Plan, there will be another opportunity for both
Peterborough City Council and the County Council to reconsider the Plan
before submitting it to the Secretary of State for his consideration in Autumn
2007; and undertaking a second formal stage of public consultation. After this
point, there will also a public examination of the Plan, to be held by an
independent Planning Inspector. The Plan process will not be completed until
February 2009. (i.e. this is when the Plan will be adopted)

The now completed informal Issues and Options consultations stage had
sought views on the direction of future mineral and waste policy, and valuable
feedback was received on matters that relate to the Core Strategy. The
aspirations of stakeholders, including the minerals and waste industry, were
also shared in the Issues and Options consultations, and some suggestions
provoked a strong response (opposing the suggestions) at certain sites. In
particular:

       The relocation of the Milton Waste Water Treatment Works To Honey Hill,
        Horningsea - Further to this, four petitions representing the views from the
        villages of Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Stow cum Quy and Teversham Parish
        Council were received at the September Cabinet meeting opposing the
        relocation. Support to this opposition to the preferred option proposal was
        also expressed by the local member for Fulbourn and the Member of
        Parliament for South East Cambridgeshire, James Paice.



                                         4
   The location of a Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) at Glebe
    Farm, Trumpington. A petition against this proposed location had
    previously been received at the May 2006 Cabinet meeting. This location
    for the HWRC has now been superseded, following further investigation
    into other alternative sites by officers, who put forward as the preferred
    option the reuse of a former water treatment works off the A10 near
    Hauxton to serve the Cambridge Southern fringe development area. This
    new proposal received strong opposition from Hauxton Parish Council who
    submitted a petition at the Cabinet meeting suggesting that a number of
    sites should be put forward with no preferred site being expressed. This
    view also received support for from one of the local members for Sawston.
   Large scale mineral extraction and a new kiln at Barrington Cement
    Works, Barrington (these aspirations for Barrington have now been
    withdrawn).

In total over 1,600 representations were received. All responses have been
acknowledged and respondents are on the mailing list for the next stage of
the Plan. Representations have been taken into account in the site selection
process.

Following consultation at the Issues and Options stage, work has progressed
with all of the sites proposed have been evaluated against pre-determined
criteria in a process overseen by a cross party Member Group. The results
were presented as the Council‟s Preferred Options Plan. The Plan has been
drafted for Members consideration. A Members‟ Seminar was held on 1
September, with the Development Control Committee considering the Plan on
4 September, and the Environment, Waste and Business Service
Development Group (SDG) considering it on 8 September. An appendix to the
Cabinet report provided details of their views.

The proposals in the Preferred Options plan will meet all anticipated needs for
minerals and waste management facilities up to 2021. The proposals seek to
achieve the best balance of environmental, social and economic factors in the
interests of sustainable development. In the interests of sustainable transport
the plan suggests that wider use should be made of existing freight transport
infrastructure (railheads and port) for the movement of minerals and waste in
the future. The Cabinet report set out the proposals in relation to:

   Mineral Extraction Proposals
   Block Fen, Mepal
   Minerals – Barrington
   Minerals – Other specialist requirements
   Minerals – Phasing out of extraction in Earith/Somersham area
   Waste Management Proposals
   Apportionment of London‟s Waste
   Household Waste Recycling Centres
   Waste Management in Cambridge Southern Fringe/ Glebe Farm and other
    major developments
   Hazardous Waste
   Inert Waste.

                                   5
Cabinet noted that in respect of the relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water
Treatment Works from its current site in Milton, the approval of the Cambridge
City Local Plan means that a new location will be required for the Cambridge
Waste Water Treatment Works if the planned redevelopment of the
Cambridge Northern Fringe is to proceed. While officers have in drawing up
their proposals taken into account the very high level of local concern it was
not possible to find a more favourable Area of Search than Honey Hill. The
detailed location identified within the Area of Search now proposed a site at
the eastern edge, the most distant from either Fen Ditton or Horningsea
villages. This however has not currently persuaded the surrounding villages
that there was a need for Anglian Water to move from the current site and the
various petitions objected to the on the grounds of:

   Failures in Pre-planning Public Consultation
   The lack of convincing evidence of the need to move and adverse cost of
    relocation,
   Misuse of protected Green Belt
   Could create a precedent and lead to further unacceptable development
   Was unsustainable
   The adverse affect on Wicken Fen Project National Trust) and that the
    development was contrary to the County Structure Plan
   Inadequate support for the project
   Fen Ditton is a Conservation Area and that many other proposed
    developments affected the village and therefore they should be considered
    as a whole, not in isolation.
   Inconsistent assessment of alternatives sites.
   Impact on water resources and the environment
   Introduction of heavy goods vehicles to local roads
   Odours expected from the site
   Impact on property values.

The main proposals were that officers should either reject the proposal
entirely or in some submissions suggesting inclusion of the two sites which
had not previously consulted on, together with a full examination of reasons
for not relocating and consulting on all options, without listing Honey Hill as
the preferred site. It was explained that for procedural reasons the County
Council was required to identify a preferred site.

In respect of any new waste water treatment works, Cabinet has noted that
this would require to be a modern, high quality facility, integrated into the
landscape and with full environmental mitigation, including substantially
improved odour control which would be far superior to the current works which
have been on the present site for a hundred years. One major difference
would be that it would be a closed, rather than an open to the air treatment
facility, which in itself would provide substantially improved odour control.

Cabinet has agreed that the preferred option as set out in the report should
proceed to consultation, with a recognition that further work was required in
respect of illustrative material on potential proposals for a new Works and to
answer the detailed objections set out in the various petitions received. The
expectation would be that any final solution would be affordable within an
                                    6
     agreed funding package and would also be compatible in respect of
     environmental concerns. The point was made that current site was required
     for housing in order to help provide much needed affordable housing to
     enable people to live close to their place of work and also to provide the
     opportunity for local people to be able to purchase their own homes.

     In coming to its decision on the whole report, Cabinet has been reminded that
     this Preferred Options stage is only the first formal stage of the process of the
     Plan and that there is a need to ensure that the whole community and other
     interested groups are provided with the opportunity to submit their views on
     the proposals set out in the consultation document.

3.   WASTE PRIVATE FINANCE INITIATIVE (PFI) PROJECT

     Cabinet has noted the details of the outcome of the exclusive negotiations
     with Donarbon Ltd and has agreed to approve them as the Preferred Bidder
     for the Waste PFI Project, subject to the condition that a Preferred Bidder
     Letter can be agreed. A further report on progress on concluding the
     Preferred Bidder Letter will be received at the Cabinet meeting on 31st
     October.

     A key objective of the Waste PFI Project is to achieve greater financial
     certainty in waste management over the medium to long term. The Waste PFI
     Project should deliver the means to meet the Council‟s Landfill Allowance
     Trading Scheme (LATS) obligations by 2010. If the Council were without an
     operational residual waste treatment facility by that date, we would be reliant
     on purchasing additional allowances from other authorities, with no certainty
     as to the financial burden that this will impose.

     The process of procuring a long-term PFI contract for new facilities to treat
     household waste in Cambridgeshire began in January 2005. In April 2006
     Cabinet authorised an additional delegation to the Waste PFI Procurement
     Board to agree a period of exclusive negotiation with a single bidder prior to
     the appointment of a Preferred Bidder or to invite Best and Final Offers as
     appropriate.

     Cabinet has noted that following a detailed evaluation of the bids received
     from Donarbon Ltd (Donarbon), Shanks Group plc (Shanks) and the Waste
     Recycling Group Ltd (WRG), the Waste PFI Procurement Board (26 April
     2006) decided to enter into a period of exclusive negotiation with Donarbon,
     the highest scoring bidder for price and quality after the Invitation to Negotiate
     (ITN) phase.

     The objectives of the exclusive negotiations with Donarbon were to:
        explore issues identified in the evaluation of Donarbon‟s bid in more detail
        resolve material outstanding issues associated with the proposed
         technology, Payment Mechanism and Contract terms
        decide whether sufficient progress had been made in respect of these
         issues to recommend appointing Donarbon as Preferred Bidder.


                                          7
Donarbon‟s solution includes expanded composting facilities for the recycling
of garden and kitchen waste and a new Mechanical Biological Treatment
(MBT) facility to treat residual waste that is not, or cannot be recycled. The
outputs from the MBT facility include metals (for recycling), plastics (for use as
a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) or landfill) and a stabilised compost-like output
(for use as a soil enhancer or landfill). Shanks‟ proposals for the treatment of
residual waste include a MBT facility configured to maximise RDF production,
while WRG proposals include an incinerator to recover energy from waste.

The exclusive negotiations took place during May, June and July 2006. As a
result of the progress made during these discussions, the Procurement Board
(25 July 2006) agreed to recommend to Cabinet that Donarbon should be
appointed as the Preferred Bidder for the Waste PFI Project. At the outset of
the exclusive negotiation phase, the Procurement Board defined a series of
tests by which progress during the exclusive negotiations would be measured.
These tests included the extent to which key elements of the Payment
Mechanism, Contract and bid price were agreed and acceptable from the
Council‟s point of view. Of the 16 „Success Tests‟ defined by the Board:
    10 have been achieved
    2 have not been achieved
    4 cannot be assessed definitively at this stage

54 Priority Issues were also identified to address during the exclusive
negotiations with Donarbon. Of these:
    37 are considered to be resolvable satisfactorily from the Council‟s point of
     view
    9 are considered to be resolvable on the fringes of what is acceptable to
     the Council
    3 are considered to be unresolvable without significant compromise by the
     Council or Donarbon or both
    3 cannot be assessed definitively at this stage
    2 are no longer issues in their own right.

The Success Tests which have not been achieved and the issues on which
compromise is required relate, in the main, to the financial aspects of
Donarbon‟s bid. However, none of these are considered to be „showstoppers‟
at this point. The principal conclusions drawn from the exclusive negotiations
with Donarbon are:
i.   The base Unitary Charge of Donarbon‟s bid has increased by
     approximately 2.7%
ii. Despite this increase, it remains cheaper than both of the other bids. This
    is true even when comparing Donarbon‟s „worst case‟ position with the
    „best case‟ position of the next cheapest bid
iii. The original evaluation conclusion that Donarbon‟s bid is the highest
     scoring for price and quality remains valid and there is now a greater



                                      8
         degree of confidence in Donarbon and the robustness of their technical
         solution and price

     Once the evaluation process has identified a leading bid, it is usual practice to
     recognise this formally by appointing a „Preferred Bidder‟. This does not
     mean that the other bidders have been ruled out altogether, but it does mean
     that the Council intends to work explicitly with the Preferred Bidder over the
     coming months to try to conclude a satisfactory contract.

     The Waste PFI Procurement Board were of the opinion that the positive
     progress made during the exclusive negotiations with Donarbon justified their
     appointment as Preferred Bidder at this point in the procurement process. In
     particular, Donarbon‟s bid offers:
        A value-for-money solution
        A deliverable solution
        -A timely solution
        A flexible solution
        A sustainable solution
     Following agreement by Cabinet the remainder of the timetable for the
     procurement process will be as follows:

      Preferred Bidder Letter approved by Cabinet          31 October 06

      Final negotiations                                   Oct-06 to Feb-07

      Contract Award considered by Cabinet                 27 February 07

      Contract Award approved by Council                   27 March 07

      Contract start                                       April 07

      Existing contracts expire and interim services       July 07
      begin

      New MBT facility operational                         Late 2009



4.   VOICE AND DATA CONVERGENCE (VOIP) PROJECT – ALTERATION TO
     CAPITAL PROPOSAL APPROVED IN THE 2006/07 BUDGET

     At present Cambridgeshire‟s telephony is provided as a managed service
     from NTL. It is based on the Centrex system, which relies on obsolete
     technology due to be decommissioned from 2007 onwards and therefore
     requiring alternative provision to be made. Recent technological advances
     mean it is now possible to run telephony and data services across a single
     network (CCN - Cambridgeshire Community Network) instead of the current
     two in order to realise significant efficiency gains through the reduction of
     telephony costs for the authority.


                                         9
     The convergence of voice and data services brings opportunities for new
     functionality, which supports the authority‟s aim of a 20% reduction in office
     accommodation costs, as set out in the Office Accommodation Strategy.
     Specifically it allows for:

     (a) Moves, additions and changes that can be done at the click of a button.
     (b) Integrated messaging, telephony, video-conferencing and web-based
         collaboration.
     (c) Breaks the link between the telephone extension and the physical device,
         which facilitates genuinely flexible working.

     Cabinet has therefore agreed to approve the increase in the total capital costs
     of the project from £750,000 to £1,569,000 and authorised:

        An advance of spend of £650,000 into this financial year from 2007/08.
        An advance of spend of £100,000 from the 2008/09 financial year to
         2007/08.
        An additional call on capital of £819,000 in 2008/09.

     In making its decision, Cabinet has noted that the project offers:
      full payback over seven years.
      The project reduces recurrent annual revenue costs from £1,384,000 to
        £940,000 within four years on a cash basis.
      The proposal has taken a prudent view of costs and savings.
      The proposal should facilitate further significant productive time savings
        that should lead to further administrative savings.
      The proposal is not sensitive to significant inflation or volume risks.


5.   ST IVES MARKET TOWN TRANSPORT STRATEGY

     Cabinet has approved the St Ives Market Town Transport Strategy which will
     form an important part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP). Its key objective is
     to identify an integrated package of measures that combined, will address the
     six LTP objectives and contribute towards improving the environment of the
     town.

     The strategy is the result of a significant amount of work that has identified the
     key transport problems facing St. Ives and the most appropriate transport
     schemes to address the problems. These have been prioritised to give an
     indication of the likely timescale for delivery of individual measures.

     A significant consultation exercise had been undertaken as set out in the
     report to Cabinet and of those who replied in respect of the key proposals;
     79% favoured Cycling and Walking, 66% Public Transport and 70% Road
     Safety. Analysis of the questionnaires showed that respondents gave highest
     priority to safety schemes on key routes and junctions, improvements to
     pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities, safety schemes on residential roads,
     and provision of a comprehensive cycle network. The lowest priority was
     given to additional cycle parking in the town.



                                         10
     In agreeing the report Cabinet has asked officers to look at specific issues
     raised at the meeting in relation to a request to consider the use of hoppa
     buses in outlying villages, looking into concerns regarding the need to
     improve the pavements in North Road, St Ives to improve the safety of elderly
     people and wheelchair users, and to also look into issues of light pollution.


6.   BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE

     Cabinet has agreed that arrangements should be established to enter wave 4
     of the Government‟s “Building Schools for the Future”

     Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is a national programme for the
     refurbishment or rebuild of all secondary schools over the next 10-15 years
     with the programme featuring significant levels of capital investment in the
     school infrastructure. For Fenland, the Department for Education and Skills
     (DfES) has supplied the Funding Allocation Model for BSF and in respect of
     the five Fenland schools participating, could potentially provide £94.75m of
     resources, based on 50% new build, 35% refurbishment and remodelling of
     the school and 15% minor refurbishment.

     At the heart of BSF is a new approach to the delivery of the capital investment
     in the school estate, the Local Education Partnership (LEP). The LEP is
     designed to be a vehicle that allows the local authority to meet all the
     requirements of the delivery of the local BSF programme through a single
     long-term partnership with a private sector partner. BSF will be funded
     primarily through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funding. The contracts
     will be on a design, build, finance, operate and maintain basis for a 25-30 year
     period and will be between the Local Authority and the LEP.

     Local authorities are participating in BSF through 15 waves of projects, based
     on a DfES assessment of the suitability and sufficiency of school buildings
     and local deprivation. Local authorities in waves 1-3 have started work on
     BSF and DfES has recently invited authorities in waves 4-6 to begin their
     preparations. Larger authorities will participate in a number of BSF waves
     reflecting DfES concerns over the capacity of local authorities and the private
     sector to deliver programmes if they are too big. Fenland schools are in
     waves 4-6 of BSF, Cambridge City and Hunts in 10-12 and South and East
     Cambs in 13-15.

     By 15th September, authorities in waves 4-6 had to register whether they
     wished to be in wave 4, 5 or 6 of BSF. An application to be in wave 4 of BSF
     has therefore been made. Those authorities allocated to Wave 4 will be
     announced in December 2006 and projects will begin in January 2007.
     In agreeing the arrangements Cabinet has accepted:

           the appropriateness of the Building Schools for the Future funding
            arrangements, particularly the use of Private Finance Initiative funding
            in schools;

           the default model of procurement for Building Schools for the Future
            being the Local Education Partnership;

                                        11
           the procurement of an integrated schools‟ Information Communication
            Technology (ICT) service through Building Schools for the Future.

     There is a substantial cost to BSF that will require commitment through the
     Medium Term Corporate Plan Process and will require priorities to be re-
     examined.

     (Note: Subsequent to the Cabinet meeting, a request was made by 15
     members of Council that the Cabinet’s decision on this matter be called-in for
     further consideration by the relevant Scrutiny Committee).


7.   SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL PROVISION TO SERVE THE NORTH WEST
     FRINGE OF CAMBRIDGE CITY

     Cabinet has agreed to endorse the proposal that a secondary school be
     located in the North West Fringe development area.

     The Structure Plan, which was formally adopted on 22 October 2003, sets a
     demanding challenge of around 60,000 new homes being created over the
     next 15 years, of which 47,500 are planned for the Cambridge Sub-region. In
     the north of the City, developments are planned on sites on Huntingdon
     Road/Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road/Histon Road (known collectively
     as the North West Fringe development area), Arbury Park and Chesterton
     (Northern Fringe East).

     There will be a requirement for additional secondary school places to serve
     the urban fringe developments planned for the City as pupil numbers are
     forecast to rise beyond current 11-15 capacity in the City after 2015.
     Chesterton and Manor Community Colleges serve the secondary-aged pupil
     population living north of the river. These school sites are only 0.87 of a mile
     apart and neither school is ideally placed to serve the developments planned
     in the North West Fringe. The officers‟ assessment is that a replacement
     secondary school sited to the west of the existing schools would be better
     placed to do so. Two desk-top searches for sites of a suitable size (around
     8ha) have been carried out - the first in and around the north west of the City,
     and the second across a wider area – but have not produced any potential
     candidates. The only available option would therefore be for a site to be
     reserved in the development area.


8.   PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL PROVISION IN SAWSTON

     Cabinet has approved a request for the publication of a Public Notice
     proposing the closure of John Falkner Infant School and John Paxton
     Junior School on 31 August 2007, and the establishment of a new 270-
     place, 4-11 community primary school with effect from 1 September 2007,
     to serve the catchment served by the current schools.

     Sawston is served by three primary age-range schools, all of them
     Community Schools: John Falkner Infant, its partner Junior School, John

                                        12
     Paxton and Icknield Primary School. The catchment area for the John
     Falkner and John Paxton schools includes the village of Pamisford.

     The fall in pupil numbers since 2000 has affected all three schools, although
     the impact on Icknield Primary has been more recent. Surplus primary school
     places have, therefore existed in Sawston for some time, the majority of which
     are concentrated in John Falkner Infant and John Paxton Junior schools.
     Based on recent trends, and the known and planned modest levels of house
     building for the area, the latest forecasts indicate that total primary rolls in
     Sawston will be around or slightly below the current figure of 460 or so for the
     foreseeable future. Rolls at all three schools are likely to fluctuate in the short
     term, but remain broadly stable in the longer term.

     Another factor has been that John Paxton Junior School is housed in Vic
     Hallam accommodation which is proving increasingly costly to maintain. The
     most recent condition survey indicated that around £650,000 would need to
     be spent on the school building to bring it up to a suitable standard.

     The intention is to provide a purpose-built primary school on the present John
     Paxton School site, to accommodate the new community primary school; and
     therefore Cabinet has approved that the site of the John Falkner Infant
     School, and part of the John Paxton Junior School should be declared surplus
     to educational requirements and that the resulting capital receipts be used
     towards the building costs associated with establishing the proposed new
     primary school.


9.   PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL PROVISION IN BRAMPTON

     Cabinet has approved the publication of a Public Notice proposing the closure
     of Brampton Infant and Junior Schools on 31st August 2007, and the
     establishment of a new 420-place, 4-11 Community Primary School with
     effect from 1 September 2007, to serve primarily residents of the village of
     Brampton.

     Primary pupil numbers on roll in Brampton peaked around 560 in 2000/01.
     They have since fallen substantially, down to 431 by January 2006. Infant rolls
     have fallen from a peak around 240 to 172 and Junior rolls from around 330 to
     259. Pupil forecasts show future rolls at the two Brampton schools falling
     further from the current 431 to around 350 by January 2011, with forecast
     reception intake around 55.

     In January 2006, the Authority was notified of the two schools‟ governing
     bodies‟ interest in considering the potential for amalgamation following the
     Junior School‟s Headteacher‟s appointment to a new post, with effect from
     September 2006. Cabinet has noted in making its decision that following a
     consultation exercise, the overwhelming majority of those who had expressed
     views were in favour of the amalgamation. The governing bodies of both
     Brampton Infants and Brampton Junior Schools voted on 14 September to
     recommend to the Local Authority that the two schools should be
     amalgamated.


                                         13
10.   THE QUEEN’S SECONDARY SCHOOL WISBECH

      The Queen‟s School is the only secondary school in Wisbech. Following an
      inspection by OfSTED in May 2006, it was placed in special measures. The
      Authority has acted decisively and quickly in response to this judgement. An
      Interim Executive Board (IEB) has replaced the school‟s governing body and
      a highly experienced Cambridgeshire headteacher has been appointed as
      Executive headteacher for the 2006/07 academic year. Given that this
      arrangement is for one year only, urgent action needs to be taken to ensure
      that suitable and robust leadership and management and administrative
      arrangements are in place by September 2007 at the latest, to secure strong
      secondary educational provision in Wisbech. In addition, Section 19 of the
      Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by Section 56(2) of
      the Education Act 2002, gives the Secretary of State the power to direct a
      Local Authority to close a school requiring special measures or with serious
      weaknesses.

      Cabinet has therefore approved that an application is made to join the
      national Fresh Start Programme and for officers to start a consultation
      process on the future nature of secondary school provision in Wisbech.

      Fresh Start proposals are designed to replace an existing school in special
      measures or with serious weaknesses with a new school. Cabinet has
      therefore approved that an application is made for the Queen‟s Secondary
      School to join the National Fresh Start programme. This involves closing a
      school and opening a new, replacement school on the same site.

      Where it is proposed to establish a Fresh Start School there must be:

         a clear commitment from the Local Authority and senior management to
          taking the necessary steps to provide all pupils with the right learning
          environment to enable them to achieve their full educational potential;
         a substantial review of staffing and governance to ensure that the school
          has the right people in post to put in place and maintain that learning
          environment;
         clear, well-planned and financially secure strategies in place for tackling
          the weaknesses and building on the strengths of the closing school,
          especially in relation to teaching and learning, curriculum and staff
          development, behaviour and attendance, leadership and management,
          staff appointments, and responsiveness to the needs of the local
          community and other schools; and
         a Raising Achievement Plan in place for implementing these strategies,
          agreed with the Local Authority, OfSTED and DfES, including an explicit
          commitment that both the school and the Local Authority will work closely
          with OfSTED and DfES in doing so.

      All of the actions required of Fresh Start can be considered essential to
      improving secondary education in Wisbech.

      Cabinet has also been provided with details of a new statutory framework that
      applies with effect from 1 September 2006, for the establishment of new

                                         14
      secondary schools – whether they are brand new schools or to replace
      existing schools. Under the new regulations, authorities are required to
      proceed with a competition for the establishment of any proposed new
      secondary school and this would currently apply with regard to the proposals
      for the Queen‟s School. As the resultant delay would make it impossible to
      appoint a headteacher in time for a September 2007 opening date, it has
      been agreed to seek exemption from the Secretary of State from these new
      competition requirements.


11.   LONGSTANTON BYPASS SIDE ROADS ORDER

      The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (February 2004) states that 21
      hectares of land north of Over Road in Longstanton has been allocated for
      residential development for up to 500 dwellings, and 6.3 hectares of land
      north of Hatton‟s Road for employment and development use. To facilitate
      these developments, the existing B1050 through Longstanton requires to be
      re-routed to bypass the village and an Interim Access Road constructed to
      provide access to the developments.

      Cabinet has therefore agreed to approve the making of the Side Roads Order
      for the Longstanton Bypass. The proposed Order for the Longstanton Bypass
      provides for the stopping up of Over Road from its junction with Ramper Road
      for a distance of 275 metres in a south-easterly direction. A new highway will
      be constructed to connect into Over Road/Ramper Road from the new bypass
      roundabout. Four private means of access will also be stopped up. New
      accesses have been agreed with the landowners. The existing highway will be
      improved at Hatton‟s Road, School Lane, Over Road, Ramper Road and
      Station Road.


      [OTHER DECISIONS]


12.   A605/B671 ELTON SAFETY SCHEME

      Cabinet has received a report setting out the results of the findings of an
      independent investigation into additional safety measures at the A605/B671
      junction. The main conclusion of the report is to confirm that due to the
      reduction in the number of accidents in recent years, any improvements
      necessary to improve safety at the junction will not qualify for County Council
      Major Road Safety Scheme funding.

      Based upon the assessment contained in the consultants report and as
      discussed at a previous Cabinet meeting, the current accident figures show
      one fatal, one serious and four slight accidents at the junction from the year
      2000 to the present day. Although any accidents are regrettable, the number
      at this location means that it is not defined as a county accident site on the
      basis of the County Council‟s standard criteria. A county accident site is
      defined as a junction or 100 metre length of road with a minimum of five
      personal injury accidents in a three year period.


                                         15
      The report has concluded that:
       whilst a roundabout would address the key safety issues at the junction,
         (and this was the option that was still being urged for by Elton Parish
         Council), it was not cost effective and could not be justified under existing
         County Council policy for the appropriate funding stream;
       a range of other substantial safety schemes at the site would also partially
         address the safety issues, but again could not be justified on the basis of
         existing County Council policy;
       a range of low cost measures would have an impact on the safety of the
         junction and could be justified under the County Council‟s policies.

      Cabinet has therefore requested that:

       officers investigate with the Parish Council the potential to introduce a ban
        of right turns onto the A605 and consider the provision of road side
        “casualty number” information signs in the area and any immediate other
        small scale measures that can be taken to help road safety e.g. rumble
        strips etc; and
       also consider the introduction of a small scale scheme through the Jointly
        Funded Minor Improvement Schemes budget (JFMI) process should such
        a scheme come forward.


13.   HIGHWAYS OPERATIONAL MATTERS

      The current County Council practice regarding the provision of privately
      funded highway features is that such measures will only be provided in
      situations where their provision is considered to be beneficial in road safety
      terms. Where such features have been provided in the past their cost has
      been funded from the County‟s “Good Housekeeping Budget” and the actual
      cost of the scheme re-paid, over a period of up to 5 years, by a local Parish
      Council. However County Council budgets are at the present time insufficient
      to fund their construction.

      With the recent growth in the provision of physical traffic calming and speed
      reduction measures as part of the annual number of accident remedial
      schemes and the recent A14 Village Traffic Calming Project, there is an
      increasing interest in such measures being provided by private funding.
      Cabinet has therefore approved policies for the provision of privately funded
      highway features, gates on the public highway and interactive signs on the
      public highway.

      Other tidying up measures regarding highways issues agreed within the same
      report included:

             delegating the decision to revoke or vary any highway development
              line to Area Joint Committees (AJCs) and approving the revocation of
              part of the development line in Chesterton Road, Cambridge as shown
              in Plan 1 of the officer report to Cabinet.

             To approve the revocation of part of the development line in
              Chesterton Road, Cambridge as shown in Plan 1;

                                         16
      The details for all the above are included in the Cabinet report.


14.   HORIZONS QUALITY OF LIFE STRATEGIES

      Cabinet has agreed to endorse three Cambridgeshire Horizons strategies
      presented for approval in relation to arts and culture, green infrastructure and
      sports facilities. Their endorsement by the County Council provides a strong
      basis for negotiating with developers to secure their contributions to the
      provision of the facilities envisaged in the strategy.

      The strategies have been created in response to the increase in population
      arising from development in the Cambridge Sub-region, which requires the
      enhancement of existing infrastructure.

      Under its Quality of Life Programme, Cambridgeshire Horizons has developed
      a number of strategies – with support from the County Council and other
      partners - aimed at:

         Emphasising the need for quality as well as quantity in relation to the
          growth of the Cambridge Sub-Region and delivering facilities which
          promote community development and sustainability alongside the “hard”
          infrastructure.
         Identifying gaps in provision that can be met as part of this planned
          growth.
         Influencing the local planning process and the negotiation of developer
          contributions to the infrastructure.
         Building broadly-based partnerships to deliver and sustain these facilities.

      The Arts and Culture Strategy

      This strategy has been created to ensure that access to cultural activities is
      built in to the early thinking and planning of new settlements. It takes as its
      basis the role of culture in communities, helping to:
       develop community pride
       create local distinctiveness
       make communities healthy and sustainable
       promote local economic development
       generate a rich quality of life.

      The strategy proposes that local authority and regional cultural partners
      should work together to create a joint long-term approach to cultural
      development for the growth area as a whole – aimed at:
       creating specific strategies for new and enhanced facilities required in
         local growth areas, and programme support for early cultural and arts
         interventions in the largest new settlements.
       gaining commitment to build culture into new communities, in terms of
         spaces and buildings as well as opportunities to participate and
         experience



                                          17
   establishing a coherent joint planning approach which would enable the
    planning of better support for local delivery as well as for larger scale
    projects
   creating a partnership group to make sure culture is represented and
    championed - not only in the new communities but throughout the sub-
    region
   producing a coherent sub-regional approach to developing design panels
    and champions
   involving cultural practitioners and young people in the planning and
    design processes
   strengthening local authority public art policies.

In order to bridge the gap between the Government‟s spending on cultural
infrastructure and the investment needs of the planned growth within culture
and the arts, the strategy highlights the need for planning, securing and
investing funding for cultural infrastructure in a consolidated approach. It will
also need sufficient priority for culture in local policies and will require the
creation of a sub-regional planning document, agreed by the relevant local
authorities. The County Council has a vital leadership role to play in the
developments in this area - allied with:
 a commitment to public art and design quality across all departments
 its role in direct delivery through schools, libraries, archives, archaeology,
    arts and museums development.

Green Infrastructure Strategy

The Strategy sets out a list of priority initiatives for implementation by various
bodies including the County Council. It also makes recommendations
covering:
 major greenspaces to serve existing and new populations arising from
   growth in the Sub-region
 landmark projects as a catalyst for the delivery and public awareness of
   the Strategy
 new corridors for biodiversity to tackle the problem of fragmented habitats
 enhancements to the recreational access network
 enhancements to the existing habitats of biodiversity interest, reflecting the
   50 Year Biodiversity Vision Map produced by the Cambridgeshire and
   Peterborough Biodiversity Partnership in 2004.
 a green corridor along the Guided Busway linking Cambridge-Northstowe
   to Ouse Valley settlements
 green bridges over major physical barriers to protect and develop
   biodiversity connectivity
 development of the strategy for adoption into Local Development
   Documents.

The report presented to Cabinet sets out the role the County Council will have
and the co-ordination work required via the Green Infrastructure Forum. The
work will be taken forward by a new post of Green Infrastructure Development
Officer, funded by Cambridgeshire Horizons and Countryside Agency, which
will be based with the County Council.



                                    18
Cabinet has been reminded that the County Council has recently entered into
a long term option agreement on land to the north west of Northstowe. In
endorsing the Green Infrastructure Strategy the County Council is not
prejudging the location of any proposed area of strategic open space. In
particular, there is nothing in the Green Infrastructure Strategy which is
inconsistent with the County „s representations made to the South
Cambridgeshire District Council‟s proposed Local Development Framework
(LDF) opposing the identification of land west of Station Road at Longstanton
as a country park.

Major Sports Facilities Strategy

Based on the needs analysis and consultation exercise undertaken the
strategy makes a number of recommendations for the provision of community
sports facilities at a district level plus specialist sports facilities at a sub
regional level. These include:
 a community football stadium
 an ice rink
 a multi lane rowing facility
 a 50 metre swimming pool
 a gymnastics centre
 eight court sports hall
 indoor cricket centre
 indoor tennis centre
 an equestrian centre
 a four lane indoor bowls centre.

Further recommendations for the growth areas of Northstowe and East
Cambridge include two 25 metre swimming pools, sports halls, fitness centres
and synthetic football pitches. The strategy concludes that the provision must
be underpinned by a comprehensive sports development programme to
ensure that an increase in participation at every level of performance is
achieved.

As with the other strategies, there is a requirement for a strong commitment
from the County Council to exercise leadership in relation to its own services
in this area and to work in collaboration with partners – through the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Sports Partnership - to pursue the
implementation of the strategy.

There are no immediate and direct financial implications of adopting the
Green Infrastructure Strategy. The costs of managing Growth Area Fund
(GAF) projects and hosting the Green Infrastructure Development Officer can
be met within existing budgets. External funding will need to be sought for any
potential projects on County Council land. Similarly, although the provision of
cultural facilities and sports activities will require resources, at this stage there
are no additional financial implications for the County Council.




                                     19
      The various strategies can be viewed using the following electronic links:

      A Green Infrastructure Strategy for the Cambridge Sub Region
      (Cambridgeshire Horizons, February 2006)

      http://www.cambridgeshirehorizons.co.uk/doclib/260873_GREEN_INFRAST_BRO_2.pdf

      A Major Sports Facilities Strategy for the Cambridge Sub-Region

      http://www.cambridgeshirehorizons.co.uk/doclib/SPORTS_INF_BROCHURE_FINAL.pdf

      An Arts and Culture Strategy for the Cambridge Sub-Region

      http://www.cambridgeshirehorizons.co.uk/doclib/260872_ARTS_BROCHURE_1.pdf



15.   CONSULTATION RESPONSE ON TRUMPINGTON MEADOWS PLANNING
      APPLICATIONS

      On the 4th July, the Trumpington Meadows Land Company (TMLC) submitted
      two outline planning applications for the development of land west of Hauxton
      Road, Trumpington to both Cambridge City Council and South
      Cambridgeshire District Council. The applications together comprise the
      following:

         A mixed residential community of approximately 1,200 dwellings on 30
          hectares of land (gross), including affordable housing;
         two new access points onto Hauxton Road and an emergency access off
          Grantchester Road;
         land for a primary school and for other local community uses within the
          local centre;
         approximately 60 hectares for a community park;
         formal and informal open space, and children‟s play space;
         a comprehensive network of footpaths and cycleways;
         a gateway feature into Cambridge city and the site.

      Although broadly in support of the principle of the proposals, Cabinet has
      agreed the County Council should object to the planning application for the
      following reasons - main headings/issues listed below - (Appendix A of the
      report to Cabinet details the agreed County Council response):

         Education provision- unless it is amended to meet the requirements of the
          Local Education Authority.
         Transportation and the impact upon the highway and transportation
          network – based on the information contained in the Transport
          Assessment.
         No mention being made of the Guided Busway.
         No reference being made to the need for a Library and Lifelong Learning
          Centre.
         No mention of the need for a temporary waste management facility to
          serve the project, and the need for financial contributions for a Household
          Waste Recycling Centre to serve the Cambridge Southern Fringe.

                                          20
         The absence of a clear supporting statement regarding the proposed Local
          Centre.
         Strategic open Space and Access to the Countryside - lack of a clear
          definition regarding the Public Rights of Way in the Environmental
          Statement.
         Archaeology – unless requirements of the County Archaeology office for
          the site are met.
         Biodiversity – a more detailed landscaping schedule/strategy accompanied
          by a management plan for the community park is required. Also
          clarification in the management plan on the extent to which existing
          habitats are to be retained and the plan monitored.
         Affordable Housing – the amount is not consistent with the Structure Plan.
         Climate Change and Sustainable Development:
              – The development should seek to minimise the contribution it makes
                  to climate change.
              – Clarification regarding whether allowances have been made for
                  increased flood risk associated with climate change.
              – A commitment to use locally sourced materials where possible to
                  minimise emissions from transporting materials.
              – A target to minimise travel for work journeys by cars and vans and
                  to increase access by more sustainable modes.


16    POST COMPULSORY EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY AWARDS

      The Department for Education and Skills has reminded local authorities of the
      requirement to make an annual determination, regardless of whether a Local
      Authority has made previous determinations, that it will not exercise its power
      to offer Post Compulsory Education Discretionary Awards. This is in
      accordance with the Local Education Authority (Post Compulsory Education
      Awards) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/229).

      In view of the continued difficult financial climate and the fact that the original
      decision was made some years ago when the Council‟s finances were in a
      healthier position, Cabinet has agreed to confirm the continuation of the
      County Council‟s policy of not exercising the power to make discretionary
      awards for post compulsory education.


17.   COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (CPA) DIRECTION OF
      TRAVEL STATEMENT

      Cabinet has noted a draft of the 2006 Direction of Travel Statement and that
      further updates have been included since publication of the Cabinet agenda,
      to take account of suggestions made in other forums.

      The annual Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) Direction of
      Travel (DofT) is normally required for submission to the Audit Commission by
      30th September each year. The DofT considers the degree to which an
      authority is complying with its responsibilities to continuously improve. The
      submission will:


                                           21
         Assess the track record of achievement of outcomes during the last year
          and the robustness and delivery of its improvement plans.
         Inform audit and assessment programmes to ensure that they are targeted
          on the right areas.
         Provide learning about good and poor practice to inform improvement
          planning.

      The structure of the submission is based on Audit Commission guidance, the
      County Council‟s 2005 submission and discussions at the CPA Programme
      Board. Cabinet has agreed to authorise that the Chief Executive in
      consultation with the Leader of the Council should approve the final draft.


18.   BUDGET MONITORING 2006/07

      Cabinet has received the latest Budget Monitoring report for the period to the
      end of July 2006, which also includes the forecast outturn results for the
      current year.

      Spending on services was ahead of budget profile at the end of July by
      £1.47m, primarily caused by pressures within Adult Support Services in the
      Office for Environment and Community Services. Appendix 2 of the report to
      Cabinet details the main variations on each service. On current estimates an
      overspend at year-end of £2.45m is forecast (excluding Self Managing
      Institutions).

      The key issues are in relation to the following, with the specific detail included
      in the Cabinet report:

             Children and Young People Services are currently forecasting an
              overspend at year-end of £918K (1.5% of turnover) primarily as a result
              of pressures of Infrastructure and Social Care budgets. The Office
              Management Team is currently reviewing each of the spending
              problem areas (Home to School Transport Budget, The Assessment
              and Care Management Budget, The Children Disability Services
              Budget) in detail, and will produce an action plan by the end of
              September to address the issues.

             Environment and Community Services are currently predicting a year-
              end overspend of £1.8m as a result of pressure in Adult Support
              Services Budgets. The relevant budgets (The Learning Disability
              Partnership, The Older People and Occupational Therapy Pooled
              budget, The Physical and Sensory Impairment Budget, The Adult
              Client Side Budget) where overspends are predicted, are also being
              reviewed by the relevant management team in conjunction with health
              partners, in order to produce an action plan to address the issues by
              the end of September.

      Appendix 3 of the report to Cabinet sets out the financial results and the
      predicted outturn by the trading units. Trading units predicting a deficit were
      identified in relation to the Schools Library Service, Cambridgeshire
      Instrumental Music Agency, Environmental Education Service, Grafham

                                          22
        Water Centre, handyman Services, Groomfields, Grounds Maintenance,
        Catering, Cleaning and Property and Asset Management. All but the last
        named are within the Office of Children and Young People Services and the
        business plans are currently being examined with the anticipated outturn
        forecasts to be updated in the light of these. The Member Led Review of the
        Catering and Cleaning Services (CCS) continues with the findings due to be
        published shortly.

        Details have been provided to Cabinet in relation to the Capital Programme
        Spending and Financing, with an outturn variance at the end of the year
        expected to be a £4.5m underspend. While Capital Financing currently also
        shows an outturn variance of funding gap of £4.5m, half of this gap relates to
        Huntingdonshire Town Centre, where estimates of capital spend are to be
        revised downwards and therefore, like the above underspend, the associated
        funding gap will also decrease. If the funding gap continues during the year
        then a contingency plan will be presented to Cabinet with the next Quarterly
        update on December‟s figures.

        Cabinet has also noted the following in respect of Payment and Debt
        Performance:

           The cumulative position for the prompt payment of invoices has been 94%
            against a target of 95%. However, both the June and July performance
            has exceeded the target.

           The total amount of debt outstanding for more than 6 months has
            decreased to £752k at the end of July with a final target of £660K to be
            achieved for 2006/07.

           The total amount of debt outstanding in the 4-6 month range has
            increased by £320k to £1.64m at the end of July 2006, remaining
            significantly above the target of £320k for 2006/07. Of the £1.64m
            outstanding, a combined total of £1.21m relates to monies owed by
            Primary Care Trusts, with reduction measures currently being actioned,
            and with Hillingdon Council, the recovery of which is the subject of legal
            action.

           Currently 80% of debt is following secondary recovery action, against a
            target of 90% for 2006/07.
                                                                        J K WALTERS
                                                                 Leader of the Council


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Source Documents                   Location              Contact

Agenda and reports of              Room 113              Rob Sanderson
Cabinet meeting of 26th            Shire Hall            (01223) 718943
September 2006                     Cambridge             rob.sanderson@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

\\ccc.cambridgeshire.gov.uk\Data\Res Dem Serv\WP\Council\reports\cl-reports-2006\ccl0610-8b.doc

                                                   23
24

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:9
posted:12/7/2011
language:English
pages:24