Transcript

You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You You. You You You. You. You. You. You. You. You. You. You. You. You. Thank you. Everybody. This is a stress to you. I'm Councillor Richard Robertson, the Chair. Can I have apologies for absence? I'll go through the roll call. So can I ask all of you to answer when I call you? Councillor Bajan. I'm here, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Bennett. No, she's not here yet, okay. Councillor Bic. Present. Councillor Gortner, thought Wood. Yes. Councillor Holloway. The present. Councillor Shew is not here yet. Councillor Young. Present. Thank you. Oh, you left out the audience. Councillor Griffin. Yes, I'm here. I'll get you on to this one of these days. We've also got three exec Councillors, Councillor Smith. I'm a Smith. Present. Councillor Abboud. Present. Councillor David. Present. Thank you. Right, we're also joined by two of the South Campus executives. So I've got a reminder to bring forward that item of four-day week. So we'll deal with that early on, but let's get to the rest of it down without the way. Declarations of interest. Anybody good declarations? Councillor Bajan. Member of Council, I call Chair. Thank you. Councillor BRIAN. Just thought I'm a member of the bid forward. Yes. It's always very odd because you're representing the Council on the board of course. Anyway, thank you. That's true. Right. So I think, as I say, the public questions, do we have any? No, right. I think as we've got the people here in person from South Campus, perhaps we should deal with them first. So I'll go to item eight, updates on the four-day week trial. Are you introducing or is it going to... Oh, Jane, sorry. To go ahead. Thank you, Chair. There's a very short introductory paper for this item. And hopefully in the PAC that you were circulated, you were sent the links also to the information that's available on the South Campus District Council website. In essence, we are being asked or the executive council is recommended to approve the request of South Campus District Council to continue the working arrangements for South Campus District Council staff delivering shared services on behalf of City Council, shared waste, and the greater came with shared planning service in line with the decisions taken by the South Campus cabinet, which are effectively to continue the four-day working week, working arrangement for desk-based and waste service staff until there is sufficient information available on the central government position to carry out a meaningful consultation. And for all South Campus colleagues working a four-day week to harmonize at 42 hours per week. And secondly, to note the decision taken by South Campus to present an update report to this screen to the committee, noted on the end of July 2024 with all of the data on trial periods, both desk-based and four-shared waste up the end of March, which will bring forward information on ongoing effectiveness, including recruitment and attention costs and savings of the four-day working model. In the information that was provided by South Campus, there is information specifically on savings. There is an additional piece of information that I have requested, which will circulate after the meeting on what specific savings and costs accrue to the City Council from that, which is made up of a cost that relates to the shared waste and a savings that relates to the savings on agency and for shared planning, and on retention payments that were being used to return staff in the recruitment and retention payments for waste staff. So there is a net-saving balance, there is a cost on one service and a greater savings on the other. And we will share that table with members after tonight. Thank you, Chair. And we have here the Chief Executive, Liz Watts from South Campus. We've got an ends with who is their Chief Operating Officer who is leading on this piece of work online. We have officers from the specific services, if there are any particular questions. Thank you. Thank you. Today, we ask the question to make. Do you want to make a first presentation from South Campus or do you want to just go into it? I'm happy to answer the questions, Chair. Sorry, I can't hear you. No further presentation, happy to answer questions. Right, well, it's an interesting whole issue because, of course, much of the paper is about the city's share of the services, where nobody is actually about everybody in South Campus. We seem to be getting quite a lot of the benefit along with South Campus. So, questions. Now, I know there's quite a bit of detail in the full report from South Campus, but pay 72. There's the table looking at the reduced costs and savings, well, the savings. I just wondered whether that included all services that you'd piloted on or working on now, or just refuse some planning. I mean, the savings look pretty good, half a million. And there was a cost waste service revenue extra round cost. So that's 132,000, but I wondered whether that was to do purely to population growth, housing growth, and when you were likely to have the next round review, because you mentioned that. And will this further streamline things, along with the full day week, and enable more savings to be made in four days than otherwise would? And I wondered the agency reduced expenditure from using agency staff. Is that largely in planning or is it in all areas? So, there's several questions there. But yeah, it looks pretty good. I have another question about the risk from the government on page 74. So if the project is stopped by the government, will they make up the loss of the cost savings, as well as loss of morale and recruitment issues that we may return to, and an increased cost from using agency staff. Thank you. Would you like to answer that, please? Thank you. Thank you. And, Chair, if I may take three of those questions and I'll ask my colleague, Boday, to answer the question about waste. And in terms of agency savings. Plus the reason we started the trial was because we had some really difficult posts that we couldn't fill and they were primarily in planning, not exclusively. So, probably the majority of the agency savings are from planning and that's obviously why Cambridge City Council receives a share of those savings. It's not all the savings. There are some other posts, for example, a couple of posts in the transformation team, but primarily they were planning. In terms of further savings, so obviously, we come into the end of the formal trial period now, and we haven't done all of the analysis that we need to do to identify the savings. I think there are areas which we think will be important. So we're certainly seeing better retention of colleagues, and better retention means fewer vacancies and therefore less recruitment costs. So I think, you know, in the original, or I think in the September report that we sent to our cabinet, we identified a recruitment cost of somewhere around 30,000 pounds. Now, that isn't just recruiting into the post. It's how long it takes somebody really to get up to the speed of the person who left the post, and that can be anything up to a year for most jobs. That's a private sector figure. So there certainly will be savings there. I think we've seen reduction in sickness, although it's too early. We haven't analyzed the data to be able to actually come to any conclusion there. And obviously, we've seen, you know, it being having a better field of candidates for posts that we advertise, and therefore potentially having more successful recruitment. So those are the three areas that spring to mind initially, Chair. But, you know, as I said, until we've done all of the analysis, I couldn't be categorical on that. In terms of the potential government intervention, I mean, obviously, I can't comment on what the government may or may not do. I think from our perspective, the trial is nearly finished. In so far as, you know, we did it a year long trial, and it formally finished on the 31st of March, so we'll have all the data and we'll spend May to July analyzing the data. And we've got the help of academics from Cambridge University to do that. So I can't possibly say what the government will do in terms of whether they'll try and stop the trial or the continued working pattern. Should it be approved tonight? Yeah, I'm better concomant. I think that's more rhetorical than anything else is a question. Can you finish that council all the way? Well, I was just going to go ahead. I apologize, Chair. I was going to say you do wonder whether the government will issue a best or whether you can issue the best value notice on the government. You know, in return to, you know, if they, they increase your, you know, the risk of going back to the way things were before. Maybe that would be the next step. I don't think it's terribly likely, but it does make you wonder. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for your work on this. So one of the things I wondered, I mean, it looks like it's generally been very successful so far from the data has been presented. I wonder if there's a possibility that some of the benefits could wear off over time. So the recruitment and retention, for example, is that partly because of the novelty element and perhaps because other local authorities are not doing this and perhaps because at the moment it's something quite exciting and innovative. Also, in terms of seemingly people working more productively in the time that they are at work, would that maybe wear off? Would it be possible that actually once people got used to a four day week, they kind of settled into a pattern where they weren't working as hard as they were when they initially got that. Next question is about the comments on page 74 which Councillor Gortop would also lead it to being difficult to go back. And I wondered if you were able to comment any further on that on if the decision was taken, I guess in this case itself comes to go back and just have everyone on a five day week again, what the impacts of that might be on morale. It's kind of hard to guess necessarily, but given that comment and narrow and if you could expand on that a bit. And then maybe this might be for Jane, the city council I suppose. What are we thinking about the future of this if we see that this is working quite well and at the moment we've got planning and the waste services that are part of our wedding are on the four day week, but is it something we would consider expanding across the city council. I mean, you're not going to necessarily ask that right now but it is what's the process for sort of thinking about that going forward. Thank you. James would like to contribute to that last year. May I ask my colleague Jeff memory to answer the HR questions because he's sort of a specialist in that area he's online if that's okay. Thank you very much chair. Yeah, one of the challenges that we will have is that should there be successfully adopted permanently. If other authorities start following suit, then that competitive advantage that we've got through having the four day week will get eroded. So, so there is that danger that over time, we're going to have to find some other new and innovative way of making sure that we retain the stuff that we need. I think it is true that whenever you have something new and exciting. There's that initial period of energy and enthusiasm. But I think one of the reasons that we moved to a year long trial was because actually, if you look at other studies after a few months you start seeing some of the newness come off of these initiatives. So at the end of the year will be in a sensible position to evaluate what the more stable situations going to be for colleagues. So that the data that we're going to have available in the next couple of months should be data that's taken account of the fact that there was that initial enthusiasm, but that should have stabilized by now. I believe one of our members in our appointment staff committee referred to it as the Hawthorne effect, and that's certainly a well known effect when people are being observed. So, we think the fact that it's a year long trial means that we've got some stable data, and it's not just the enthusiasm for something new. Yeah, there will, there don't be some challenges if, if whatever reefs and the four day week isn't successful or isn't taken up. I think there will certainly be some challenges and potential impacts on morale, because people have adapted to the new wave working, not only if they've been taking time off to do things such as spend more time with family, care for relatives, etc. But one of the unexpected benefits has been the way the week is structured now means that people tend to have Tuesday's, Wednesday's and Thursday's is quite intensive days with lots of meetings. But either the Monday or the Friday when they're working and about half the cancel isn't. Those are days when people can focus on individual work that tends to be less meetings there, and people can be incredibly productive in those in those days when they're left free to work on, you know, on their own. So there will certainly be some challenges. I mean, if this wasn't taken forward, we would have to start looking at whether their alternative ways of being more flexible in the way that we let our people work because one of the other things that we've seen is that by allowing people to be flexible. That's really enhanced with their creativity and people have been more productive. So, hopefully that's that's given you some answer to your questions on, you know, is it, is it just that it was something new and exciting and what happened if it isn't taken forward. Yes, thank you. Sorry, the reason I'm raising my waving around is because I think the second part of camera question probably relates to an answer from the city council on a peaceful basis rather than the chain I was asking if you could say something about that. I think what I'm hoping is that we ask Councillor DAVIS is the lead Councillor for this to answer. I think it's a political question rather than an officer question is what I'm responding to. Okay, thank you chair. So to pick up Cameron's point about when we may or may not be looking at introducing this within the council at the city. We've been hugely supportive of the work that's been going on at South camps and really interested in how it's being developed and being delivered. So in terms of how this might be taken forward by us obviously there's a number of stages I think first of all, we want to see what happens at the outcome of the trial, which is obvious and logical thing to do. The second thing is, if we wanted to go ahead, we'd want to have proper discussions with our unions and with staff at the council to see what their perception of, because obviously it's similar trade unions to the south camps. And the key thing for us obviously is back to what's driven it from the south camps. Is this better for our residents do residents suffer any decrease in service, although it would appear from what we've seen so far as you haven't enhanced service. And that clearly is what drives us politically as a council within the Cambridge city area. So, thank you very much. That's a big here next. Thanks chair. I'd like to welcome this report. I think it's working as I would have hoped it would for an exercise which is. But affecting two significant shared services, which we share responsibility for so I think it's appropriate the way this is working with reports coming to us. And hopefully comments made by us taken into account. It would be appropriate to say that from what I hear, the way this has been politicised is very regrettable. And that if there is a point in having local government, it is to enable experimentation to take place on a local level. As I think this has been positioned as an experiment. And it just seems from what I hear that the government for entirely populist reasons is really engaged in a sort of campaign of. I think it's right that we in South, South Cambridge to take a sort of stable and steady approach to this and carry on responding to evidence rather than the politics of it. I have two questions. One, I think it said somewhere in the report that employees can let their management know if they're having problems with the way this is working for them. I think we have to see there is the potential for that it's not all game. And I just want to seek some reassurance that there is an authentic way in which that can happen because I'm aware that with an elected experiment like this, also being bombarded with the politics from outside that there can be pressures on on staff, not to admit problems where they exist. And I just think we need to be really sure that that isn't the case and that people have the freedom to speak for themselves if that is a problem and I would hate it but we discover after the event that problems have gone underground because people didn't want to rock the boat and necessarily for their colleagues. And the second question that I have is, we're obviously looking here at an extension of the of the temporary arrangement temporary status of this. I'm wondering whether we could have shared with us what the view is about how long we can keep something going as a temporary measure in legal terms. So far as people's employment contract are concerned and my recollection employment contracts can be composed as a practice and precedent as well as what's written on contracts. And I just have a concern that we aren't using the word temporary and kidding ourselves that it's temporary when in fact it's become permanent. Help on those two questions will be great for thanks. Thank you. Mayor pass over to Jeff again for this one please both of these please. Again chair. Yes, we have had a small number of people. I tried to choose not to take part in the four day week trial or drop out about five. So people have felt comfortable enough to drop out. We have anonymized what we call red team sessions where project team members meet with colleagues across the organization and field queries from them. If there's any issues, they can raise it with that project team member, and it will be escalated on an anonymous, anonymous basis. We've had drop in sessions with HR members of staff and again, any issues raised can be escalated on an anonymous basis. And we also have regular meetings with the unions we've included the unions in our project team meetings. So people have got concerns, and they don't want to approach an officer of South Camps Council for. They can go to the union and they can raise it through them. We have had a number of issues raised, which we've had to address around things like study time, for example, for apprentices and ensuring that people have got time to attend training. So people do raise issues and we address them on an ongoing basis. On the second issue, we haven't changed terms and conditions for the for the pilot. What we're actually doing is looking at potentially having something like a productivity agreement so that terms conditions remain the same as when people contracted to the organization, but they sign that productivity agreement in order to take part in the trial, which what that does effectively renew that that on an ongoing basis. Understand what you're talking about in terms of customer practice, and you're exactly right, but the longer it goes on that the more there's potential challenge that this becomes the established way of working. Normally, we start looking at that potentially being an issue in just in sort of two years to two and a half years. So we've not reached that stage yet, but you're absolutely right. It's something that we need to keep under review. But if we do move to having something like a productivity agreement, what that effectively does is building that regular review and break to prevent it becoming just customer practice. Hopefully that's helpful. Thank you, yes. It was just to ask about the waste service costs and extra rounds, and when the next round review, I think that was missed my initial set of questions. So, thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, and I can respond to that through you, chair. The review that we did last year was to get up for both growth and also four day week working arrangements. So the outcome of that was that in effect, we needed two vehicles to get up for the growth that has already happened in the service area and growth that's going to happen for the next few years, and also an additional two vehicles for four day week. So the cost that we've shown here relate to the cost for the two vehicles for four day week. So the new rounds that we have in place now should be robust enough to serve us for the next three to four years. We shouldn't need to do any new modeling for about the next three years. If we experience a lot more growth, similar to what we've done in the last sort of five years, we may need to do the remote editing earlier, but for now, our expectation is that the new rounds we have now will get up for growth and should last us for about at least the next three years. Thank you. I must comment that actually of the two services, the public get much more than no to take more, no to fill in their bins collective. And the change to four day week has been spectacularly successful because apart from Easter and Christmas, it's a four day week service. It works very well so on. Congratulations on that. I'm told, by the way, that in the 1950s, when we move through the civil service in a local government move from six day week to five, it was much angst from the government about it then. So nothing's very new and great. It seems to work quite well though. Any more questions for anybody? Oh, Councilor Benetius. Thank you, Chair. This is just a quick one on residents responses. I've analyzed what we've had from Abbey Ward in Yoon Herne. And there seems to be a very clear divide, but it's a very limited sample. So I'd like to explain what we've noted and ask whether what Liz has noticed is different. And what we have noticed is a very clear divide. Working age residents seem to be very strongly in favor of the trial. Older residents seem to be almost unanimously against it. And it doesn't seem to be related to actual quality of service. And the reason why I mentioned this is that I believe that working age, enthusiasm, chemistry, because people are much more likely to have lived experience either themselves or from the contemporary or four-day week working. It's very established in my own industry. But people at retirement age don't have the opportunity to get those experiences. So I hope that was followable Liz and I look forward to hearing from you. I don't comment on that. Thank you, John. I'm going to ask my colleague and to comment on the resident feedback, but I mean, I'm impressed with Councilor Benetius analysis because I think you've probably done more in your small sample than we have. In terms of our feedback that we've collected so far, but if Anne could possibly comment on what our plans are, that would be great. Thank you, Chair. That is really interesting to hear. And certainly, if you receive any more feedback, please pass it on because that is incredibly helpful. Where we are at is that, as part of this next stage in the analysis of year-long desk-based trial and the continuation of the analysis of the waste trial is what we're looking to do a resident survey. And we're also looking to do a consultation as part of our best value due to guidance. So at that point, we are hopeful that that will help us drill down in more detail as to any particular views and why those views may be held and what people's experiences have been. So the two aspects of that will talk about what's been the experience of the services that we've been providing over the last 12 months and people's interaction with those services experience of them, but equally, we'll also be doing a consultation that talks about the four-day week in more detail. So I'm hopeful at that point that we'll be able to share any information that we have and then be able to provide a full overview to members when we come back in the period that we've promised to. Which is around the June/July period of the committee's cycles. Thank you very much. No more questions, Chair. Thank you. I'm not sure I can confirm your view of what the residents feel. There's not feedback I've had at all. The problem is it doesn't exist as far as I know from all the people anyway. Any more questions, anybody? No. Well, I'd take you to the recommendations on page 59 and 60, basically to address the approved fee for the arrangements carried on. I see all those in favour of those recommendations. Unanimous, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming along, by the way. It's very good to come in first. The next item is a combined authority update and we have Anna Smith online, I think. Yeah. Thank you. Yes, Council Roberson, can you hear me? We can. Would you like to go ahead with your presentation? So, broadly, I will. Just direct committee to the papers in front of you, which as usual include the decision statements from recent combined authority board meetings. Given the timing of these meetings, unfortunately, there's always another board. After the papers have been published for people to have a look at. The papers, obviously from January, 2024, include the budget meeting. What you will see in that is a quite considerable set of. Budget tree commitments, which are relevant to Cambridge. Some of which are specific Cambridge related projects, such as funding towards the civic quarter work and towards the. The cultural quarter work. But Cambridge also benefits significantly as do all parts of the combined authority from some of the pledges, for example, on buses. With a one pound fair cap for under 25s. With work to start improving bust off infrastructure looking at both kind of ease of use and also safety lighting, that kind of thing. But also the 29 precept roots. That are currently being investigated, which includes several routes in the Cambridge and greater Cambridge area. I will leave it there because I'm sure there will be many questions and I'm happy to take questions chair. As you deem appropriate. Thank you questions from the committee. Hello, my hello Anna, my question is about buses and I'm sorry I could get this to you in advance because I've been on holiday myself. This is about the announcement by stage coach that as a 30th April, they're cutting services again. Was this made with knowledge of the bus precept results, or is there any possibility of any row back. Thank you, councillor Bennett clearly I can't speak on behalf of what motivates stage coaching what they're doing. There have been some extremely disappointing, I mean to say the least, incredibly disappointing changes announced as part of this latest round. It feels as if we are in a consistent cycle of having simply to put sticking clusters over cuts, which is not the position we want to be in. And from my point of view, absolutely underlines the reason why we need bus reform. Thank you. All right, any further questions? No, I'm sorry, councillor Holloway. Thank you. Let's call just a brief comment. I was very glad to see the extension of the number 18 service, which will make a big difference to residents in union who are going either out to come to village college or to park side. But I actually wanted to just look at 3.1 on page 14 of our packs were sort of now attracting investment from property developers. And I mean that I can see why that's an interesting and useful thing to be doing, but I also wondered what conditions we're putting on that kind of investment or whether there's any more detailed comments. And I just want to hear from on what sort of things we are actually trying to get property developers or investors to do in the area. Councillor HALLOWAY, you have to bear with me for a minute because I've got my pack open in separate sections. So I'm just looking. I've just opened the full pack. So you're looking at page 14 3.1. Is that correct? I UK reef. Yes, so this is UK reef is a is an investment, if you like an investment conference. This is really to it's, it isn't just about attracting property development such I think that it's about interacting in what investment into our region. That's across the region. So, for example, we'd be interested in finding out who might be wishing to bring some investment into say the Peterborough area or parts of East Cambridge here in Finland where there is a particular investment need, as well as showcasing what we do as a region. So part of this will be about showcasing the work that Cambridge is doing. This is very much, this is, this is about, if you like, marketing, Cambridge here and Peterborough to anyone who was looking to bring significant jobs into a region. And the chance for them to talk to businesses and to politicians and to officers within the region to increase those discussions so quite a lot of the moral combined authorities are doing similar to this. So I'm happy actually if people would like me to bring further details on the next meeting, I'd be more than happy to do so. Cause all the way. Thank you very much for that answer as she had liked to ask a bit another separate question which is on affordable housing so there's a mention of a few affordable homes built by the well funded by the combined authority. And I just wondered what the plan is going forward in terms of numbers of homes that the combined authority might be able to deliver and whether there's any funding likely to come from the government or whether this is going to be just small numbers of homes occasionally or whether there is a more significant large scale plan for affordable homes across Cambridge here in Peterborough. Council Hollywood I missed the, I think what was the number of your question there it blipped for a second but you're referring particularly to North Minister North Minister 4.2. Well that was what sparked my interest yes but then I was wondering whether there is a wider plan for affordable housing across Cambridge here and Peterborough. Currently not. What happened when the combined authority was established was that some money was given directly to the combined authority under then their Palmer to deliver affordable homes directly and some money was given to Cambridge city. That's really negotiated by former councillors price and Herbert to deliver council home directly in Cambridge city. Over 500 homes were delivered in Cambridge city with that money. Quite a lot of the money that was given to Mayor Palmer had to be given back to the government not all of it was my understanding is that the North Minister money is part of that. It's it's actually it's not at the level that we would refer to was as council housing so it's 80% rent it's designed as an intermediate rental piece. But it's a very, very well situated set of intermediate rental flats really high spec in a very convenient part of town so it's a really good opportunity for people who couldn't afford 100% rental there to be getting something at but it's what we would in the city will intermediate ramp because it's all 80%. So at the moment there is not a housing program in the combined authority in fact that housing program is coming towards the end now of its scope. And I have no sense that it's being resurrected at this stage. Okay. Further questions. How's the call forward. I've got some minor questions and they're on the place and connectivity section reports that's age 16. And it was really about the under infrastructure delivery framework update. And I see that I want and on the second part on local nature recovery strategy and where a web based interactive map is being developed. And I wondered with that and for five one and five two whether there was any duplication or sharing with other authorities within the region and other organizations. In other words, can you develop once and use many times. Or is this. Would I suspect that you were a greater expert on some of this than I am. But kind of to an extent the level of what I can answer is probably what's on the paper and front of you, particularly on the on 5.2. My understanding is that everything we do is designed to be as open access as possible and to not replicate. We've got a lot of. Authorities within the region. The last thing we want to do is be reinventing the wheel. I will try and find out more for you on that one and get back to you. Okay, that's what happened then. Okay. Right. Further questions. There are no recommendations. There's a note. Thank you. And so I'll move on to next item on the AB. Item five. Now we have to, from the present bid, talk to us about the AB, I think. Would you like to introduce yourselves and tell us about the project. Thank you. I'm Gemma Little, economic development manager for Cambridge City Council. I'm joined by Maria Mamion from Cambridge, who's the chief executive of Cambridge. So I'll do a brief intro to the paper and then Rhea and I can are both here to answer any questions. Thank you. Okay. So the report explains, explains the background and outlines the recommended roles for the council to play in supporting the work that's being led by the Cambridge bid. Short for business improvement district. For those of you that like acronyms and it's work that's being done to establish a new and additional bid and accommodation bid, which is basically focused on achieving a step change in how we manage the visitor economy. In greater Cambridge, the main purpose is obviously to derive more value from our visitor economy, both in terms for local businesses for residents and for visitors themselves. The ABid would be funded by a small two to three pound visitor levy, charged on a per night per bed basis to visitors who stay in approximately 35 hotels across the greater Cambridge area. And it would be collected quarterly and in Rhea's against an agreed occupancy rate. So there would not be a direct financial charge to hotel businesses, which is unlike the current bid arrangement, which is basically a charge that we collect alongside business rates. So the focus is very much focusing on enabling local businesses, but that's, excuse me, enabling local businesses to thrive while also encouraging income to be derived from visitors using our services. It's common model in Europe and one we want to introduce here. The paper shows that it has the potential to generate between 1.6 and 2.6 million pounds per year, which if you take that across a five year business plan, could could bring investment of between 10 and 12 million into the city and provide a really stable and sustainable funding model, one that we've never had before in the city and with a city where you have an economy, a visitor visitor economy that's very significant with very high business with very high visitor numbers back to pre pandemic levels. It's never been more important really to start to start really addressing this. Another thing to point out in the report is that in order for the A bid to be established, there needs to be a ballot of the hotels within that cash material. So it's not something the council can decide. It's very much decided by the hotels who are would be expected to charge the levy and the bid has timetable that ballots take place in July this year. But it's important to the secretary of state to inform him that this will be taking place. The bid team have also been engaging a lot with the local hoteliers. And you can see in the paper, there are details there that actually reflect some of the feedback that they've had to date, but so far the discussions I think we could say have been positive and are being fed into the final business plan. So, inside this work, the council is working with the bid and other welcome to Cambridge partners, such as King's College and curating Cambridge on a destination management plan. So this will sit alongside the work that if the bit, if the abid is successful, this, this will provide a sort of strategic plan that we and other partners can use to help inform the work of the accommodation bid. Another couple of things to say, if successful, the abid would be established by January 2025. So there's quite a rapid turnaround. I think that the bid team would need to make in terms of setting up staffing and governance. The idea of that timetable is to make sure that the arrangements are in place for the next visitor season, and it allows hotels time to prepare and change the way they take the bookings. The council will play an important role in the governance. We expect to be sitting on the board as we currently do within the current bid arrangements, and we'd also detail in the report as we'd also provide services to the abid to collect the levy income and also hold the ballot, but all our costs would be covered for that part of the service. The recommendations therefore just focus on the recommended roles that the council can play to support this work. So the first one is to support the work being taken forward by the bid, work as part of the bid board and the welcome to Cambridge boards to help develop the business plan for the abid and then to manage the ballot. Following that, if the ballot's successful to work with the bid to set up the governance arrangements, manage the levy collection and continue partnership working as we currently do and sort of build on that success. So, thank you, Chair. This sounds like a very good thing to do. I take the point that it's not really in our, you know, our power to decide it. I did wonder why it was just hotels and not Airbnb, for example, and other forms of short stay in Cambridge. This, this abid is relatively new. There's only one operating currently in the country in Manchester and it uses the current bid legislations legislation and the current bid legislation is round the business rate database. So most Airbnb's will fall within the domestic database. There are each cycles within five years on a business improvement district. So you go back to ballot again in five years. There are discussions going on with Airbnb of Manchester in five years time. It might be the legislation changes. So there are discussions ongoing and they're being quite productive at the moment, but like most things. It's early days and first steps. So it's based on the business rates and being in the system at the moment. Thank you. So you're specifically not bringing into the net all the guests houses and so forth, the smaller, smaller arrangements who I think would be less enthusiastic. And because it's relatively new, we're keeping it quite as simple as possible based on the Manchester model. So the smaller businesses won't be involved at this stage. It's going to be hotels with 10 or more bedrooms where the primary operation is to be a hotel bed letting. So things like pubs with rooms will be excluded from that because obviously their primary business may be a pub or a restaurant with just additional rooms. So it's mainly and also we're keeping the terms and conditions the same as the existing bid, which is a rateable value of 34,500 more. So we're trying to keep it consistent as well. So we have 35 hotels across the Cambridge and greater temperature area that will be involved within the ballot process. Good. I think that's a good keeping even patching to you, but it's a very good idea. Give some reassurance for the future. I think. Other questions council all the way. Thank you very much. I think it's a great initiative and would be really positive for the city. I am interested to see on page 37 3.4, there's the mention of the county wide visitor management structure. I found it interesting because I think what's being talked about here in terms of spreading people out and over a number of days, if they come to see King's College or whatever else they're likely to think of when they think of Cambridge and then not only going to other attractions in Cambridge, but also maybe in the wider county, then I think that would be a really good thing for the whole area. So I'm really interested in how that might be able to be developed. I've also got some thoughts on things that we could potentially fund. I'm sure you've had a lot of people wanting their thing funded through this already. So I'll just add to those. One of them is about coaches that come in to the city at the moment. So related in terms of tourism and this is about the day. So at the moment in Queens Road, for example, I think it's about 70 coaches a day or something coming to Queens Road and then also spilling out around there too. Is there a way that we could get those to stop at park and rides and then fund shuttle buses that we're bringing people in to particular points in the city with this money potentially. And I think actually that would be a huge benefit to people in the city. Whilst you're still supporting the longer term tourism that is actually bringing more revenue to the city and the surrounding area, hopefully. I also wonder about supporting some of our homelessness work. Perhaps I think, whilst that would be a morally important thing to do. I also think that perhaps the hotels, it'd be advantageous too in that probably they don't want people sleeping rough on the doorstep to their hotels and if they were able to contribute some money to providing support for prevention of homelessness. I think that would be great for everyone. And more broadly, I suppose for us as a council, maybe we're thinking, well, we've got big cuts to potentially make in the coming years. So where can we sort of see some of this funding going towards areas that we would otherwise be funding or potentially otherwise having to cut. And that's made me for us to think about as well, but given that this is going to be a nice additional bit of money to the city, then hopefully that can help us with some of that. Some of those savings we would otherwise have to make. Thank you. I'll start with the countywide structure question. I think this is very much a direction of travel for us. We're looking at the kind of larger geography. And I think having the ABID and a destination management in place will give us a platform to be able to have those conversations about a wider county wide structure. So that's certainly something on our kind of work plan. But at the moment, we don't meet the criteria for an LVEP. We need a destination management plan to even have a conversation about that. And we don't have a destination management plan for the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peter Barreira yet. We're in discussions at the moment with colleagues across other councils and with the CPCA about whether that could be something that we do next as part of the phase two work of the destination management plan. But I think establishing the ABID would put us in a very strong position to be able to kind of have conversations with the England about that, the establishment of the LVEP for the wider area. So then do you'd like to add to that real question? No. Okay. Brilliant. I'm going to hand over to Maria in a second on coach parking just to say it has been raised several times. And I think, I mean, by many people, and I think we're all of us that live in the city and it worked here for many years know that it's an ongoing problem. It's also something that I think will be covered in the destination management plan work, and it will require working with wider stakeholders on the issue. But I'm going to hand over to Maria to talk specifically about some of the plans that she might have as part of the business plan. We've also been having quite extensive discussions with businesses involved in the development of the business plan. The businesses will vote on the five year business plan that we produce. And obviously that business plan has to reflect the requirements of the businesses, the city and consumers as well. What has been picked up is very much about day trippers. The business plan will not be about growing day tripper numbers. It will be about longer stays, more dwell time, higher spend, so quality of stay. It will be about telling the broader story of the greater Cambridge area so that we try to take people away from some of the honeypot locations and actually try and spread the benefit, and also spread the business visitor and show value for money within the destination. We are aware of the coaches, part of the plans as well and some of the things that we're discussing at the moment is almost like an ambassador meet and greet service, where we also monitor what's happening in the city. And when people arrive we can either direct them to another location or say you'll get a better quality of visit if you start your visit here rather than here. So some of it is about management. We're not going to reduce some of those numbers because we have to work some of the schools, et cetera, that come in and some of it is about the beauty of the city as well. So it still has to be a welcoming city but it has to be a city that is right for both visitors and for residents and people who work in the city as well. So what we want to do is that we want to tell that broader story. By we hope, by telling the broader story, there'll be greater benefit and actually some of the visitors who may come and some of the large or larger operators may then say well actually we'll do this, this and this rather than just go here. So that's not going to happen overnight. I'm not going to be any bushes about that so it will take time but we are aware of some of the key issues in the city. We're also some of the things that the businesses have raised about is about local knowledge and it's about staff being informed as well and about staff being those ambassadors being the ambassadors for the city as well. So we're looking at training, we're looking at familiarisation, we're looking at information points at certain hotels, et cetera. So that there is that direction and that ability to do that. We're looking at a city path as well. These are just a few ideas that are emerging. We're looking at a sustainable transport port as well so that businesses can look at the way that consumers are using the city and actually can they encourage a better use of moving around the city. So these are all things that have come through. We're looking at the cleansing and hotspot cleansing at particular days of the weeks. These would be additional services to those already operating in the city. The core functionality of a bid is not to replace current services, it's to enhance and add value. So we have to be very aware of that because actually we're not here to replace council services and that's for the current bid as well. We're here to enhance. So at the moment, for example, in the current bid, we pay for additional cleansing. We do the flash cleansing when businesses notify that there's an issue. So we pay the council a contract with the council about additional cleansing. So there are things, but we also have things like the community and voluntary payback scheme that we will look at with businesses. So we will look at the city and say, actually, what are the key issues and look, work with the businesses to say, well, actually, what are your issues? Where do you see them sitting and how can we address them, address them. Homelessness is quite complex issue. And obviously, the businesses would want to work with the key partners to ensure that any of the investment that was made, if any investment was made, it was made in the right areas so that the problem was not short term fix that it was a longer term solution as well. So those are the sort of things I'm hoping I've answered your questions. Thank you, yes, Councillor Bellard. Thank you, Maria, and thank you, Gemma. I agree. It's a very interesting initiative. I've already had some conversations with Gemma about the purple pound and making the city and tourism locally more disability friendly. I'd like to raise some points about that. But before I do so, could I just clarify one thing. How many directors are there on the board of the bid? I think there's 12 currently discussion with another one, so it's about 12 at the moment. So, with one director on the board, the city council will merely be influenced by deciding how the money is spent. Is that correct? It will remain the bid's money and not the city council's money. That is correct, but the money is spent for the benefit of the city in the broader context and the greater sort of Cambridge area, the same as the current bid at the moment. I do understand that I'm used to working with bids in my family's hometown. But I just wanted to that put on record because there seems to be a lot of hopeful speculation about the tourist tax and many multiple plans for it. So I think it's useful to state that. But anyway, back on to accessible tourism. There's actually plenty to keep people in the Cambridge area for over a week, but only if you're traveling with a car. There are some excellent attractions outside Cambridge, which cannot be reached by public transport, or can only be reached by public transport if you're able bodied and can walk. Would this be something that the abid would like to address? This has actually been raised, but in the broader context by the hotels and by the businesses that we are aware that there are issues around getting people from A to B once you move out the city centre. So we can't, we know that there is a major project to be looked at, and I don't think if I was being honest that it will be delivered in years one and two. I think it's something years three, four and five that we will be looking for because we need to have discussions with transport providers. But also it's not just about people who maybe have limited mobility is about employees as well. So it's about the whole raft of different things that we will be looking at within that transport and accessibility and moving people around from A to B as well. So it's on the radar, and it is there, but it's going to be a lot longer in its discussions. I would say years three, four and five, and I would like to see something at least starting to be delivered in year three to four. Thank you. I've got a couple of questions for you. Firstly, I think in here it states that living in a combination, but living in a combination provided with cooking facilities, you're not including that sort of accommodation. Where do the apart hotels fit into this? Are they one of the, are they the in with group that you have been talking to, or are they separate? We have been discussing this with the apart hotels, and with the ones who obviously who have got a rateable value and so and have got so many rooms because the levy is based on rooms rather than people. So it depends the number of rooms if they've got more than 10 rooms within that part hotel. So we have had discussions with one and they are on that list. The other thing is, in your discussions with the hotels, you'd presumably be interested to know how they would collect the data because, I mean, are their computer systems easily with their booking systems? Are they easy, capable of producing the data? And how much can you rely on them? Because unlike the bid, you've got a known sales of income is based on rateable value. You've got a figure that could be anything. So how are you going to know that reliable figures have been given to you? All of the hotels in the area for eight, subscribe to what's called an STR database where they all submit their occupancy rate and the rates they've charged to that database. So we have just bought the license to that database. So we will have an average occupancy from the 35 hotels and the of the eight that aren't on there, but we will have an average. It's just dates that are currently not operating on that system. So there is, there is a very comprehensive database out there, which, particularly the larger hotels all subscribed to. Brilliant. Thank you very much. Councilor Beck. Yes, thank you, Chair. I think we'd, we'd all like to hope that this sort of is a, seeing this is a positive development that it can land somewhere where the interests of the tourist sector in the city and around. It were the way that intersects with the broader interests of the city and the people living and working in it. I mean, I'm a tourist sector. I'm not absolutely not minimizing that because I know lots of local people work in that and it's a safeguarding sustainability of their employment too, but it would be nice to think that we were in that intersection of the two, the two gains that we could make. I just wanted to ask a question about the way you were approaching the use of the money that would be generated. So a lot of the ideas that have been talked about, I could translate into revenue spending, providing service of some kind and payments and people's salaries to do it. I'm just wondering if you, if you concluded that there was a facility missing in the city, something, you know, like a place to go where people could learn more about the city and how it all fits together. That is a capital investment. Are you also envisaging the possibility that you could support capital investment through the money that's collected and how early is that likely to be on the radar screen? Capital investment is definitely being considered. One of the things that have come up is wayfinding, and that's a capital program and a long term. While 1.5, 1.6 sounds like a lot of money. By the time you divide it up into the three core headings that we have, or the time we look at the travel trade, etc. It soon dissipates very quickly. Capital programs, again, in my view, are things that we need won't happen overnight because the bid needs to be formed, we'll look at the program that we need. We would work with partners as well, because it's not just the abid's role to deliver certain things. Our relationship, both with the city council, the counter council and all the other partners are going to be key to delivery. And that goes for capital programs. The one thing about the bid and the abid is, and also from the destination management plan, is that if anything comes forward from that, the bid can then take a view through its board of actually looking at priorities with the businesses as well, because there'll be business representatives on there. But actually, what are the priorities in year 3, 4 and 5, because what's a priority in year 1 won't be the same. And capital programs will emerge, but we know wayfinding is definitely on that program, but there will be other things as well. But we just have to be aware that we probably will have some financing to pump prime things, but it will enable us to look at funding in other areas as well. And other funding streams, we don't know what's going to happen in the next even 6 to 8 months actually to be fair. So, but we need to be prepared for that and to be open to it as well. Can I just add to that, I think, bodies like the CPCA and others, you know, I think it very much the abid would give us a stronger voice and a more kind of stronger leadership role, which would be a platform for us to be able to attract additional funding from elsewhere. But also just to take up your point about the intersect, I think when we talk about visitors, we're very aware that they are business visitors, they're not just tourism visitors. And I think if we look at the current work, the bid does, for example, on animating the city centre, I think there would be from the introduction, the benefits, the residents will residents use the city centre as well. So it's that sort of amenity that should be improved. So that's what certainly myself and on the board are sort of promoting, I think, the kind of benefits for everybody, because not only as employees of the tourism sector, but also as a business centre. I would just add that we see the bid sees the city as Cambridge being a city for everyone, not being socially exclusive or inclusive, it's a city for everyone. There will be challenges in making a city for everyone by the nature of its design and build, but that's a key focus is making sure that everyone has a high quality experience when they come to Cambridge in the greater Cambridge area. Further questions. No, in that case, well, thank you very much for taking to the recommendations on page 36. Can I see all those in favour of those, please share. That's unanimous, Chair. Thank you very much. And come to David. Thank you. I'd just like to say thank you to the bid for all the work that's gone into preparing this. There's been a lot of work to get us to this stage, and I would just like to emphasise what's been said that this isn't a silver bullet. And obviously it's an exciting new part of funding that's coming. And we have already been working very closely with the bid on the work that they do, and talking about the new business plan and how we will influence and work with the new ABID if it does get voted through. And I'm really excited for that partnership to continue. So thank you very much. Thank you, David. Okay. Well, I'll take us on to the next item, which is the item six on general fund violence and provisional territories. Caroline, would you like to introduce this, please. Thank you, Chair. So I'll be brief. This report asks the executive Councillor to agree in principle to carry forward £220,000 of budget. From the current year into next year. This is budget that is likely to be underspent. And carrying it forward will allow work to continue. So this is the work that would have been funded from those budgets. Additionally, the report identifies three budget changes for approval. These are required to support additional posts and associated improvements to the delivery of learning and development, procurement and strategic digital leadership. And I'm happy to take any questions. All right, questions, please. Councillor Vennett. I had a question about four serious way. And the 70,447 variants of which 65,000 is to be carried forward. I understand that although the location is quite a good one, that the unit in question has been occupied by an auto repair workshop, which has gone into liquidation and left in a bit of a rather unsavory condition. I just wondered how long that had been vacant and whether there is a realistic prospect of relating. And if not, whether the tenant incentive needs to be increased. Are there a response to that? These are particular details that we don't have to hand, but we certainly ask those questions and bring the answers back to the committee. Thank you. Any further questions? No, from that case, I'll take you to recommendations on page 44. And I see all those in favour. Do you go to Mr Chair? Okay. Councillor Simon Smith do accept those recommendations. I'm happy to accept them. Thank you. Now, I'm going to break a convention here and just a few words about Caroline, because this is her last meeting with the Council, the last report you were presenting to us. Caroline has worked for us for a whole of the 10 years that Labor has been running the Council. And a period during which our fortunes have enhanced dramatically. And I think much of that is to do with her astute management of our finances. Those finances have also become much more complicated. In particular, I'll pick out the joint venture with Hill to build homes, especially Council homes. Now, the success of that joint venture owes much to Caroline's ability to establish good relations. And also to set up appropriate controls. Hidden behind the public persona of new homes regularly being handed over. It is an enormous amount of work arranging the funding of the development and construction process and making sure it's well under control. And that's really what Caroline's been able to do and we're very grateful for that. Now, I think Caroline came to us having previously worked for the county and against Cambridge. And then Norwich was in Norfolk, one of the two. Now, when she started with us, there were plans for more shared services with other councils more than we ended up with. And finance, for instance, was to be jointly managed by the city for South Cambridge as well. And Caroline, in fact, spent some time helping manage their finances. And then they decided that shared services would not go ahead. They're lost in my view, but I'm sure in the long run it was in our interest to have her working entirely for the city. We have certainly benefited from everything she's done for us with such ability and probity. I will leave others to cover other areas of Caroline's work for us. But I thank her particularly for the years 2016 to 2020 when I was fine, that's exactly what she was so much of assistance. Thank you very much and I wish you a well and well earned retirement. Thank you. Councillor DAVING. I think I'm going to just say a few words next chair and then I think Simon and I suspect Councillor Biggar was listening to, but just really say a huge thank you to Caroline. I'm going to talk more about the human side I suppose is that I'd just like to say thank you for your flexibility, for your care, for your thoughtfulness. It would be fair to say and your adaptability as I'm sure you're not. Richard has got more hold on the detail than I ever will and I will have. So you've had to balance the requirements as an officer for very different approaches to members. And that's been done beautifully and I'm really grateful for what you've done. There is a reason, key reason why I believe this authority is in a financially good place compared to others is because of your prudence and your care with the budgets that these people at the city. I'm hugely grateful both in terms of working with you, but now I still need you to cancel. Thank you so much, Councillor. It doesn't even mean much to say because some of which I would respect for you, Caroline. I've encountered quite a few chief finance officers in my time and I think it's reasonable to say that they were feared, unpopular, unhelpful and only had a one word vocabulary which was known. And it's now amazing to be able to work with you over the last few months because you're so approachable. Your university I admired is absolutely. And you're always so positive and helpful. But above all of that, you've instilled prudent stewardship of the council's resources and everything that we do. And I'm holding that torch. I don't know, Jodie, you're successful because he's been under your tutelage for a longer period than me, but I can assure you there will be continuity reaper in this sort of authority. Well, so you're enjoying your retirement. We won't ever be a section one for Council, whilst at least these administrations in charge. So thank you so much for your dedicated public service. And I wish you all the best for a long and happy retirement. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Well, I'd like to say what I'm a relatively new councillor and have some experience in another council and I have been extremely favorably impressed with the reports coming out of the finance team here. It's clearly someone who has had their hands around the finance team and knows exactly what's going on and what they need to produce for us. Caroline's been very kind to me as a new councillor and coming in looking at the finances here. And I'm extremely grateful and I wish you all the best. Thank you very much. That's about it. I'm not going to duplicate what everybody has said before. I will just say that I share those thoughts. And I'd like to wish Caroline and her family. Some exciting walking in the future in beautiful, hot and sunny places. Well, I'd like to respond to those. Not an easy thing for me to do. Thank you very much for all your kind words. I have had a lot of support and encouragement from cancers during my time here. I realize now looking back how much I've learned in those 10 plus years. Not only on my finance subject, but also about the city. I feel really privileged to have been able to contribute to the amazing work that this councillor does in the city. I'm looking forward to seeing how many of the initiatives that are now going on come to fruition in the near future. I would also like to acknowledge the professionalism and expertise of colleagues that I have worked with. Their knowledge, skills, team working support and encouragement, all of which have been my time here really enjoyable, but also challenging. So I'd just like to say thank you again. Thank you right move on to Kevin's item on the council tax premiums. Kevin online. Yes, chair. Thank you. Thank you, chair and good evening. My name is Kevin Jane local taxation manager and responsible for billing and collecting council tax. I'm pleased to bring this report to you, which details changes that would see additional council tax premiums being applied to certain properties designated as either long term empty property or second homes. The power has been enabled through legislation brought into the leveling up and regeneration act, which received Royal Ascend last year last October. The powers that we've been given falling to two areas. Firstly, a new premium would be applied to properties that are designated as second homes. Currently second homes charge the same council taxes as any other property. There's no discounts and no premium. And secondly. For unfinished long term empty properties. They would be charged a premium after properties but stood empty for one year where currently the premium applies after two years. So broadly, the policy aims to help reduce the housing supply pressures created by creating a disincentive to keep empty properties standing empty and help increase the supply of property for permanent occupation. And it's hope that this will also bring about a behavior change by creating a financial incentive to bring those properties back into use earlier than the otherwise would. So that's that's broadly an an outline of the of the aims of the of the changes. And I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you for the report. I think this is a welcome idea. I'm a little concerned about whether or not we have the required resources to implement this because there's a lot of work to identify these properties. Also, I would imagine since this is new legislation, there will also be a lot of challenge to our determination on this. So that could be a legal legal costs, for example. So I'm just, I'm wondering about the resources we have for those sorts of things. Yeah, certainly. I mean, the result, the result resources is an issue. We would expect to manage the implementation of this within the existing resources within within my council tax team. We have, although the numbers potentially are quite large. We have had previous experience of administered in these schemes we had, approximately 10 years ago, premiums were introduced on long term empty properties. That did create a spike in workload, but that was managed within the team. And the other issue with this, although we're looking at making the decision now, the actual premiums themselves wouldn't come into effect until for 12 months until April 2025. That's simply because the legislation requires a 12 months, no dispute before the premiums apply. So there is quite a long lead in time, which we would use within. Within the council tax team to engage with, with those that potentially affected and deal with potential, potential challenges and the challenges are likely to come from what I think from how we've determined a property to be a second home because because second homes have been within our database, the information that we've got could be inaccurate because of information that's not been supplied by owners and occupiers of properties. I think there'll be an element of data cleansing that we'll need to go through over the coming months, but that will be spread out over over those 12 months. So I don't envisage any major issues with resources to get this underway. There could be challenges, there could be appeals. The appeal process for for for us determining how we charge council tax, there is an established process where owners of effective properties can appeal through to evaluation tribunal. Those options still exist for for these new premiums as they do for any other council tax discount exemption that we apply at the moment. So some, yeah, not not envisaging a huge problem, there will be a spike in work, but I think we can manage that within our existing resource, certainly that's certainly that's the intention. Thank you. I think this is a very important new freedom that we've got. I think it's especially valid in a city where we lack homes for people and it's a seller's market. And I think that we could do, we could have done with tools like this in the past, but we get them now and that's good. Obviously, the use we make of it should be fair as well as good, but I'm sure that this is an appropriate thing that is being recommended to us. I would have two questions though one is the recommendation in relation to second homes, which as I know from the rest of the report is potentially where most of the money income would come from. It refers to a potential premium up to 100%. And I'm wondering why that formula was used up to 100% when it seems much more definitive in relation to empty homes. And I'm concerned that maybe something as vague is up to 100% given the requirements for notice of 12 months. I'll be sure that's adequate to be able to have what we want in place in 12 months time, or is there something that isn't mentioned in the report that could explain why we might decide on something other than 100%. I would have thought it would be better to resolve that now. And the other question relates to what has just been said about the designation of homes as second homes. I mean, I, you could read this and ask, well, why would anyone designate their home as a second home, given the, the penalty that would arise for this and I think it would be important to know that there was some method for, for our officers locally, validating designations that were made by owners to us, because people could otherwise have a variety of a variety of primary residences, and no second homes. And obviously that would not be an unfair outcome. So we, it's the some national database that we can, we can use to, to verify what people are telling us. Two questions. Right, thank you. Yeah, the, with regard to the first point, the, the legislation does provide for a level of premium that that is up to 100%. It doesn't have to be 100%. The intention that, that I propose is that the premium would be set at 100%. Because it would align the second home to premium with the empty premium. So, so that both in effect, they're both properties that need to not be occupied at all, or they've been occupied intermittently. They're both being effectively treated the same. So appreciate the, the, the wording in the, in the report was, is, was following the initial guidance that was issued last year. But, and it did, and it did have, and did and does have provisions in there where the premium can be something less than 100%. But that wouldn't be what I would be recommending at this stage. It would be confusing, I think, to have a level of a level of premium set for second homes that was different to empty for the long term, empty properties. The, the second point. Second homes are quite, are quite difficult to define the term second homes is being used quite widely. For council tax purposes, second homes are simply properties that are not occupied as a burnished property that is not occupied as somebody sold on main residence. So that does encompass all sorts of different types of properties from a traditional second home, a holiday home, a holiday let. It also brings into, into play properties that are, that are rental properties that are between let's technically they are treated as a second home for council tax purposes, but they won't fall within scope of the premium, because they're actively being marketed for sale or, or, or rent so they'll be excluded. But there isn't, there isn't a central database that enables us to identify which is which. So, I think that's really why we've got, we will go through a period of, of, of data claims into identify the true, the true second homes that will be liable for a premium from, from those that aren't, won't be liable for the premium. So, there is that, that does create with an issue. There are also issues around avoidance, which we have currently with, not to a great extent, but from time to time we do have avoidance issues with existing premiums on long term empty properties. But at starting point will be that we have a date, we have a database which has got those second homes identified already. So there will be, there will no, I'm sure there will be people, owners that will come forward to tell us that there have been changes that property that we've not been told about before. And we will, we will need to investigate those or carry out further inquiries to see whether that person has a main resident somewhere else. So, that will certainly happen. How much that happened. Yeah, how widespread that will be. It's difficult to tell, but there will certainly avoidance issues is something that's already been discussed sort of internally on our own team and, and sort of wider other councils as well. So, it would be a known issue, but our starting point will be the second times that we already have designated on our system. I hope that helps. It's, it's, it's just difficult at the moment to say how many ultimately will be loved will be subject to the premium, because until we start to contact effect potentially affected. Owners, we, we, we don't know the numbers for certain, we've just, we've given it a best estimate, but we will need to start digging a bit deeper to see what these, how these properties have actually been used. Yeah, if I could just come back on that jet. I mean, it does sound to me like this power that we've been given would be worth an awful lot more in water type terms if there was a national database of some kind and just wonder whether we should perhaps come back to that as a, as a notion that perhaps the local government sector ought to be pressing for. But on the first, on the first of the two points, I wonder in view of what Kevin has said, is it, is it still appropriate to say up to 100% I mean I'm, I'm still didn't quite understand why it was up to 100% but it was definitive for the empty homes. And I'm, I still am a bit worried, given this legal requirement for 12 months notice that something is very good up to 100% counts as the 12 month notice and I'm sure we wouldn't want to be discovering in 12 months time that it was inadequate to do what we wanted to do. Yes, I think we understand you we've made a good, very good point I think, and I was going to ask Councillor Smith if he's got any views on whether we should delete those two words from the, they basically come from the legislation from what Kevin has told us. So, do we, could we do remove those you think? Well, as it says in the report that sections 3.3 refers to the government's intentions to allow the councils to introduce the new council to us premium up to 100% respect second homes. And we are awaiting the regulations which may give further clarification for that. So, I think as drafted we can only work just work with what the government has said. But up to takes you to 100%. So, I mean, if you wanted to say up to and one and up to and including 100%, we're very happy to say that. If I could just respond. The point I'm making is, is the notice we're being asked to give 12 months ahead about a general intention to exercise the power, or is it a requirement to say the way we will exercise the power. I think that is the question that needs to be. Kevin, if you got any further advice. I think, yeah, sorry, sorry that there's been a confusion is partly to do with the way. The legislature, the, the, the, the, the act has been written which, which does allow for a premium to apply for anything, anything up to 100%. The difference really between the difference in the terminology within the report really did really has come from that the. We already have existing long term, a long term empty premium which is set at 100% hence why that's been more clearly stated that the, that the long term empty premium would stay as it is now, but would just be, be, be applied sooner a year sooner. I would, it would be cleaner if the words if the report read a premium of 100% rather than had the words up to in it, because we are away. We are awaiting legislation as expectation that there will be some legislation, but we don't know what that will, when that will be, but it, it is unlikely to change the terminology. So it would be, it would be cleaner to have those two words removed and make it much clearer to anybody that, you know, over the coming, coming months as we engage with, with people that are affected. They will, they will know that it's that the premium will be 100%. Yes, I think we're in agreement on that. We will delete those two words. Any more questions before we go on to that. I was there's conservation sorry. I hope I'm not asking the same question as just been asked. Is this a blanket policy, when we say you have to give a year's notice, is it a blanket policy to anybody in this city who has a second home. Or do we have to apply that individually to each home. And my second question which I'm sure is, does this only apply to a second home in the city, or a second home, if people have a home somewhere else in this country or even around the world. Thank you, Chair, in relation to the first point, it, in effect, it is a blanket policy, which will apply to anybody that, that on the first of April next year fulfills the requirements of, of the legislation. So the issue at the moment is that what might be a second home now or long term empty property now might not be the same, they might not be the same properties in the years time. So, so it applies to anybody, any property that fulfills that the requirements and broadly they are properties that are not being, not occupied as somebody's main residence, which does link in with your second, the second point about does this apply to have it in a second home, anywhere else in the country. The answer that is no, because it will only apply to a second home that's situated in Cambridge. So, that will either be somebody that has a second home in Cambridge that, that might also live in Cambridge, or they might live outside of Cambridge. So, anybody that's say a resident in Cambridge, that has a second home in another district, they may or may not pay the premium depending on whether that that council has adopted those premiums. So, different councils will adopt different rules and at the moment, councils are starting to adopt these, these new provisions. I'm sure they haven't all been adopted in 300 or councils, but they are starting to be adopted so there could be different, it could be treated differently in different areas depending on, particularly over the coming months as these changes are brought in. Thank you very much for that. Just a, and I understand this doesn't apply if you have a second home for work purposes. So, for example, an MP, who had a house in Cambridge and also had one in Westminster. That's correct, there are, there are exceptions from being charged the premium. They do include properties that have been occupied as part of somebody's job. Now, that's, that's probably more, more described as somebody that's using, like tied accommodation that's tied with their job, which is not the same as somebody occupying a second property somewhere else, just because it's convenient for them to live somewhere else whilst they work somewhere else. That's not the situation so it's only, that would only be accepted. If, if they're, if they're required to occupy the property as part of their job, not if they just choose to live in an area because it saves commuting or, and so on. So it's quite a limited situation where job related dwellings would be, would be exempt. Okay. That's a minute. Thank you, Chair. Kevin, I had a couple of questions about empty homes. As you know, there's a widespread perception that large proportions of our new build developments, particularly in Trumpington are bought to leave under gold brick to empty. And yet we're saying that shortening the period for an empty home's charge would be imposed is only going to raise 50,000. Are we really picking up all empty homes and do we have any tools to pick up more? Thank you for the question. I think, certainly, it's true that there is an element of properties that have been bought as investments. But the buy to leave is the sort of phrase that sometimes used where there's no intention of occupying the property or making the property available for occupation. The clearly bringing forward the empty homes premium by year might influence influence those owners and incentivize them to bring them back into use or, or help stop that. That kind of activity. I think the issue about the monitoring of empty properties, we do have we, we do record on our database, the properties that are empty. There is an inspection process that we have related to properties. So we do monitor them. But the inspections are really limited to checking that it is unoccupied. There's, there's no sort of requirement, there's no powers really for us in council tax to sort of inquire as the wire property has been left unoccupied. It's simply just a check to make sure that it is or isn't unoccupied. So there is a difficult one, and these powers are just a tool part of a way in which some of those properties might be brought back into use or might disincentivize the investors from, from, from buying those properties if they know that a premium is going to apply soon and then it does at the moment. Chair, I had another question about second homes and people will bear with me. I understand that say normal rental property is excluded because that is the tenants main residence. I understand that student properties excluded, because for half a year that is somebody's main residence. So, are we really talking about Airbnb's and people who have a pediatrician canary war for similar. Broadly, yes, you're right. The properties that normal rental properties will be excluded. That includes probably virtually all of the student accommodation, including top purpose built student accommodation, which is generally a furnished accommodation. But they will be excluded because they will fall into the category of a property that's actively being marketed for sale or rent. So, whether it's empty because there's nobody occupying it at the time, they will still fall to be exempt because they're only temporarily unoccupied. And so that does leave really holiday homes, some certain Airbnb properties would potentially fall within scope. Although some Airbnb's are currently in the business rate list so they won't be impacted by this, but it could bring certain Airbnb's into scope as well. But as I mentioned earlier, it's quite until we start to look closely at our database of properties and how they've been used and what they've been used for. It is difficult to say how many of those properties there will be, but certainly normal rental properties available for rent will not be impacted by this, even if they're empty for a couple of months in between let's, if that was a happen. Thank you. All right. Any more questions? Council Smith. Chair, I've been reflecting on this amendment. There is a course of possibility that the government introduces a premium of less than 100%. Which is basically that's why it's put up to in this intention was 100%. It wouldn't have put the word up to in there. And I'm just concerned that we say 100%. It kind of might cause a problem with this one year notice business. So when you look at to one, it says support in principle that the following additional council tax premiums be applied. So premiums be applied. It's open in my view. I just think we have to be extra cautious here not to shoot ourselves in the court. So you got to the legislation. Yeah, I've just looked at the legislation. It says a billing authorities first determination under this section must be made at least one year before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates. So I don't know as it depends on what we think our first determination is, is that is it that we're going to do it or that we're going to charge 100%. So we're going to say up to 100%. So if we're going to decide to charge 100%, maybe we should just say that's what we're doing. Understanding is that the legislation is already in place. That's not going to change. It's only the regulations and how you and you work with the things that are coming in. But I would parallel me to help us think. Whether I could make a suggestion here. Could we would it's something along the lines of up to 100% or the maximum allowable in regulation or something like that, that allows us to go to the maximum is put forward later. What are we going to do without you Caroline? I think somebody would have got there at some point. Wonderful. That's a good solution. Is it really happy with that? Councillor Smith, happy. Okay, so we've got some wording for that then. 100% or maximum allowable in regulation. Okay. Right. So move on to voting on this then. So I would firstly better approve that amendment. So all those in favour of that amendment. You know Mr Chair. All right. Therefore, the recommendation is a whole on page 52. I see all those in favour of those as amended. Also you know Mr Chair. Councillor Benet, are you voting? Thank you. All right. Oh, it's Councillor Smith. I can't leave it out, please. I'm very happy to accept that. Thank you. All right, now what we've got left is just to note item nine. And then what I'm proposing is to have a break, but let's clear the public before we do so. Is everybody happy with the requirement to clear the archery amendment? The archery item being confidential and therefore the press and public has to be excluded. Councillor Bic? I can see the point in the part of this report that is dealing with financial details being in confidential session. But I really think that the section dealing with the planning background, I don't see why that would be in confidential session. I think that's a matter of public interest and no commercial confidentiality seems to be involved in it at all. I was going to say the next item nine is very, very short. And then we've just got Hartree left. I was wondering whether we could just continue on. I don't see we need a long break at all. Councillor, item nine, we've already dealt with. So I'm just now asking about Hartree. Hartree will be a break because I think Hartree will not be over in a few minutes. But firstly, we have to deal with Councillor Bix's point. Chair, I think that there is a real argument that we have discussed this in private for a long time now. And clearly, where this financial matters, then there may be a need to go into private session. But I think that there shouldn't be just an ongoing process or one that's accepted as the way the norm. There was a lot of, I'm trying not even to touch the subject, so I don't break any rules. But there is, there is a lot of involvement here and a lot of money and a lot of council engagement. And I just wondering if we must begin to note that this needs to come into the public domain at some point. Thank you. Chair, I was just going to say that in the past, we have discussed confidential reports in public where sort of we feel able to discuss them without discussing specific figures and considering this report has already come to us once. And even Councillor Young and I have had ample opportunity to ask a really long lot of financial questions. And speaking personally, I have known you specific financial questions to raise. I do think it might be possible to discuss reporting public session now, because we have already had those discussions in private. I have anticipated this problem coming up and I've got a specific statement from the officers who are recommending we do need to do with it as entirely confidential. I will now read it out to you. The report contains commercially confidential information, which is excluded in line with paragraph three, part one, scheduled to a verbal government act, 1972. The report also contains information pertaining to other private and public organisations. Which they have also requested to be kept confidential in line with the communications protocol, included with HIF grant determination agreement. This and our Committee confidential discussion is expected to be related to the commercial deal and its impacts on the Hartree side development or generally. With any wider questions or points raised in relation to the Northeast Cambridge or AAP or Northeast Cambridge or transport planning to be considered further by the shared planning team colleagues. Statually public partners and for the executive council for planning and the planning and transport committee as appropriate. Northeast Cambridge related planning applications will be dealt with through the statutory process and determined by the JDC. So that the recommendation is we do need to exclude the press and public we're going to do related property. So that is what I'm going to read to you and say those will happen. We need to vote on that. Okay, let's see all those voting on that please. Those in favor. That's for those against. Three against. That is carried then so we will now include the meeting as far as the public is concerned. And we'll have a short break for five minutes and then we'll come back and debate. Thank you. And then we'll terminate the press. Sorry. Who wanted to speak? Could you read out the abstentions please. Chair. Are you right, abstentions please. Can I have abstentions from the vote. One abstention. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] You You