URL: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5622

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: Decision to progress work on service change proposals developed through the Our Cambridge programme

Content: Matter for Decision The report referred to draft proposals developed through the Our Cambridge programme, which would enable the Council to achieve £6million net savings and requested the necessary permissions and delegations to progress.   Decision of Executive Councillor for the Leader of the Council i.               Agreed design principles for Communities Group and the Economy and Place Group, and delegated authority to the relevant Director/CEO to develop and implement internal organisation in line with Council policy. ii.               Recommended to the Executive the inclusion of proposals in the public consultation that would impact service delivery on the strategic outline budget. Following consultation final decisions would go through the budget setting process. iii.               Noted the overall approach to achieving £6m savings over the 25/26 and 26/27 budget cycle as recommended in the MTFS.   Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report.   Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable.   Scrutiny Considerations The Committee received a report from the Chief Operating Officer.   The Chief Operating Officer, Director of  Communities, Chief Finance Officer and the Leader said the following in response to Members’ questions: i.               A neighbourhood-based approach would allow services such as housing, environmental health, estates, sport and leisure and community development, as example, to be delivered collectively and collaboratively, which would look at services from a resident’s perspective in the different neighbourhoods throughout the city with inclusion from Ward Councillors. ii.               There were also other key public services that worked on a neighbourhood-based approach, particularly in health.  Worked had been undertaken to determine how the Council was better aligned with external health colleagues and integrated neighbourhoods to improve the working relationship.  iii.               The neighbourhood approach would also benefit the Council’s external organisations such as the Police and health groups. iv.               Savings referenced would be made across all groups in the Council. v.                The report had been set out to establish the principles that could be taken out to consultation with staff and the community. The details would come back for full scrutiny at a future meeting. It was important to highlight that Officers were working behind the scenes to look at that detail.     vi.               The process was not just about savings, the transformation programme was also about making a Council fit for purpose for the future, working more effectively and efficiently and better for residents. vii.               Was looking at the Council’s internal staffing structure to enhance resilience, reduce cost and become more effective.  The Council had in place traditional structures for a long time, it was right to question whether they were still the correct structures to meet the needs of how the Council would operate moving forward. viii.                Part of the Our Cambridge programme was to look at performance, how well were officers carrying out their roles and responsibilities. ix.               Disputed that the Our Cambridge programme was taking too long; already significant changes had taken place. x.                The way the Our Cambridge programme had outlined the purpose, was to talk more about the impact and outcome of what was trying to be achieved as a Council and not necessarily focused on the individual services. xi.               Looking across the work that Officers undertook, the Council was a fundamental partner to public safety; shared the community safety partnership, provided environmental health services across the city, employed antisocial behaviour teams and enforcement teams. xii.               While the Council were not the primary / lead contributor to public safety had contributed £14 million of health and wellbeing services xiii.                The Council was also a housing provider in the City which was probably the most fundamental role for providing a safety net for residents. xiv.               The Council were investing £100million in Abbey Ward which would take some of the health inequalities that currently existed with the current housing properties. xv.               The 2.5% inflation figure was a baseline assumption that was used to calculate the budget gap. The Council’s budget for 2024/25 included £23 million income from fees and charges, although this did not include income from commercial property, of which there was an additional £10 million of income. There was also an additional £3.5 million in income from other commercial sources. xvi.               The public budget consultation would ask high level questions, however there would still be opportunity to scrutinise those fees and charges that are proposed to change through the budget setting process.   The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the recommendations.   The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.   Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.  

Date of Decision: September 30, 2024