Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Performance and Growth) meeting held on 3rd June 2026.

The Work Programme of minute 26/04 was amended to read:

The Member requested that a short, written progress briefing on the Parking Strategy Refresh be provided between meetings, setting out what work has been completed, what evidence has been gathered, what remains outstanding, and when the draft strategy is expected to come to the Panel for pre-decision scrutiny.

Members also raised wider questions in relation to the Parking Strategy Refresh, including costs associated with the strategy and the wider impact on town centre vitality.

After which the minutes of the meeting held 3rd June 2026 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive from Members declarations as to disclosable pecuniary and other interests in relation to any Agenda item.

No interests were declared.

a) The Panel are to receive the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme and the notices of Key Executive decisions 1st July 2026 to 31st October 2026

b) Members to discuss future planning of items for the Work Programme

With the aid of a report by the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme was presented to the Panel.

Democratic Services reiterated the importance of the scoping process to the Panel and confirmed that the scoping documents had been circulated to the relevant Members. It was noted that the documents would be recirculated to the full Panel following the meeting.

Councillors Ascroft, Ferguson, Ioannides and Martin volunteered to serve on the working group established to review Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The Panel requested that an update on Civil Parking Enforcement be included on the work programme rather than being provided solely as an All-Member briefing. Members were advised that the matter had not been overlooked, but that it would first be considered through an All-Member Briefing. It was further noted that, should the Panel consider additional scrutiny necessary thereafter, a scoping document would be prepared.

Councillor Tomlinson proposed that Civil Parking Enforcement be added to the Panel's work programme.

Councillor Martin seconded the proposal and suggested that the matter be brought before the Panel once the first year of operation had been completed. In support of the proposal, it was noted that procurement concerned the Council's compliance with its own rules and procedures, and that the Panel should maintain oversight of this area.

Councillor Ioannides proposed an amendment to the proffered motion. He proposed the addition of prioritising Places for People, Commercial Investment Portfolio and the Civil Parking Enforcement / parking strategy onto the Work Programme.

The Panel hears the new Recommendation proposed by Councillor Tomlinson and a vote is called. 6 Members are For, 0 Against and 5 Abstainers.

Following the discussion, it was agreed:

That this Panel confirms its previous agreement that the Annual review of Civil Parking Enforcement performance be brought as a formal agenda item to this Panel and requests the DSO to confirm a date for that item- noting that any All-Member briefings in advance are welcome but does not substitute for a formal Panel meeting on the subject.

Councillor Ioannides moved again for prioritising Places for People, Commercial Investment Portfolio and the Civil Parking Enforcement / parking strategy onto the Work Programme.

The Panel were reminded of the scrutiny training previously undertaken and, in particular, the importance of completing a scoping document for all topics proposed for scrutiny. It was advised that scoping documents help to clearly define the purpose, scope and desired outcomes of a review, ensuring that scrutiny resources are focused on matters within the Panel’s remit and that any subsequent work is evidence-based, proportionate and achievable.

The Panel were advised of the importance of engaging with Places for People as a key partner of the Council. Officers confirmed that discussions were underway to bring the matter to a future meeting agenda, with consideration being given to ensuring the focus and scope of the discussion were appropriate and constructive.

Councillor Tobias seconded the motion and a vote was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is invited to comment on The Treasury Management Outturn Report 2025/26 attached.

The Council’s approach of utilising internal borrowing rather than external borrowing was welcomed by the Panel. They sought clarification on whether there was a threshold, such as a particular level of interest rates or other financial considerations, at which the Council would review its position and consider switching from internal to external borrowing.

The Panel heard that if such a decision was made, it would not likely come from interest rates, rather by the use of the Council’s internal borrowings.

Attention was drawn to IFI S9, noting that its duration had been extended to March 2029. Clarification was sought on whether funds were currently being withdrawn from the associated shared investment pools and, if so, what impact this might have on the Council’s financial position.

Officers confirmed that this matter had not yet been explored in detail. However, it was noted that there was an expectation that the March 2029 deadline would be extended further. Members were advised that, should it appear unlikely that a further extension would be granted, the Council would undertake a review of the position and consider the available options at that time.

Clarification was sought on the specific mitigation measures in place to manage the financial risks associated with the Council’s debt levels, particularly given that the outstanding debt exceeds the value of the Council’s property assets. An update was requested on the timescale and strategy for reducing vacancies within the Council’s property portfolio, noting the impact that vacant units were having on interest coverage ratios. In addition, it was queried asked how confident the relevant Executive Councillor was that the budgeted income target of £3.75 million for 2026/27 could be achieved.

The Panel was advised that it had previously been recognised that, from a financial and resource perspective, the Commercial Investment Strategy was the only area that could not readily be progressed further. The Portfolio Holder highlighted that the decision not to dispose of assets at this time had been a prudent one. While it was acknowledged that certain aspects of the Strategy’s risk management and governance framework had not been as robust as intended, Members were informed that the Strategy nevertheless represented a valuable exercise in long-term financial planning.

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on commercial property values was also noted. The Panel heard that a number of properties within the Council’s portfolio had performed strongly and generated significant income, while extensive work was continuing to address vacant units. Members were advised that, if assets were to be sold at the present time, the resulting capital receipts could only be used for capital purposes. It was reiterated that, although such receipts could be used to reduce borrowing, all but a small number of the Council’s loans were currently costing less in interest than was being generated through investments. The Portfolio Holder emphasised that the Commercial Investment Strategy should be viewed as a long-term strategy.

In response to a question from Councillor Ioannides regarding the stress testing of the Council’s property portfolio, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel is invited to comment on 2025/26 Finance Performance Report.

Queries were raised about the variances in the reported figures, referencing table 4.2 in the report.

The Chair confirmed that this was showing correct in the report on page 82 and Officers advised they would provide clarification outside of the meeting.

In response to a question regarding the accuracy of financial forecasts, the Panel was advised that officers sought to produce forecasts as accurately as possible based on the information available. However, Members were informed that a significant proportion of the Council’s income had been received later in the financial year, and that unexpected additional grant funding had been received in the last quarter of the financial year.. As a result, forecasting can be challenging and projections may need to be updated as further information becomes available.

Concerns were raised regarding the reported £1.9 million capital overspend associated with One Leisure and sought clarification on the factors that had contributed to the overspend. It was further noted that the report indicated a reduction in income across certain areas and queried the reasons why a capital budget overspend had occurred in the context of declining income levels.

In response, the Panel were advised that further information about this could be circulated after the meeting.

The Panel heard that the £1.9 million was revenue that would be capitalised under financial reporting regulations in the next financial year.

It was further commented that the £1.9 million capital overspend represented a significant sum of public money and expressed the view that his constituents would share those concerns. He also drew attention to the increasing level of the Council’s debtors and sought clarification on the proportion of outstanding debt that was considered recoverable, together with the level of confidence officers had in recovering those amounts.

The Panel was advised that some of the outstanding debts had arisen over the previous four years, including cases involving individuals who had defrauded the Council. Members were informed that any debts deemed irrecoverable had been subject to appropriate due diligence and recovery efforts before being written off. Officers noted that the Council continues to maintain a high rate of debt collection overall.

The Panel heard that challenges in debt recovery can arise from a range of factors, including errors by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), businesses entering administration, and individuals entering Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs). Members were also advised that a review of commercial debt was currently underway and that the findings could be shared with the Panel outside of the meeting.

The Panel asked if Cambridge City Council had repaid the debt owed to the Council. The Panel were advised this would be investigated and a response sought outside of the meeting.

It was noted that collection rates had declined and observed that the current target had been based on the previous year’s recovery performance. He sought clarification on whether this indicated that the reduction in collection rates was expected to be a long-term trend or whether recovery levels were anticipated to improve in future years.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Panel is invited to endorse the refreshed Corporate Plan.

Attention was drawn to page 125 of the report and anticipation was expressed of working with Members regarding Parish Council issues.

Clarification was sought as to whether the 80% Business as usual (BAU) was for statutory services or non-statutory services. It was confirmed this was for the statutory services that the Council must provide, such as Revenues, Benefits, Waste collections, etc.

It was requested if a breakdown of the Capital costs for every new 2026/2027 Corporate Plan Action was available, It was asked that this be split between statutory and non-statutory and any external funding. On hearing that this would need to be taken away, Councillor Ioannides advised he could not endorse the Plan without knowing the costs.

In response the Panel were advised they were being asked to look at the principles of the Plan, not the budget

A Member advised that, while they was able to support the overall strategic vision, she had reservations regarding the proposed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which she considered to contain significant blind spots. She expressed concern that, if the most appropriate metrics were not in place, organisational focus could become concentrated on achieving the measured KPIs rather than on the wider activities and outcomes necessary to deliver the Strategy effectively. She reiterated that the Working Group being set up for KPI’s should be convened and concluded before December 2026 to ensure the next Plan includes sophisticated outcome based metrics.

The Panel was advised that such feedback would be welcomed. However, Members were reminded that any revisions or additions would need to be considered in the context of the capacity and resources available within the team. Officers also noted that certain performance measures and reporting requirements are prescribed by Central Government and must therefore be included as part of the Council’s monitoring and reporting arrangements.

It was queried whether the introduction of the new food waste collection service was reflected within the proposed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). It was noted the importance of monitoring the service's performance, particularly in light of concerns and complaints from residents regarding missed collections, and sought assurance that appropriate measures were in place to track and report on this area. The Panel were advised that whilst it is not included in the current target intolerances, it is now part of the commentary until a baseline can be established.

Support was expressed for the previous comments and it was noted that 30 of the 57 actions contained within the report were identified as new and questioned whether the Council’s focus should instead be directed towards preparations for and delivery of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). He sought clarification on the rationale for introducing a significant number of new actions at this stage and how these aligned with the Council’s wider priorities. He wondered if it would have been better to wait until after LGR.

The Panel heard that the Plan will be kept under review and that it allows for reflection as the Council goes through and that a lot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Panel are invited to comment on the Combined Authority Mayoral Car Parking Subsidy Cabinet Report.

Clarification was sought on whether any assessment had been undertaken to determine both the beneficiaries of the proposal and those who would bear its cost. He expressed concern that the Organisation could be perceived as endorsing, or partially funding, a campaign commitment, with the associated costs ultimately being met through council tax contributions, including by residents who may derive no direct benefit from the proposal.

The Panel was reminded that the decision to allocate funding in this manner was a matter for the Mayor, who had chosen to utilise his budget accordingly. It was noted that the budget from which the funding was drawn was funded by contributions from across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

Further information was requested regarding the financial implications of the proposal. She sought clarification on whether any additional or indirect costs would be incurred, including costs associated with updating parking payment infrastructure. She also enquired about any costs that might arise upon the conclusion or withdrawal of the Scheme and requested confirmation of the duration for which the funding would be available.

In addition, sight of the supporting business case was requested, including evidence relating to anticipated impacts on town centre footfall. The importance of establishing baseline data and projected outcomes was emphasised, noting that it would otherwise be difficult to assess the economic success of the Scheme or determine the impact of any additional funding provided.

The Panel was advised that, as this was a Mayoral Scheme, responsibility for undertaking the associated research and developing the supporting evidence base rested with the Mayor. It was noted that the Council’s role was limited to its inclusion within the Scheme as a provider of car parking facilities and that undertaking such research did not fall within the Council’s remit.

Their attention was drawn to section 8:2:5 of the report which included a breakdown of the costs requested by the Member.

The Panel noted that the Mayor’s manifesto had indicated that funding would be made available to support the implementation of a free car parking scheme. He sought clarification on the process by which the various options had been considered and evaluated, and how the proposal had developed from the Mayor’s initial approach to the recommended Scheme now before the Panel.

It was advised that no initial budget envelope had been proposed for the Council. Following early discussions, the Organisation considered the comments received and subsequently provided indicative costings to the Combined Authority to support the further development and refinement of the proposal. Officers have highlighted the associated financial implications to ensure that the Combined Authority is fully aware of the potential budgetary impact of the option under consideration.

Confirmation was requested that the Mayor was the one who asked for the 4pm to 6pm scheme as set out in the main report which was confirmed to the Panel that yes this was correct.

Concern was expressed regarding the latest letter from the Mayor, which had been circulated to the Panel as a supplementary document. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.