Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Performance and Growth) meeting held on 1st July 2026 and the 29thJuly 2026.

The minutes from 1st July 2026 and the 29th July 2026  were amended to read:

Councillor R Tomlinson.

After which the Minutes of the meetings held on 1st July 2026 and the 29th July 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 Notice of Key Decisions for the period 1st September 2026 to 31st December 2026. Members to discuss future planning of items for the Work Programme

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.

Councillor Tomlinson proposed the establishment of a working group to develop terms of reference for an investigation into matters relating to Capital & Centric. He explained that, following discussions with officers, it was considered more appropriate for a working group to define the scope of the investigation in collaboration with the Corporate Governance Committee, ensuring a coordinated approach. The working group would report back to the next Overview and Scrutiny meeting, with the intention of commencing the investigation in November. Councillor Tobias seconded the proposal, subject to members receiving the necessary information and responses.

Clarification was sought on how the proposed investigation would interact with any review undertaken by Internal Audit. It was expressed that an independent assessment of the issues was needed and queried whether Internal Audit would be commissioned by the Corporate Governance Committee, and how Overview and Scrutiny would engage with that process.

The Panel were advised that the purpose of establishing a working group was to consider how any investigation would align with the work of the Corporate Governance Committee, including any Internal Audit involvement, before reporting back with proposed terms of reference. It was confirmed that the Overview and Scrutiny function was intended to examine the issues in detail, review relevant documentation, and question officers and Members where necessary. Unlike an Internal Audit review, the scrutiny process would take place in public. He added that commencing the process in November or December would allow the Council to begin its examination at an early stage in response to residents' concerns.

The Panel also heard that a number of proposals relating to investigations, reviews and audits of the Capital & Centric matter were currently under consideration, including correspondence circulating publicly and a motion submitted to Full Council. Councillor Tomlinson's proposal was welcomed as a formal mechanism to place the matter on the work programme and advised that Officers, including the Monitoring Officer, were considering the most appropriate route for any review, including whether it should be undertaken internally or externally. As the situation remained active and was evolving rapidly, he emphasised the importance of a coordinated approach. The establishment of a working group was supported  to develop proposals in collaboration with other bodies and to avoid duplication of effort, while ensuring the matter was progressed in the most effective and efficient manner.

It was confirmed that Councillors Hassall, Seeff, Tobias and Tomlinson would form the proposed Working Group.

A Member noted that several items on the work programme, including Places for People, remained at the scoping stage. While there were some gaps in the programme, it was suggested that items should not be scheduled until the required scoping work had been completed to ensure effective preparation and scrutiny. Members were encouraged to complete outstanding scoping documents for items they had proposed if they wished them to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To note the responses outstanding from previous meetings.

To note the responses outstanding from previous meetings.

The Panel received and noted the responses received in relation to questions arising at previous meetings of the Panel.

The Overview and Scrutiny (Performance and Growth) Panel is invited to comment on the report for Cabinet and Council.

Executive Councillor- Tom Sanderson

By means of a report by Head of Planning, Infrastructure and Public Protection (a copy of which was appended in the Minute Book), the Pre-Submission Local Plan to 2046 Sustainability Appraisal and Supporting Documents was presented to the Panel.

The Chair queried why a Member’s position on the Local Plan appeared to have changed compared to the adopted Local Plan, noting that they had previously voted against it. The Panel heard that the Member considered their opposition to the previous Local Plan to have been a mistake and urged Members not to make the same error. The importance of having development guided by a robust, infrastructure-led Local Plan rather than being driven by developers was emphasised. Reference was also made to the significant amount of work undertaken over the previous three and a half years to prepare the Plan.

In response to a question, the Panel was advised that the term home in the report referred to an individual unit of accommodation of any form capable of being occupied by a single person, a family or other household. It was also confirmed that infrastructure planning was based on projected population growth arising from the number of new homes expected to be delivered across the district.

Clarification was sought on the number of homes referenced, noting that the figure stated at the meeting differed from that contained within the Local Plan. A request was also made for the proposal relating to Upwood to be referred to as Upwood rather than Ramsey in future references. The Panel was advised that the Local Plan provides for 32,200 homes between 2021 and 2046, of which approximately 4,200 had already been completed and 11,300 had existing planning permission. Regarding the naming of the proposal, Members were informed that, for consistency with the evidence base, it would preferably remain listed under Ramsey for the current consultation stage, with the potential for amendment at a later stage. The proposed approach was accepted.

In response to a question regarding infrastructure in rural areas, the Panel’s attention was drawn to the Infrastructure Readiness Report set out in Appendix 7 to the report. It was confirmed that extensive consultation had been undertaken with infrastructure providers, enabling them to plan when infrastructure would be required and delivered. The Local Plan would provide certainty to support the phasing of development. A stepped trajectory had been included to allow infrastructure to be delivered alongside development throughout the Plan period.

Clarification was sought on whether development would take place only once infrastructure was in place. The Panel was advised that, in the absence of a Local Plan, planning applications could still be submitted by developers. However, an adopted Local Plan provides a clear vision for growth and a delivery trajectory, enabling Officers to work proactively with developers and infrastructure providers to ensure that necessary infrastructure is planned and delivered alongside development.

Concern was raised regarding the fallback position should the A141 scheme not be delivered, given its importance to infrastructure planning in North Huntingdonshire.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Overview and Scrutiny (Performance and Growth) Panel is invited to comment on the report for Cabinet.

Executive Councillors- Julie Kerr and Brett Mickelburgh

Meeting adjourned at 20:47

Meeting resumed at 20:57

Councillors D McIlwain and H Tobias rejoined the meeting at 20:57.

By means of a report by the Head of Economy, Regeneration & Housing Delivery and the Operations Manager, Parking & Markets Services (a copy of which was appended in the Minute Book), The Parking Strategy Report was presented to the Panel.

Clarification was sought regarding parking provision in Godmanchester, specifically why Bridge Place had been included within the Godmanchester section of the report rather than being referenced under Huntingdon. The Panel was advised that all car parks had been included within the survey to provide a comprehensive evidence base. Members were informed that Bridge Place had been identified as an underutilised car park and that development work commenced in March 2026. It was also confirmed that Bridge Place had been included within the Godmanchester section because it falls within the relevant town boundary.

A query was raised regarding EV charging stations and the metric used to determine when a standard public parking bay should be converted into a dedicated EV bay. The Panel heard that the Council has a separate Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy which sets out its approach to investing in EV infrastructure across Council-owned car parks. Members heard that the Strategy is based on maximising grant funding opportunities, with deployment decisions informed by usage data, site locations and electricity grid capacity.

Questions were raised regarding the threshold at which a car park would be considered persistently underutilised and the criteria that would trigger a feasibility assessment for partial or full disposal. It was explained to the Panel that it was difficult to define a fixed threshold, as circumstances may change over time. Members were informed that underutilised car parks may still retain strategic value and that each site would therefore need to be considered on its individual merits.

Concern was raised that the Strategy did not appear to fully account for wider external developments that could influence parking demand, including emerging transport initiatives and major development proposals. A query was also raised regarding how the Council would respond to any associated increase in traffic and parking pressures. The Panel were informed that the previous strategy had been considered overly prescriptive. The new strategy was intentionally designed to provide greater flexibility, enabling individual car parks to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and allowing the Council to respond more effectively to changing circumstances and emerging evidence.

Confirmation was sought that any assessment relating to the repurposing or redevelopment of a car park would be undertaken before the Council made a formal commitment to proceed. The Panel was advised that none of the car parks identified within the data were currently considered suitable for repurposing, as all were experiencing high levels of usage, with some operating beyond capacity. Members heard that consideration should instead be given to expanding capacity where supported by evidence and capital funding.

Whilst acknowledging current usage levels, clarification was sought regarding how the Strategy would apply in future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The Overview & Scrutiny (Performance and Growth) Panel is invited to consider and comment on progress and performance during Quarter 1, as summarised in the Corporate Performance Report attached and detailed in Appendices A, B, and C.

Executive Councillor- Nathan Hunt

By means of a report by the Business Intelligence and Performance Manager (a copy of which was appended in the Minute Book), the Corporate Performance 2025/26 Quarter 4 Report was presented to the Panel.

Further clarification was sought regarding the new targets which were showing as Green, with particular reference to the Empty Homes target. The Panel was advised that the update related to the strategy adopted in March 2026. It was reported that eight properties had been brought back into use and that progress was rated Green, reflecting positive progress against the objectives of the newly adopted strategy.

A query was raised regarding why a number of performance measures were rated Red. It was suggested that including details of actual performance achieved alongside targets would assist members in understanding the extent of any variance and how close the Council was to meeting its performance targets. The Panel heard that this was primarily due to quarter one data being based on a smaller sample size and ongoing service pressures. It was noted that the missed bin collection measure was below target; however, the target was a locally set and ambitious measure rather than an industry benchmark. Long-term staff sickness during the first quarter had also contributed to the number of missed collections. Members' attention was drawn to Appendix C, which included breakdowns of the data.

Positive feedback was provided regarding the resolution of a missed bin collection once reported. Concerns were also raised regarding call waiting times, and clarification was sought as to whether these were the result of staffing pressures. It was explained that the service had experienced three vacancies within the team; however, these posts had now been filled. Members were informed that service improvements had already been observed since the appointments were made.

The Chair suggested that introducing a system which advises callers of their position in the telephone queue may help reduce frustration whilst waiting to speak to an adviser.

Officers were thanked for their work in delivering the Open Day at Eastfield House, with positive feedback provided on the event. A query was raised regarding wider staffing resource issues across the organisation, noting that several performance measures rated Red appeared to be linked to staffing pressures. It was suggested that this may be a matter for consideration by the Employment Committee, and clarification was sought regarding the role and purpose of the Sickness Review Group.

The Panel was advised that the Sickness Review Group was responsible for reviewing the Council’s sickness management policies and procedures, including whether appropriate support and early intervention measures were in place for employees. Members were informed that the Group currently operated as an internal officer-led control mechanism.

A query was raised as to whether high levels of efficiency within the Contact Centre Team had resulted in reduced staffing levels and whether a smaller team may be contributing to current service pressures. It was confirmed that the vacancies referred to were longstanding vacant posts and that the associated budget savings did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.