Agenda, decisions and minutes

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 11th December 2003 as a correct record.

The Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 11th December 2003 were confirmed as a correct record.

Notice of Motion Standing in the name of Councillor NJ Scarr (Minute 14.1)

The Deputy Prime Minister’s response had been received and would be circulated to all Members.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members on matters arising in this agenda.

The following interests in items before Council were declared:

·                      There would be a wine and cheese reception for Members and their partners on 22nd June at the new offices

·                      The Chairman’s Reception would be on 17th September at Chilford Hall

·                      The Chairman’s Charity had already received £3,800.  Three seats on a flight over Cambridgeshire could be won as prizes in the new fundraising raffle

·                      Rachel Raymond, leader of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) team, was welcomed to the meeting

·                      Briefings on the CPA process were scheduled for 2nd, 4th and 11th March and Members were encouraged to register

·                      The Chief Constable and the Southern Division Commander would be available to speak to members from 1.30 pm before the Council meeting on 29th April

None received to date.

None received.

In answer to Councillor R Page, the Leader clarified that the collective responsibility of Cabinet applied only to decisions taken by the Cabinet and not to recommendations to Council, and that votes were recorded at Cabinet meetings

Recommendations to Council were considered:

Minute 4: Priorities and Spending Plans 2004/05-2006/07

Cabinet recommend Council

(a)               That the following be adopted as a three year programme of annual priorities from 2004/05:

i.                    ESD and customer service

ii.                   Affordable homes

iii.                 Decent homes

iv.                 Reducing the fear of crime

v.                  Youth provision

vi.                 Cleaner villages

vii.               The new settlements at Northstowe and Cambridge fringes

viii.              Rural Transport

ix.                 Recycling and waste minimisation

(b)               Approval of the three year strategy to address annual priorities set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the report and to request Management Team to prepare a more detailed three year programme to enable Members to plan for 2005/06 onwards;

(c)               That the Council will address priorities emerging from public consultation (fear of crime; youth provision; rural transport and cleaner villages) in 2005/06 and 2006/07.

Council RESOLVED:

(a)               That the following be adopted as a three-year programme of annual priorities from 2004/05:

i.                    Electronic Service Delivery (ESD) and customer service

ii.                   Affordable homes

iii.                 Decent homes

iv.                 Reducing the fear of crime

v.                  Youth provision

vi.                 Cleaner villages

vii.               Sustainable development and the new settlements at Northstowe and Cambridge fringes

viii.              Rural Transport

ix.                 Recycling and waste minimisation

(b)               Approval of the three-year strategy to:

i.                    address the following annual priorities in 2004/05:

1.                  Continuing the programme towards electronic service delivery and improved customer service;

2.                  Establishing objectives and an effective Council-wide approach to Northstowe and other major developments;

3.                  Affordable housing;

4.                  Completion of the current integrated recycling / refuse collection scheme;

ii.                   focus more on achieving change in the following areas in 2005/06 and 2006/07:

5.                  Developing the capacity of the organisation;

6.                  Addressing the concerns of the public in recent and previous consultation and in the Community Strategy; and

iii.                 to request Management Team to prepare a more detailed three-year programme to enable Members to plan for 2005/06 onwards.

The proposed priorities had been identified through public consultation and at the special Council meeting in September 2003.  The Council had suffered pressures in previous years from too many annual priorities and this reduced list, to be adopted as a three-year programme with a review each year, would help direct funding.

Concerns were raised:

·                      Some priorities could be achieved only through partnership work, leaving the Council at risk of not being in full control of resources and implementation;

·                      The Local Strategic Partnership was in the process of adopting the Community Strategy, so the latter did not need to be retained as a priority;

·                      The number of lists of priorities considered to this point caused confusion

·                      Sheltered housing was not on the list;

·                      Affordable housing should be the Council’s top priority;

·                      The Council had a duty under the Crime and Disorder Act to seek ways to reduce crime and the fear of crime, both of which were major issues identified through public consultation;

·                      “Sustainable development” was being used in an economic, rather than a social and environmental perspective when referring to Cambridgeshire, although the Council could require sustainable features such as rainwater harvesting and renewable energy in new developments;

·                      The low turnout at the public consultation meetings meant that the responses were not necessarily representative of the population and it was impossible to predict the outcome of consultation in future years.

Councillor RF Collinson, seconded by Councillor NJ Scarr, proposed that priority vii be amended to read “Sustainable development and the new settlements at Northstowe and Cambridge fringes”.  The amendment was put to a vote and CARRIED.

Councillor SGM Kindersley, seconded by Councillor R Page, proposed the deletion of recommendation (c), “That the Council will address priorities emerging from public consultation (fear of crime; youth provision; rural transport and cleaner villages) in 2005/06 and 2006/07”, on the grounds that assumptions should not be made about the results of consultation.  The amendment was put to a vote and CARRIED.

Councillor NN Cathcart, seconded by Councillor AW Wyatt, proposed that priorities iv, v and viii, reducing the fear of crime, youth provision and rural transport, be removed but the implementation of the Community Strategy reinstated, through which these would be addressed.  The amendment was put to a vote and LOST.

Council RESOLVED:

(a)               That the following be adopted as a three-year programme of annual priorities from 2004/05:

i.                    Electronic Service Delivery (ESD) and customer service

ii.                   Affordable homes

iii.                 Decent homes

iv.                 Reducing the fear of crime

v.                  Youth provision

vi.                 Cleaner villages

vii.               Sustainable development and the new settlements at Northstowe and Cambridge fringes

viii.              Rural Transport

ix.                 Recycling and waste minimisation

(b)               Approval of the three-year strategy to:

i.                    address the following annual priorities in 2004/05:

1.                  Continuing the programme towards electronic service delivery and improved customer service;

2.                  Establishing objectives and an effective Council-wide approach to Northstowe and other major developments;

3.                  Affordable housing;

4.                  Completion of the current integrated recycling / refuse collection scheme;

ii.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

Minute 4: Management Team – Terms of Reference

Cabinet recommends Council that Management Team terms of reference as amended by Cabinet be included in the Constitution.

Council RESOLVED that the Management Team terms of reference as amended by Cabinet be included in the Constitution.

Council RESOLVED that the Management Team terms of reference as amended by Cabinet be included in the Constitution.

Minute 2: Priorities and Spending Plans 2004/05-2006/07

Cabinet recommends to Council that the draft budget be produced incorporating:

(a)               a Band D Council Tax of £70 for 2004/05;

(b)               £503,000 additional spend for 2004/05 with recurring costs of £457,000 in subsequent years (both figures gross of the identified savings of £146,000), reflecting:

i.                    only the inescapable bids of £94,000;

ii.                   the CASCADE bid of £224,000, Land and Property Gazetteer bid of £20,000;

iii.                 the senior Strategic Housing Officer bid of £43,000; and

iv.                 the plastics recycling banks bid of £50,000, the latter of which being subject to:

·                      £50,000 costs in 2004/05 being funded by the DEFRA grant; and

·                      the ongoing revenue costs of £42,000 being funded from ‘savings’ within the Environmental Health portfolio;

(c)               the additional expenditure on refuse collection and street cleansing service estimated at £76,000.

Council RESOLVED that the draft budget incorporate:

(a)               a Band D Council Tax of £70 for 2004/05;

(b)               £503,000 additional spend for 2004/05 with recurring costs of £457,000 in subsequent years (both figures gross of the identified savings of £146,000), reflecting:

i.                    only the inescapable funding bids of £94,000, comprising:

·                      Bed and Breakfast costs (£20,000);

·                      Licensing Officer (cost neutral);

·                      Environmental Health Private Sector Housing Officer (£22,000);

·                      Development Control consultancy budget for land drainage (£5,000);

·                      Networking Costs – Cambourne and Cambridge Offices (£33,000);

·                      Implementation of single status (£14,000);

ii.                   the CASCADE bid of £224,000 and the Land and Property Gazetteer bid of £20,000;

iii.                 the senior Strategic Housing Officer bid of £43,000; and

iv.                 the plastics recycling banks bid of £50,000,  subject to:

·                      £50,000 costs in 2004/05 being funded by the DEFRA grant; and

·                      the ongoing revenue costs of £42,000 being funded from “savings” within the Environmental Health portfolio;

(c)               the additional expenditure on refuse collection and street cleansing service estimated at £76,000.

In response to a question from Councillor SGM Kindersley, Councillor CC Barker confirmed that the Council had received the £50,000 DEFRA grant for plastics recycling.  The facilities would be installed in late spring or early summer.

Members expressed concerns about the underlying Council tax and the need to raise the tax next year.  The level of central government support was criticised, although it was pointed out that the Council’s historic low level of tax and spending could be to blame for government grants nearly half the average paid to shire districts.

Council RESOLVED that the draft budget incorporate:

(a)               a Band D Council Tax of £70 for 2004/05;

(b)               £503,000 additional spend for 2004/05 with recurring costs of £457,000 in subsequent years (both figures gross of the identified savings of £146,000), reflecting:

i.                    only the inescapable funding bids of £94,000, comprising:

·                      Bed and Breakfast costs (£20,000);

·                      Licensing Officer (cost neutral);

·                      Environmental Health Private Sector Housing Officer (£22,000);

·                      Development Control consultancy budget for land drainage (£5,000);

·                      Networking Costs – Cambourne and Cambridge Offices (£33,000);

·                      Implementation of single status (£14,000);

ii.                   the CASCADE bid of £224,000 and the Land and Property Gazetteer bid of £20,000;

iii.                 the senior Strategic Housing Officer bid of £43,000; and

iv.                 the plastics recycling banks bid of £50,000,  subject to:

·                      £50,000 costs in 2004/05 being funded by the DEFRA grant; and

·                      the ongoing revenue costs of £42,000 being funded from “savings” within the Environmental Health portfolio;

(c)               the additional expenditure on refuse collection and street cleansing service estimated at £76,000.

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink refuted Councillor R Page’s claim that non-executive members were prevented from making a contribution to the discussion at the Cabinet meeting on 29th January and suggested that Councillor Page would better understand the issues if he attended more meetings.  Councillor NJ Scarr noted that he had not yet received a written response to the question he asked at that meeting.

Minute 3: Capital and Revenue Estimates and Council Tax

Cabinet recommends to Council

(a)               that the capital programme up to the year ending 31st March 2007 be approved as submitted, including the sum of £34.189 million to be spent on affordable housing for the years from 2004-05 to 2006-07;

(b)               that the revised revenue estimates for the year 2003-04 and the revenue estimates for 2004-05 be approved as submitted;

(c)               that the District Council demand for general expenses for 2004-05 be £3.821 millions;

(d)               that the Council sets the amount of Council Tax for each of the relevant categories of dwelling in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 on the basis of a District Council Tax for general expenses on a Band D property of £70 plus the relevant amounts required by the precepts of Parish Councils, Cambridgeshire County Council and the Cambridgeshire Police and Fire Authorities, details of those precepts and their effect to be circulated with the formal resolution required at the Council meeting; and

(e)               that the prudential indicators from the Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities be approved.

Council RESOLVED that:

(a)               the capital programme up to the year ending 31st March 2007 be approved as submitted, including the sum of £34.189 million to be spent on affordable housing for the years from 2004/05 to 2006/07;

(b)               the revised revenue estimates for the year 2003/04 and the revenue estimates for 2004/05 be approved as submitted;

(c)               the District Council demand for general expenses for 2004/05 be £3.821 million;

(d)               the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2004/05 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

Council RESOLVED that:

(a)               the capital programme up to the year ending 31st March 2007 be approved as submitted, including the sum of £34.189 million to be spent on affordable housing for the years from 2004/05 to 2006/07;

(b)               the revised revenue estimates for the year 2003/04 and the revenue estimates for 2004/05 be approved as submitted;

(c)               the District Council demand for general expenses for 2004/05 be £3.821 million;

(d)               the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2004/05 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

Minute 4: Housing Revenue Account, Rents and Charges

Cabinet recommends to Council

(a)               that the Housing Revenue Account revised revenue estimates for 2003/04 and estimates 2004/05 be approved;

(b)               that the HRA rents for 2004/05 be increased by £1.25 per week (i.e. this means a maximum plus or minus variation of £1.25 per week)

(c)               that the following proposed charges be adopted:

Services and Facilities – Charges to Tenants

Services and Facilities – Sheltered Housing Service Charges to Equity Shareholders

(d)               that the Portfolio Holder for Housing be given delegated authority to vary any charges that qualify for aid from the Supporting People Pot in order to bring such charges in line with the level of financial assistance available in 2004-05.

Council RESOLVED that:

(a)               the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) revised revenue estimates for 2003/04 and estimates 2004/05 be approved;

(b)               the HRA rents for 2004/05 be increased by 50 pence per week (i.e. this means a maximum plus or minus variation of 50 pence per week);

(c)               the following proposed charges be adopted:

Services and Facilities – Charges to Tenants

Services and Facilities – Sheltered Housing Service Charges to Equity Shareholders

(d)               the Portfolio Holder for Housing be given delegated authority to vary any charges that qualify for aid from the Supporting People Pot in order to bring such charges in line with the level of financial assistance available in 2004/05.

The government penalised Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs) for authorities in receipt of housing subsidy whose rents went above the set guideline rent limits.  Although South Cambridgeshire District Council rents were above the guideline, the Council had not received housing subsidy and was thus not penalised.  However, housing benefits were to be transferred to the General Fund and subsidised by the government, therefore the Council would be penalised if it failed to abide by the guideline rent.  To avoid penalty would require a variation in rent of no more than 50p.

Cabinet had recommended a variation of £1.25 per week, having been concerned that otherwise the HRA reserves would fall below the recommended £1 million in future years.  The Head of Shire Homes was confident that the reserve could be kept at £1 million by slowing progress on the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) target and by other measures. The Council was on schedule to complete the DHS programme in 2006, well ahead of the 2010 deadline.

Councillor Mrs EM Heazell, Housing Portfolio Holder, urged Council not to approve the Cabinet recommendation, reminding Members that Council had objected to previous government requirements to levy charges to help fund housing projects elsewhere in the country.  She proposed a variation in rents of 50 pence per week, which would bring £143,000 into the HRA without incurring any rent rebate penalty, which was a penalty on tenants.

For an increase of a maximum of £1.25 per week

·                      A compromise solution;

·                      The last nil increase in rents had been followed by a large percentage increase the following year;

·                      The £99,000 rent rebate penalty was a one-off if rents were held at guideline levels but the additional £116,000 to the HRA would be on-going;

·                      Council rents were lower than open market rents and mortgages;

·                      If rents were not raised this year, a larger increase would follow next year and it was easier for tenants if increases were phased in, especially with the Council Tax rise in 2005/06;

·                      Tenants would not suffer any reduction in service if the penalty were paid to the government, but the Council would suffer if there was not sufficient funding to carry out necessary works;

·                      It was important to be practical and not emotional about the increases.

For an increase of a maximum of 50 pence per week

·                      An increase of an average of £1.25 per week would bring £116,000 more into the HRA, but incur a £99,000 penalty;

·                      The use of the rent rebate penalty was uncertain as it would be paid to the Department of Work and Pensions;

·                      Tenants were the least able to pay an increased rent, especially with an increased Council tax in 2005/06;

·                      It was unfair to ask Council tenants to pay money which would be going to the government, especially in light of the low government grant received in return;

·                      Increasing charges for Council tenants was a moral issue.

Councillor Mrs DP Roberts defended her support of the £1.25 increase, explaining that, although she objected to large  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5e

Minute 5: Investment Strategy (Treasury Management)

Cabinet recommends to Council that the investment strategy be approved as presented at that meeting.

Council RESOLVED to approve the investment strategy.

Council RESOLVED to approve the investment strategy.

In its capacity as consultee, the Development and Conservation Control Committee recommended that the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development

commends the Refuse Design Guide to full Council, and invite full Council to adopt it as Council policy and, in due course, as a Supplementary Planning Document, subject to the amendment about flexibility of capacity suggested by the Head of Legal Services; and

The Portfolio Holder commends the Design Guide to Council.

Council RESOLVED to adopt the Refuse Design Guide, with the amendment on flexibility of capacity, as Council policy and, in due course, as a Supplementary Planning Document.

The Head of Legal Services had confirmed that the flexibility of capacity could be between 1½ to 2½m², depending on the size of the development.

Council RESOLVED to adopt the Refuse Design Guide, with the amendment on flexibility of capacity, as Council policy and, in due course, as a Supplementary Planning Document.

To consider the recommendation of the Swavesey Byways Advisory Committee that the current level of byeway maintenance be maintained and a rate of £0.90 be levied for 2004/05.

An explanatory report from the Chief Environmental Health Officer is attached.

Council RESOLVED to:

(a)               maintain the current level of Swavesey Byeways maintenance for the period 2004/05; and

(b)               levy a rate of 90 pence per hectare to fund the required maintenance for the period 2004/05. 

Council RESOLVED to:

(a)               maintain the current level of Swavesey Byeways maintenance for the period 2004/05; and

(b)               levy a rate of 90 pence per hectare to fund the required maintenance for the period 2004/05. 

To consider the recommendation of the Constitution Review Working Party that a recorded voting system should be purchased for the Cambourne office and the NOW Group given authority to incur the additional expenditure of £15,400 for the smart card readers and £5,154 for the software.

An extract from the Working Party minutes of the 13th January 2004 is attached.

Council RESOLVED

(a)               that a recorded voting system should be purchased in advance for the Cambourne office; and

(b)               that the New Offices Working Group be given delegated authority to incur the additional expenditure of £15,400 for the smart card readers and £5,154 for the software.

Council RESOLVED

(a)               that a recorded voting system should be purchased in advance for the Cambourne office; and

(b)               that the New Offices Working Group be given delegated authority to incur the additional expenditure of £15,400 for the smart card readers and £5,154 for the software.

To consider the attached report of the Constitution Review Working Party recommendations on the frequency, programming and timing of Council meetings.

Council RESOLVED that:

(a)               meetings for the conduct of business for the whole Council be programmed for once each month other than (normally) August and December;

(b)               for 2004 only, an extraordinary meeting of Council be held in August to approve the Draft Statement of Accounts; in other years approval be taken to a regular meeting;

(c)               meetings be programmed for the 4th Thursday in each month;

(d)               timings of meetings be reviewed one year after the office move to Cambourne;

(e)               the Council agenda contain a slot for questions to Portfolio Holders, notification of questions being received in advance if possible; and

(f)                 the minutes of meetings of Cabinet and Committees be presented at Council by title and date only, rather than page by page.

Council considered the recommendations of the Constitution Review Working Party on the frequency, programming and timing of Council meetings:

·                      Meetings would be scheduled for the fourth Thursday each month, but cancelled if there were insufficient business, cancellations being made at least a fortnight before the scheduled meeting date;

·                      A larger number of meetings could increase pressure on officers but would provide more opportunities for non-executive members to be involved in meaningful debate and decrease feelings of marginalisation.  Conversely, the Cabinet system was adopted to streamline the decision process and more Council meetings could create a top-heavy framework and a loss of public confidence in the system;

·                      The proposal tried to rationalise the number of extra meetings of the whole Council;

·                      It was hoped that a regular schedule of meetings would benefit Members with full-time jobs;

·                      Later starting times had not appeared to be popular

·                      Questions to Portfolio Holders, not to each Portfolio Holder, would be a new standing agenda item.  Three days’ notification of questions would be appreciated;

·                      It was more efficient to approve minutes by date rather than page by page; and

·                      The meeting scheme would be reviewed in a year.

Council RESOLVED that:

(a)               meetings for the conduct of business for the whole Council be programmed for once each month other than (normally) August and December;

(b)               for 2004 only, an extraordinary meeting of Council be held in August to approve the Draft Statement of Accounts; in other years approval be taken to a regular meeting;

(c)               meetings be programmed for the 4th Thursday in each month;

(d)               timings of meetings be reviewed one year after the office move to Cambourne;

(e)               the Council agenda contain a slot for questions to Portfolio Holders, notification of questions being received in advance if possible; and

(f)                 the minutes of meetings of Cabinet and Committees be presented at Council by title and date only, rather than page by page.

To consider other changes to the constitution recommended by the Constitution Working Party, as attached.

The Working Party is still considering changes and will report further to the next meeting of Council.

Council RESOLVED:

(a)               To amend Section B-6, Policy Framework, to read:

a.                  Policy Framework.  The policy framework means the following plans and strategies and such others as the Council shall determine to be included in the policy framework:

·                      Best Value Performance Plan;

·                      Financial Strategy;

·                      Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy;

·                      Plans and strategies which together comprise the Development Plan;

·                      Council’s Corporate Strategy;

·                      Food Law Enforcement Service Plan;

·                      The plans and strategies which comprise the Housing Investment Programme, including the Housing Revenue Account strategy and Business Plan;

·                      Community Strategy

(b)               That the title of the Scrutiny Committee be changed to “Scrutiny and Overview Committee” and any consequential amendments be made; and

(c)               That, with effect from the 2004/05 municipal year, the position of Conservation Portfolio Holder be amalgamated into the Sustainability and Community Planning Portfolio Holder remit and any consequential amendments be made.

Council considered the recommendations of the Constitution Review Working Party, and noted that further recommendations would be brought to the next Council meeting.

Councillor RF Collinson supported the amalgamation of the Conservation Portfolio with the Sustainability and Community Planning Portfolio and asked that the title be amended to reflect all responsibilities.

Councillor SGM Kindersley, in response to a question from Councillor R Page, explained that the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) peer review team had suggested that the title of the Scrutiny Committee be changed to Scrutiny and Overview.

Council RESOLVED:

(a)               To amend Section B-6, Policy Framework, to read:

a.                  Policy Framework.  The policy framework means the following plans and strategies and such others as the Council shall determine to be included in the policy framework:

·                      Best Value Performance Plan;

·                      Financial Strategy;

·                      Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy;

·                      Plans and strategies which together comprise the Development Plan;

·                      Council’s Corporate Strategy;

·                      Food Law Enforcement Service Plan;

·                      The plans and strategies which comprise the Housing Investment Programme, including the Housing Revenue Account strategy and Business Plan;

·                      Community Strategy

(b)               That the title of the Scrutiny Committee be changed to “Scrutiny and Overview Committee” and any consequential amendments be made; and

(c)               That, with effect from the 2004/05 municipal year, the position of Conservation Portfolio Holder be amalgamated into the Sustainability and Community Planning Portfolio Holder remit and any consequential amendments be made.

To consider the attached report from the Head of Legal Services.

RESOLVED    that the delegation of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s functions under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1972, as amended, to Cambridge City Council be confirmed to enable designation of the areas known as Nine Wells and Byron’s Pool as Local Nature Reserves, and instructions be given to the Head of Legal Services to complete the Deed of Delegation of Functions.

Councillor Mrs EM Heazell, local member, reported that Haslingfield Parish Council was happy with the proposal for Byron’s Pool.

Council

RESOLVED    that the delegation of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s functions under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1972, as amended, to Cambridge City Council be confirmed to enable designation of the areas known as Nine Wells and Byron’s Pool as Local Nature Reserves, and instructions be given to the Head of Legal Services to complete the Deed of Delegation of Functions.

To receive the Annual Audit Letter from the Council’s external auditors, enclosed separately with this agenda for members.

The Audit Panel considered the Annual Audit Letter on 17th December 2003 and its minutes are attached in this agenda.  Since that meeting, the external auditors have expressed a preference that the Letter be put in front of the whole Council.

Council RECEIVED and NOTED the Annual Audit Letter.

None received to date. 

No questions were received.

To consider the following Notices of Motion standing in the name of Councillor R Page: 

Councillor R Page presented two Notices of Motion:

In view of recent lapses of memory and misleading information, that all the meetings of this council and its various committees are recorded on mini-discs and saved for at least five years. Then for the sake of accuracy, and for the benefit of the electors and councillors, a complete and accurate record of the Council's business can be retained cheaply for use, if and when required.

RESOLVED    that legal and other implications for officers and the financial and practical implications of recording meetings be investigated and that a report be brought to the 29th April 2004 meeting of Council.

Councillor Page argued that it was important to install a recording system to produce a record equivalent to Hansard for accuracy and accountability.  Although the Head of Legal Services had advised Members that concerns could be reported to him, Councillor Page felt that written concerns could lead to accusations of slander.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Mrs SA Hatton.

Points made in debate included:

·                      concern about the logistics of recording meetings as the record was only of use if transcribed, creating a huge amount of secretarial effort

·                      problems of identifying speakers

·                      with possible referrals to the Standards Committee, a full record was imperative

·                      recording should not be seen as a threat but as a useful aid

·                      recording was a natural extension of the recorded voting system and could be linked to individual card ID’s to identify the speaker.

·                      recording could stifle debate

·                      quotes could be used out of context

·                      recording would be expensive and unnecessary

·                      analogies with Parliament were not appropriate as officials did not speak: the effect on officers should be addressed before proceeding further

The Chief Executive explained that recording meetings would cause concern for officers if they were asked to commit themselves to a response without any recourse to their notes.  It could, in some cases, slow the meeting or lead to business being deferred.  He felt that the recording could assist Democratic Services, but the minutes would become longer.  Legal advice was that a record of decision was vital, but that it was unnecessary to record every word of a debate.  It was for members to amend the minutes if they believed something was missed.

Councillor Mrs GJ Smith, although not opposed to recording meetings, favoured the current format of minutes rather than transcripts.  Councillor Page explained that he was not asking for transcripts, but that MiniDisc recordings be kept in case queries arose.  He believed that officers should be accountable for their advice.

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Councillor RF Collinson, which was put to a vote and CARRIED.

The amendment was put to a vote as a substantive motion and Council

RESOLVED    that legal and other implications for officers and the financial and practical implications of recording meetings be investigated and that a report be brought to the 29th April 2004 meeting of Council.

That this Council is totally opposed to the current unsustainable plan for the expansion of Stansted Airport. That the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport, and the Australian Stansted apologist, Germaine Greer, be informed that this Council considers the new runway to be environmentally and socially unacceptable.

RESOLVED    that the Deputy Prime Minister be informed that this Council is totally opposed to the current unsustainable plan for the expansion of Stansted Airport and considers the new runway to be environmentally and socially unacceptable.

The Chairman confirmed that Councillor Mrs GJ Smith, who had declared an interest as a member of the Stop Stansted Campaign, would be allowed to speak and vote on this item.

Councillor R Page outlined his opposition to the expansion of Stansted Airport:

·                      Aircraft contributed 3.5% of greenhouse gases, a figure expected to rise to 15% by 2050 and the quality of life in Cambridgeshire would decrease due to this and other forms of pollution;

·                      Aircraft fuel was not taxed and VAT was not charged on travel, resulting in what was essentially a £9 billion annual subsidy to airports;

·                      Low-cost flights were encouraging more people to fly and placing greater reliance on air travel as a means of transport;

·                      The expansion would bring more jobs to an area of high employment, rather than to other regions where jobs they needed; and

·                      Environmental and social consequences could not be overestimated and the effect on South Cambridgeshire residents was not worth the expansion of Stansted Airport.

Councillor Mrs DP Roberts seconded the motion and added her concerns about the increased noise from air traffic in the past five years, and felt that it was immoral that fuel, a finite resource, was not being taxed.  She appreciated the need for business travel but agreed with Councillor Page that low-cost flights were a direct cause of the rise in air travel, especially for holidaymakers.  Councillor Mrs GJ Smith believed that the areas affected by aircraft noise would be wider than that shown in government publications.  She argued that the expansion would not bring significant benefits to Cambridgeshire and agreed that this was not an area in need of increased employment.

Councillor NN Cathcart supported the motion, but cautioned that stopping the Stansted expansion would not decrease reliance on air travel.  Councillor CJ Gravatt felt that it was important that the Council add its voice to the opposition and reminded members that the original Inspector had concluded that there should not be expansion at Stansted.

Councillor G Elsbury noted that expansion, which he believed was inevitable, would bring more houses to South Cambridgeshire and the Council would need to direct development.  He felt that it would be morally wrong for him to oppose expansion as he could only visit his grandchildren by flying.

Councillor Dr DR Bard totally supported the motion, with an amendment deleting the reference to Germaine Greer, which he felt weakened the motion.  The amended motion, seconded by Councillor Mrs Roberts, was put to the vote as a substantive motion and Council

RESOLVED    that the Deputy Prime Minister be informed that this Council is totally opposed to the current unsustainable plan for the expansion of Stansted Airport and considers the new runway to be environmentally and socially unacceptable.

(* indicates that the Minutes have already been confirmed as a correct record) 

The Minutes of the following meetings were RECEIVED, subject to the comments recorded in Minutes 15 to 20 below:

Amendments to Minute 3 (Priorities and Spending Plans 2004/05-2006/07) agreed on 16th February 2004 have been incorporated.

The Chief Executive confirmed that a letter had been sent to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but that no response had been received.

Amendments to Minute 2 (Priorities and Spending Plans 2004/05-2006/07) agreed on 16th February 2004 have been incorporated.

Councillor SGM Kindersley believed that comments on staffing made at the meeting had been unfair and were demoralising to officers.  He thanked the Leader for taking action and hoped that other Members were equally supportive.  Councillor Mrs DP Roberts, in response, claimed that her comments were now being twisted: any professional organisation would consider staffing costs.  She believed that queries on staffing costs were legitimate.  Councillors Mrs Roberts and Mrs SA Hatton both stated that their comments had been recorded correctly.

Councillor NN Cathcart wished to distance himself from the comment in the minutes that officers of all levels disregarded Members.  Councillor Mrs Roberts replied that she had not been recorded correctly and asked for the statement to be removed.  The Chairman reminded members that Cabinet had already confirmed the minutes as a correct record.  Councillor Mrs DSK Spink explained that the comment had upset staff and this had prompted her e-mail as some officers were planning to raise the issue with UNISON.  Councillor R Page noted that this confirmed the need to record meetings.  He queried why Members were expressing concern for officers at this time, as he believed that little consideration for staff views had been given at the time of the decision to move to Cambourne.

The Chief Executive reported that the Audit Commission had erred in its background figures: the average of all shire district grants was £69.98 (this figure did not include unitary authorities).  The minute, however, was correct as it recorded the figures quoted in good faith at the meeting.

The Chairman imposed a twenty-minute time limit on discussion of this item, which was being presented to Council for decision in view of the considerable concern aroused among members.  Councillor JD Batchelor, Information and Customer Services Portfolio Holder, explained that the £8,800 had been the total cost of revamping the Council’s public image, as well as the necessary expense of reprinting all stationery with the new address, not just the cost of the logo design.  The exercise was essentially cost-neutral as funding came from savings within the Information and Customer Services budget.  Cabinet and Management Team had both recommended that the modern logo be adopted.

In favour of the modern logo – “S”

·                      A modern logo would match the modern offices and a modern Council

·                      Public consultation revealed low awareness of the crest and poor identification of it with the Council

·                      It was easier to identify a simple symbol than a complex crest

In favour of the traditional logo – Council Crest

·                      Recognisable and incorporates aspects of the District still relevant today

·                      Gives the Council a suitable and identifiable heritage and a link with the past

·                      The motto “Nothing without Effort” was important to keep

·                      The “S” looked too much like a generic corporate logo

·                      Already printed on all the wheeled bins

·                      The Council was not a corporation but represented the people: the crest reflected what the Council was and identified with its history

Regardless of the outcome, the Council’s coat of arms would be maintained and used when appropriate, such as on the Chairman’s letterhead.  Councillor JH Stewart queried what would happen to Members’ letterhead, as many Members would prefer to retain the crest.

Councillor RF Collinson expressed disappointment that his suggestion to design a modern logo incorporating elements of the crest had not been progressed.  Councillor Mrs DP Roberts felt that the decision should have been made earlier.

A vote was held and Council

RESOLVED    that the logo, style and stationery incorporating the Council’s crest be adopted as the new corporate identity.

During discussion of this item a majority of Members voted in favour of continuing the meeting beyond the four-hour time limit.

It was clarified that the sheltered housing scheme referred to in the minutes was at Meldreth rather than Melbourn.  Councillor Mrs EM Heazell explained that this scheme was still on hold.

The minute should include Councillor Mrs LM Sutherland’s support for the Village Design Statement.

The local members commended the Village Design Statement and thanked Cabinet for considering it as an urgent item.  The Parish Council had been disappointed with GO-East for changing its policy, putting the £5,000 grant in jeopardy.  The residents on the design team found GO-East to be very belittling of a project to which they had dedicated three years of work.  Councillor Mrs DSK Spink confirmed that a letter expressing the District Council’s disappointment had already been sent to GO-East.

Councillor Mrs GJ Smith requested that the Portfolio Holder arrange for surplus Council furniture to be advertised in the CCVS newsletter for voluntary organisations.

Councillor Mrs GJ Smith believed that the proposed rates were reasonable but queried disability access to the meeting rooms and asked if a disability access group could tour the building.

Councillor RT Summerfield agreed to investigate both matters.

Councillor SGM Kindersley noted that a response had been promised to the questioners within a fortnight but none had been received.  The Chief Executive agreed to ensure that the Head of Legal Services responded within the next 24 hours.

N.B. These Minutes have not yet been checked by the Chairman 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee asked that the minutes of this meeting be withdrawn, as there were a number of amendments to be made.

South Cambridgeshire Area Joint Committee – 8th December 2003 (see Bulletin 14th January 2004)

South Cambridgeshire Local Strategic Partnership – 2nd December 2003 (see Bulletin 21st January 2004)

No questions were received.

To note the Chairman’s engagements since the last Council meeting

The Chairman’s engagements since the last meeting were NOTED.  The Chairman reported that the funeral for former Councillor Harry Davies had been well attended.

Councillor NJ Scarr reported that former Councillor Bill Hames, who had represented Fulbourn for over 30 years, had passed away earlier in the year.