Agenda, decisions and minutes

Prior to the start of the formal meeting, the Chairman presented Long Service Awards to Gail Cooke, Housing Services Officer, and Sean Geoffrey O’Connor, DSO Operative, in recognition of their completion of 25 years’ respective service with the Council.

The Chairman also presented retiring Chief Executive Greg Harlock with a garden fork and engraved shovel to commemorate his years at South Cambridgeshire District Council.  The Leader, Councillor Ray Manning; Major Opposition Group Leader, Councillor Sebastian Kindersley; and Independent Group Convenor, Councillor Alex Riley, led tributes to Mr Harlock.  Mr Harlock offered the Council his best wishes in the future addressing the challenges and opportunities ahead.

Councillors John Batchelor, Sebastian Kindersley and Tony Orgee, all elected Cambridgeshire County Councillors, declared personal non-prejudicial interests in any items relating to Cambridgeshire County Council.  In response to a query, the Acting Legal and Democratic Services Manager confirmed that it was not necessary to declare such an interest generally at the start of each meeting.

Councillor Frances Amrani declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in the Government Review of Council Housing Finance, as her brother was a Council tenant and Councillor Amrani had, in the past, been a tenant of another authority and had been through the homeless family referral unit.  Notwithstanding this interest, Councillor Amrani remained in the Council Chamber and participated in the debate and vote on this item.

Councillor Mark Howell declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in the Government Review of Council Housing Finance as a former Council tenant.  Notwithstanding this interest, Councillor Howell remained in the Council Chamber and participated in the debate and vote on this item.

Councillor Mrs Liz Heazell declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in the Appointments to the Standards Committee 2010-14 as a former university classmate of Mrs Diane Best, Independent Member.  Notwithstanding this interest, Councillor Heazell remained in the Council Chamber for the duration of this item.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2010 as a correct record.

The Chairman signed the minutes of the 27 May 2010 Council meeting as a correct record.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader, the executive or the head of paid service.

The Chairman asked Members to remind their parish councils of the 31 July 2010 deadline for nominations for the Village Hero and Community Pride awards.

The Leader announced that the government had frozen all Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) grant funding, which had brought to a halt all Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) projects.  He commended officers, whose successful work to achieve the LPSA stretch targets had brought £9 million in reward grant to Cambridgeshire County Council for onwards distribution to the districts.  Approximately £468,000 in funds were on hold, which would affect not only larger programmes like the Sustainable Parish Energy Partnership and the Quality Parish Council scheme, but also the Community Chest grants of £500-£1,000 for smaller local groups.

On the proposal of Councillor Charlie Nightingale, seconded by Councillor Tony Orgee, Council RESOLVED that Standing Order 10.1, footnote 1, item 5 – “A maximum of ten minutes will be allowed for public questions on any specific agenda item” – be suspended for the duration of the public and member questions.

Before responding to the eight questions regarding Hauxton, the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder made the following statement: “Members will be aware that there is one councillor and seven public questions regarding the former Bayer site at Hauxton.  Prior to answering these, I would like to make some general points about the council’s role and responsibilities at this site, building on the points made by the Executive Director at the last Council meeting.

“The Council takes its responsibilities to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its residents very seriously and our staff in Planning and Environmental Health services have been working diligently to ensure the site is remediated and implement the Council’s Planning Committee decision.  In the course of achieving this objective, they have been working with the other public bodies who have duties in this matter, namely the Environment Agency, NHS Cambridgeshire and the Health Protection Agency, and have ensured that local people and their elected representatives are receiving, up to date, factual information about operations on site.

“Our staff and their colleagues in the Environment Agency are in daily contact with the developer, Harrow Estates and their contractor Vertase FLI, to influence on site operations to minimise the impact of the works on local people and the local environment.

“Members will appreciate that this is a very serious matter, but it is also a very complex one which requires careful consideration of the facts and a high level of specialist technical expertise.  I make no apology therefore for the length and detail of my replies to questions, and for the same reason I do not intend to respond to supplementary questions without the benefit of professional and technical advice.  I shall however be pleased to respond to any supplementary questions in writing and I shall commit to publishing the questions and my answers on the Council’s website.” 

“In the light of the public concern regarding unpleasant physical symptoms being experienced in and around Hauxton as well as the generally obnoxious odours being emitted day after day which are destroying the quality of life for so many residents of South Cambridgeshire and which goes against all the supposed values of SCDC will the council now take control of this situation, distance itself from the developers and their contractors, demand truly independent monitoring / evaluation, look at alternative methods of remediation that would not allow the airborne pollution to occur and thereby be seen to be acting in the public interest rather than as partners in the development of the former chemical works?“

From Councillor Deborah Roberts to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“In the light of the public concern regarding unpleasant physical symptoms being experienced in and around Hauxton as well as the generally obnoxious odours being emitted day after day which are destroying the quality of life for so many residents of South Cambridgeshire and which goes against all the supposed values of SCDC will the council now take control of this situation, distance itself from the developers and their contractors, demand truly independent monitoring / evaluation, look at alternative methods of remediation that would not allow the airborne pollution to occur and thereby be seen to be acting in the public interest rather than as partners in the development of the former chemical works?“

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied:

“Thank you for your question.  I am aware that there has been extensive dialogue between yourself and officers on the technical aspects of this site.  Having read those communications, I believe that this Council does have control of the situation and are acting in the public interest to achieve the successful remediation of this site. Our officers are leading the multi agency group of organisations involved in the site that is working to ensure that all measures are put in place to minimise the effect on the local community.  However, in order to do this, we must work closely with the site developers and contractors to find appropriate solutions.

“The Health Protection Agency’s advice, following review of all current air monitoring, is that emissions from site are unlikely to cause any health effects to the local residents. The human nose is very sensitive to odours and some can cause a reaction in individuals. 

“The Council has already taken all appropriate steps to secure the benefit of independent expert advice by way of a legal obligation creating a duty of care (collateral warranty) from both the Contractor (Vertase FLI) and the Consultants (Atkins). Atkins is one of the leading environmental consultancies in the UK. They have and will continue to act impartially and independently in their role as specialist consultant for the remediation works at the Hauxton site. They have a continual site presence to oversee the remediation work that Vertase are carrying out.  Analysis of all samples taken from site are also analysed by an independent and accredited laboratory.

“When assessing the remediation application, costs were not a consideration to the council.  The application was assessed on technical merit and on the basis of whether the methodology proposed would address the significant pollutant linkages that exist on the site. Both the Environment Agency and this Council considered that the remediation methodology put forward, i.e. excavation and treatment, was the only method that would satisfactorily address the contamination at the former Bayer site.  The soil material needs to be excavated because the contaminants cannot be effectively treated in the ground due to the geology and the nature of some of the contamination. The current methodology for the treatment of excavated soil  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30c

The day to day checks and monitoring are being done on site by the contractor, who is working for the developer and are then overseen by Atkins who are also financially involved with the developer.

With the present problems in mind this is hardly seen as a true independent and transparent process.

In order to give the public some sort of confidence will South Cambridgeshire District Council now order the developer to pay for an objective independant expert in this field to be employed to do the required testing.

Can this also include analysing the minor chemicals and components on site because as at present only the top 10 are being done. 

From Trisha McCrae, Resident of Hauxton, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“The day to day checks and monitoring are being done on site by the contractor, who is working for the developer and are then overseen by Atkins who are also financially involved with the developer.

“With the present problems in mind this is hardly seen as a true independent and transparent process.

“In order to give the public some sort of confidence will South Cambridgeshire District Council now order the developer to pay for an objective independant expert in this field to be employed to do the required testing.

“Can this also include analysing the minor chemicals and components on site because as at present only the top 10 are being done.”

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied:

“The Council has already taken all appropriate steps to secure the benefit of independent expert advice by way of the legal obligation creating a duty of care from both the Contractor (Vertase) and the Consultants (Atkins). Atkins is one of the leading environmental consultancies in the UK. They have and will continue to act impartially and independently in their role of specialist consultant for the remediation works at the Hauxton site. They have a continual site presence to oversee the remediation work that Vertase are carrying out.  Analysis of all samples taken from site are also analysed by an independent and accredited laboratory.

“Regarding the monitoring of soil and water samples, there has been extensive site investigation and risk assessments undertaken to establish a set of Contaminants, a procedure set out in industry guidance.  It is these contaminants of concern that are routinely analysed in soil and water throughout the remediation process. In addition, condition 4 of the planning consent requires additional samples to be taken and analysed for any further contaminants that have not previously been identified to ensure that no new contaminants are being missed.  The analysis of all samples is carried out by an independent and accredited laboratory.

“The analysis of the tubes used to monitor the air quality around the site are also sent to an independent and accredited laboratory. The laboratory reports the 10 compounds with the greatest concentration. Based on testing to date, it is unlikely that further significant compounds would be detected. The current monitoring reports include the top ten contaminants for each location. This method ensures that any substance that may not be expected is identified. We are sampling for all potential compounds but only the top ten in each location are reported because the remainder are at or below detection levels.

“All sample analysis results are posted on the joint website pages accompanied by the Health Protection Agency’s comments once they have been reviewed.

Ms McCrae asked, as her supplementary question, “I agree that Atkins is a big company.  The first sentence of their methodology statement says that they have never done a cocktail like that at Hauxton before -- effectively letting them off the hook.  Vertase says differently, says that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30d

It appears that at the end of all this aggravation South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency will sign the job off .

If some years down the line, remembering that know one to date will give a 100 % guarantee that everything here is OK, if we were to experience another Corby like scenario will the responsibility not be fairly and squarely down to South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency ? 

From Linda Bland, resident of Hauxton, and Rob Thomas, resident of Harston, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“It appears that at the end of all this aggravation South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency will sign the job off .

“If some years down the line, remembering that know one to date will give a 100 % guarantee that everything here is OK, if we were to experience another Corby like scenario will the responsibility not be fairly and squarely down to South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency ?”

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied:

“At Corby the Local Authority was not only the Planning Authority but was also the relevant landowner and had accepted legal responsibility for the decontamination and remediation works which it failed to carry out in a safe way.  At Hauxton, South Cambridgeshire District Council is not the landowner and has no contractual /land ownership responsibilities/liabilities in relation to the decontamination and remediation works.  The District Council's legal responsibilities are limited to its two roles as  (i) Local Planning Authority in terms of it regulating the planning conditions, and (ii) in terms of its duty to inspect its area to detect any statutory nuisances and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate any complaint of a statutory nuisance.

“The long-term responsibility will remain with the landowner carrying out the decontamination and remediation works.  Once the remediation process is complete there will be a minimum of at least six months monitoring to ensure that the works have been successful.  At the end of this period Atkins will submit a full report to the Council detailing the works undertaken and the results of all sampling and analysis undertaken to verify the achievement of the target levels.  Approval of this Verification Report does not give 100% guarantee that everything is OK.  That responsibility remains with the landowner and with the authors of the Report.  If any initial Verification Report does not demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation works, and the Council is not satisfied, it will not be approved and no residential development will be permitted until a Verification Report is produced which does demonstrate the necessary effectiveness.”

Ms Bland asked, as her supplementary question, "What kind of insurance policy does the Council have and does it provide for claims against individual councillors?"

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied that, as previously stated, the Council was not the landowner and the responsibility remained with the landowner and the remediation works provider.

In their Remediation Method Statement discussing “Contaminants of concern” Vertase noted:

(A) The recommended targets produced by Atkins are certainly protective of all identified receptors …. However, for the avoidance of doubt we do not believe these targets are achievable through the use of readily available and commercially viable remediation technologies or without significant export of contaminated materials off site. (Page 60, Section 18.1)

(B) It does mean that some material will be replaced at the site that does not meet the present generic criteria  (Page 14, Section 6.4).

Which are, and what is the nature of the chemicals that cannot be remediated -  or not to the target levels - and so will be replaced and, more importantly, what measures  will be taken to isolate them to ensure the safety of humans and groundwater?

From Dr Charles Turner on behalf of the Cam Valley Forum to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“In their Remediation Method Statement discussing “Contaminants of concern” Vertase noted:

“(A) The recommended targets produced by Atkins are certainly protective of all identified receptors …. However, for the avoidance of doubt we do not believe these targets are achievable through the use of readily available and commercially viable remediation technologies or without significant export of contaminated materials off site. (Page 60, Section 18.1)

“(B) It does mean that some material will be replaced at the site that does not meet the present generic criteria  (Page 14, Section 6.4).

“Which are, and what is the nature of the chemicals that cannot be remediated -  or not to the target levels - and so will be replaced and, more importantly, what measures  will be taken to isolate them to ensure the safety of humans and groundwater?”

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “The statements quoted from the Remediation Method Statement need to be read in the context of the sections from which they have been taken.  These sections set out the possibility of reviewing the numbers that were used for the computer model to calculate the target levels for remediation. The numbers currently used are very conservative estimates, however, through the excavation and remediation process more accurate numbers will be measured on site and these can be used in the models to produce new targets.

“Any proposed changes to the remediation targets following such a review of the computer model would have to be submitted and agreed as set out in condition 2 of the planning consent.

“The Remediation Method Statement correctly identifies that some contaminants are more treatable than others.  South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency will not accept the replacement of any soil that does not comply with agreed remedial targets.  Any soils that, after extensive treatment, still have contaminant concentrations exceeding the agreed targets will need to be exported off site to a suitable licensed landfill.  This is covered in the Remediation Method Statement to ensure that the treatment of excavated soil is comprehensive and that there is an appropriate option for all material that may be found on site.”

Dr Turner asked, as a supplementary question, "So you don't know whether there is a material that cannot be remediated?", to which the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied that the Council did not.

Dr Turner further asked, "In a letter to the Council from GTA Grimley in a report to Natural England, the cover system was designed to be protective to human health and must not be breached.  In a response from Claire Sproats, the human health targets are limited to the top 1 metre.  There must be some materials affecting human health and getting into the drainage system - do you regard as satisfactory the solution / remediation strategy which accepts that there are contaminants underneath and a cover on top?"  The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder promised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30f

As the owner of the old gravel pit site opposite the former Bayer site at Hauxton, I have serious concern for those who work here. They are exposed all day to the obnoxious smells and volatile chemicals in the air since remediation commenced in March.

My daughter, Jackie Williams, proprietor of the Organic Health shop on our site, has had to be rushed to hospital on three occasions with severe breathing difficulties. She has never suffered breathing difficulties in her life before but occupational asthma has now been diagnosed and I am very concerned about her future health. She has had to close her shop as she is advised by the hospital doctors to keep away from the area.

Mr and Mrs Noble run Cambridge Farm Machinery Company. They and their employees suffer symptoms such as sore throats and dry coughs, headaches, tingling lips and numb tongues. Much work on modern agricultural machinery needs to be done outside. However they are driven to operate in the workshop with the roller doors shut.

At home in the village they, like so many residents of Hauxton, have to keep windows closed and are unable to sit in the garden.

They are expected to exist like this for another 15 months.

Would members of the South Cambridgeshire District Council tolerate these living and working conditions for themselves and their families?

From William Garfit, resident of Harlton, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“As the owner of the old gravel pit site opposite the former Bayer site at Hauxton, I have serious concern for those who work here. They are exposed all day to the obnoxious smells and volatile chemicals in the air since remediation commenced in March.

“My daughter, Jackie Williams, proprietor of the Organic Health shop on our site, has had to be rushed to hospital on three occasions with severe breathing difficulties. She has never suffered breathing difficulties in her life before but occupational asthma has now been diagnosed and I am very concerned about her future health. She has had to close her shop as she is advised by the hospital doctors to keep away from the area.

“Mr and Mrs Noble run Cambridge Farm Machinery Company. They and their employees suffer symptoms such as sore throats and dry coughs, headaches, tingling lips and numb tongues. Much work on modern agricultural machinery needs to be done outside. However they are driven to operate in the workshop with the roller doors shut.

“At home in the village they, like so many residents of Hauxton, have to keep windows closed and are unable to sit in the garden.

“They are expected to exist like this for another 15 months.

“Would members of the South Cambridgeshire District Council tolerate these living and working conditions for themselves and their families?”

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “I acknowledge that residents appear to be affected by the remediation process and the Council continues to work with all organisations involved to do everything possible to reduce the odours from the site.

“The issue of asthma isn't a straightforward one and the HPA cannot comment on individual cases. However, in general it remains the HPA’s opinion that there is no reason to suspect emissions from the remediation works at Hauxton are sufficient to cause asthma. In individuals with pre-existing asthma, episodes can be triggered by contaminants in the air. Such contaminants might include volatile organic substances or odours but any effect would depend upon their chemical composition, the levels and duration of exposure and an individual's sensitivity to odour. The main substances of concern for asthma triggers are allergens and irritant gases, which are present in the air from a variety of sources including natural and human activities. It is unlikely that emissions from the remedial works at Hauxton would trigger asthma. It is likely that other potential sources of asthma triggers (e.g. plant pollen, traffic) are more important factors.”

Mr Garfit indicated that he did not accept the Portfolio Holder’s answer as a response to his question and, as a supplementary question, asked, "Open remediation is not appropriate.  I invite the Leader and Deputy Leader to visit Hauxton and the homes of those affected.  If SCDC officers lived there, would you tolerate these conditions?  I repeat my invitation: would you and the Council be happy to live and work in these conditions?"

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30g

The council has said and written much about working to ensure its residents have a good quality of life by looking after them, and their environment.

Its constitution claims that it is "committed to ensuring that South Cambridgeshire continues to be a safe and healthy place for you and your family".

It has powers to stop this nuisance to its residents' quality of life.  Why is it not doing so?

From Martin Goldman, resident of Great Shelford, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder “South Cambridgeshire District Council granted a licence for the so-called remediation at the Hauxton Bayer Crop Science site and consulted residents in Hauxton and Harston.  In this matter, it did not consult or inform people in Grantchester, Barton, Coton, Haslingfield, Newton, Whittlesford, Stapleford, The Shelfords, Trumpington, south Cambridge and further afield.”

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “For any planning application, this Council has a duty to consult owners of adjoining land, either directly or by the posting of a notice on site. In addition the practice is that it consults with the relevant Parish Council where the site lies within its area. Consultations for the remediation application included the Parish Councils of Hauxton, Haslingfield, Great Shelford and Harston who were identified as the immediate neighbours.  Four site notices were erected around the site and publication put in two places in the Cambridge Evening News on 19th December 2006.  Both the remediation and development application were discussed in planning committee on two occasions and public minutes were published following these meetings.“

Mr Goldman asked, as his supplementary question, “The council has said and written much about working to ensure its residents have a good quality of life by looking after them, and their environment.

“Its constitution claims that it is "committed to ensuring that South Cambridgeshire continues to be a safe and healthy place for you and your family".

“It has powers to stop this nuisance to its residents' quality of life.  Why is it not doing so?”

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “South Cambridgeshire District Council has powers available to it in respect of statutory nuisance.  We can only operate within the regulatory framework which requires us to make our judgements on the ordinary normal person.   When investigating any complaint of disturbance, several factors need careful consideration by the Environmental Health Officer in determining whether the source is likely to constitute a statutory nuisance. Considerations to which the test of an ordinary normal person will be applied include location, time, duration, frequency, convention, importance to the community of activity and difficulty in avoiding external effects of activity.

Investigations have been undertaken at locations where complaints have been received, at all times of the working day during variable weather conditions, as well as early in the morning, at night and on weekends.  If a statutory nuisance is established then South Cambridgeshire District Council must serve an abatement notice in accordance with the council’s enforcement policy. However the Council is limited to the extent of enforcement action we can take at Hauxton due to the existence of the environmental permit.  Any enforcement action for statutory nuisance would have to be approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment, as the primary enforcement body is the Environment Agency in its regulation of the environmental permit.

In the last fortnight I have asked for officers to undertake a review of the evidence of nuisance in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30h

I was surprised to see that the Council and other public bodies are sharing a website with the contractors carrying out the remediation work, rather than taking a more detached and regulatory stance.   It also appears that the contractors are doing their own monitoring.  Are these normal practices, and if so, how do the public bodies confirm that the measurements made by the contractor are done correctly? 

From Linda Whitebread on behalf of the South Cambridgeshire Green Party to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder: “I was surprised to see that the Council and other public bodies are sharing a website with the contractors carrying out the remediation work, rather than taking a more detached and regulatory stance.   It also appears that the contractors are doing their own monitoring.  Are these normal practices, and if so, how do the public bodies confirm that the measurements made by the contractor are done correctly?”

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “The website you refer to is hosted and controlled by this Council as a means of providing information about the Bayer site to local residents. Whilst the developer and contractor share information, such as site photographs etc, they have their own web pages in relation to the site through their respective company’s websites.

“It is normal practice for contractors to monitor their own work and this is a requirement of their Environmental Permit, which is regulated by the Environment Agency. The monitoring is verified by Atkins as an independent consultant and all of the analysis is carried out at an independent and accredited laboratory. All of the results are provided to this Council, the Environment Agency and the HPA for review, in addition they are all published on the dedicated website.  SCDC and the Environment Agency also carry out random visits to monitor and validate procedures as well as any complaints.“

Ms Whitebread asked, as her supplementary question, “All agree that the land needs to be cleaned up and it is a legitimate of the Council to require the developer to make sure the work is done before permission is granted to build houses.  However, we are not happy with the shared website.  It creates a conflict of interests.  It is unfortunate to say that Council officers are working closely with contractors and are happy with the spot checks.  The perception is that the Council is hand-in-glove with the developers.  Will the Council consider detaching itself from the developers, using a separate website with a link to the contractor?"

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder noted Ms Whitebread’s concerns and said that the Council was willing to consider these suggestions and would see if it were practical for all concerned to implement.

As the owner of an organic food business in Church Road, Hauxton who has had to go to A&E twice in May and be seen by paramedics on a third occaision with breathing problems confirmed by A&E Doctors as being due to chemical inhilation, I would like S.C.D.C. to tell me if they consider the cocktail of chemicals being released from the Bayer Site to be safe for a pregnant woman to breath in approximately 48 hours per week?  I am particularly concerned about research that shows that in some instances two toxic chemicals mixed together can be one thousand times more toxic than one of the original chemicals.  Please bear this in mind before commenting on the safety of an unborn child.

From Jackie Williams, resident of Little Eversden, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder: "As the owner of an organic food business in Church Road, Hauxton who has had to go to A&E twice in May and be seen by paramedics on a third occaision with breathing problems confirmed by A&E Doctors as being due to chemical inhilation, I would like S.C.D.C. to tell me if they consider the cocktail of chemicals being released from the Bayer Site to be safe for a pregnant woman to breath in approximately 48 hours per week?  I am particularly concerned about research that shows that in some instances two toxic chemicals mixed together can be one thousand times more toxic than one of the original chemicals.  Please bear this in mind before commenting on the safety of an unborn child."

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “The Health Protection Agency has advised us that they do not expect an appreciable increase in the risk of cancers or birth defects to be caused by emissions from the remediation activities at this site.  Their assessment is based on the results of air monitoring data at the site boundary.  The current scientific view is that the probability of any health risk from exposure to mixtures of chemicals present at low levels is likely to be small. Furthermore, when there is exposure to multiple chemicals that cause toxicity in the same way, the combined effects are likely to be no greater than the additive effect. Only two chemicals, toluene and tetrachloroethylene have consistently been detected by the monthly monitoring at the site boundary. Even if these two chemicals were to cause toxicity in the same way, there would be no reason to expect adverse health effects, since the levels detected are many times below the levels required to cause ill health.

“I have been advised that the multi agency group working on the management of Hauxton issues remain open to receiving any relevant evidence to the contrary of this opinion.”

Ms Williams asked, as her supplementary question, "We keep getting told that the chemicals are safe and there are no side effects.  I have twice been to A&E and 1 time seen by paramedics: I do not consider this safe.  Would you take such risks?"

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied that she was not qualified to answer personally, but that the Health Protection Agency (HPA) advice was that there was no risk that they were able to identify.

“I was concerned to read in the Cambridge News that Dr Bard had decided to slow down even further the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan document (GTDPD). Policies on provision for this sizeable minority of the residents of South Cambs are referred to in our main LDF documents which were adopted many years ago now. We have looked into the needs of local Gypsies and Travellers at local and regional level to justify with evidence the numbers of pitches we were going to have to provide, just on the basis of families growing up and getting independent plots of their own. We know that the trajectory of new plots required was 69 from 2006 to 2011, another 27 up to 2016 and a further 31 to 2021 under the slimmed-down figures. As the RSS has now been abolished and neighbouring authorities in the East of England are now not having to make provision the need will be greater, perhaps up to half as much again.

“We have given permanent consent to 40 I know of, or perhaps a few more, up to now. There is also temporary consent to around 60 plots, many of them in Milton ward, and the GTDPD is now unlikely to be adopted in time for the end of the temporary permissions which have been given.

“Travellers have a justified expectation that this authority should have a proper policy, and tell them once and for all whether they can expect to be able to stay on their own land. Planning applications are increasingly likely to succeed on appeal, the longer we are without a credible strategy for providing for this community's needs. What is the administration's plan for the policy in this area?”

From Councillor Hazel Smith to the New Communities Portfolio Holder: “I was concerned to read in the Cambridge News that Dr Bard had decided to slow down even further the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan document (GTDPD). Policies on provision for this sizeable minority of the residents of South Cambs are referred to in our main LDF documents which were adopted many years ago now. We have looked into the needs of local Gypsies and Travellers at local and regional level to justify with evidence the numbers of pitches we were going to have to provide, just on the basis of families growing up and getting independent plots of their own. We know that the trajectory of new plots required was 69 from 2006 to 2011, another 27 up to 2016 and a further 31 to 2021 under the slimmed-down figures. As the RSS has now been abolished and neighbouring authorities in the East of England are now not having to make provision the need will be greater, perhaps up to half as much again.

“We have given permanent consent to 40 I know of, or perhaps a few more, up to now. There is also temporary consent to around 60 plots, many of them in Milton ward, and the GTDPD is now unlikely to be adopted in time for the end of the temporary permissions which have been given.

“Travellers have a justified expectation that this authority should have a proper policy, and tell them once and for all whether they can expect to be able to stay on their own land. Planning applications are increasingly likely to succeed on appeal, the longer we are without a credible strategy for providing for this community's needs. What is the administration's plan for the policy in this area?”

Councillor David Bard, New Communities Portfolio Holder, replied, “I am well aware of the importance of planning for the needs of our Gypsies and Travellers, who account for 1% of South Cambs population.  The Council has been working for some time on the preparation of a Gypsy and Traveller DPD in view of the level of need for new pitches in the district, and two rounds of public consultation have already been undertaken.

“Unfortunately, just as we were making progress towards a further round of consultation leading to the preparation of a draft DPD, the significant changes being made by the new Government have meant that we have had to slow down that work.  It is unfortunate, but there are good reasons for it.

“Members will recall that the Gypsy and Traveller DPD was aiming to meet the targets for pitch numbers set out in the East of England Plan. Members will also know that on 6th July, regional spatial strategies were revoked by the Secretary of State, meaning that they no longer form part of the development plan.  As a consequence, we do not currently have an agreed target to provide for and it will be for the District  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30k

“Would the Portfolio holder please advise Council what the Administration's position is on Local Enterprise Partnerships? In particular I am interested to know with whom the Council expects to work; what the anticipated timeline for this is and what discussions have so far taken place."

From Councillor Sebastian Kindersley to the Planning Portfolio Holder: “Would the Portfolio holder please advise Council what the Administration's position is on Local Enterprise Partnerships? In particular I am interested to know with whom the Council expects to work; what the anticipated timeline for this is and what discussions have so far taken place."

Councillor Nick Wright, Planning Portfolio Holder replied, “On 29th June, the Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and for Communities and Local Government wrote to local authorities and business leaders requesting outline proposals from partnerships of local authorities and businesses for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP’s) by 6 September. 

“The Government’s stated expectation is that Local Enterprise Partnerships will be about setting the right conditions for growth and business, tackling issues such as planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure priorities, employment and enterprise and the transition of the low carbon economy.  Supporting small business start-ups will be important.  The Government has also said that Partnerships will work closely with academic institutions and that tourism will be important in some areas. 

“It is expected that Partnerships will focus on supporting and enabling the private sector.

“The Council expects to work with the city council, the county council, the business and academic communities (especially these two) to submit a proposal for a LEP by 6 September.  Discussions with these and other parties is ongoing, with the next high level meeting arranged for 28 July.”

Councillor Kindersley asked, as his supplementary question, "If we are to be fully behind our own LEP, you need to engage all members now – will you assure members that this will not be Making Cambridgeshire Count v2?"

Councillor Wright replied that the proposal had been around for several months now and it had seemed appropriate to Cabinet to involve SCDC, Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, the University of Cambridge and local businesses as the highest level of growth in the County was in these areas and not in neighbouring Cambridgeshire districts.  The Secretary of State was now suggesting that Cambridgeshire County Council work with other County Councils across the sub-region from Peterborough to Stansted.

“Will the Portfolio Holder please tell us how it is possible that an upgrade of a perfectly-functioning planning website, on which many Parish Councillors rely to fulfil their duties, can take over three weeks rather than the three milliseconds which switching systems in the 21^st century would normally be expected to take?”

From Councillor Douglas de Lacey to the Planning Portfolio Holder: “Will the Portfolio Holder please tell us how it is possible that an upgrade of a perfectly-functioning planning website, on which many Parish Councillors rely to fulfil their duties, can take over three weeks rather than the three milliseconds which switching systems in the 21st century would normally be expected to take?”

Councillor Nick Wright, Planning Portfolio Holder replied, “I agree that the changing or switching of websites takes but a moment. However the work being undertaken is much more than this and involves the closure of the existing planning database, the extraction of data and all related records back to 1948. This was then sent to our new supplier Swift LG where the data has been converted for import back into the new planning system.

“This work was scheduled to take two weeks and I can confirm it has been completed successfully. Testing of the data has taken place and the system went live on Monday.

“The planning service is acutely aware of the disruption to customers and has minimised this by clear scheduling of work and taking mitigating actions including interim working arrangements that allow members to be kept up to date with records of submitted applications, whilst at the same time publishing as much information as possible to the public. Please note that:

·                      All records that existed on the website prior to 2nd July have been fully maintained on the site, including notifications of decisions and details of any amendments. Only new applications were not appearing.

·                      For new applications, staff were validating these applications manually and creating a list that was regularly circulated to members via email. As soon as the new system was available, staff commenced uploading these applications so that they are available on the new search page as soon as it is turned on, which will be by the 26th July at the latest. Newly received applications are also being entered simultaneously to ensure no continuing delay to application detail availability.

·                      Parish Councils were informed of the planned procedure at the forum held on 14th June, prior to the transition commencing and although there were some concerns, in general Parish Councils expressed understanding, because the manual system was to be introduced.

·                      Periods for consultations are unaffected by the transition between systems.

·                      Work to connect the new database with the new Swift webpages is underway and we expect to be live in the next day or two.“

Councillor de Lacey felt that this response did not address his question sufficiently and asked for further technical explanations, for example, why one database was shut down before another was opened, and was promised a written response.

“Could the portfolio holder explain to members what this council’s policy is now regarding housing provision numbers given, that the Regional Spatial Strategy policy has now been abolished?”

From Councillor Jose Hales to the New Communities Portfolio Holder: “Could the portfolio holder explain to members what this council’s policy is now regarding housing provision numbers given, that the Regional Spatial Strategy policy has now been abolished?”

Councillor David Bard, New Communities Portfolio Holder, replied, “Shortly after the Secretary of State abolished the Regional Spatial Strategies for England, this question was answered in part by the Chief Planning Officer at the Department for Communities & Local Government who wrote to all local planning authorities to explain the practical implications of the Secretary of State’s decision and to provide guidance on how local planning authorities should proceed during the transitional period before the government’s new planning system comes into effect at the end of 2011.  The Chief Planning Officer’s letter was put on the Council’s website on day it was received – 6th July.

“In reply to the question, the letter explains that the planning policies which will remain in force are the Council’s adopted Development Plan Documents and the saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003.  The housing numbers that do apply are now only to be found in the Council’s Core Strategy which was adopted in January 2007 (20,000 homes 1999 – 2016), pre-dating the Regional Spatial Strategy which was not adopted until May 2008 (23,500 homes 2001 – 2021).

“This information and the links to both the Council’s Core Strategy and the Structure Plan ‘saved policies’ are on the Council’s website and this information was included in the July Planning Policy Update which is sent to all Parish Councils and to members.

“The housing numbers in our Core Strategy are based on the 2003 Structure Plan which was developed locally and endorsed by all of the Districts as well as the County Council.  Those housing numbers were produced by local forecasts of the growth of the local economy and local population and are the houses that we all agreed would be needed to ensure the continued prosperity of the area and to stop houses becoming unaffordable to more local people.  Based on those housing numbers we have an agreed development strategy which all Councils in Cambridgeshire have signed up to and, through the Joint Development Control Committees, we are actively delivering

“Looking to the future once the new local planning system is in place, housing numbers will be found in the new style Local Plans and will be based once more on forecasts of prospects for our local economy and population growth.  We are already working with partners to begin the developing the evidence needed and I am looking forward to working with our local communities to develop the new local plans.”

Councillor Hales asked the Portfolio Holder if this would offer comfort to South Cambridgeshire residents still awaiting affordable housing.  The Portfolio Holder replied that the growth agenda had been ambitious and that there had been some slippage due to the economy from what was envisaged in the original plan.  Major sites were now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30n

To note all petitions received since the last Council meeting.

No petitions had been received since the previous Council meeting.

The Standards Committee unanimously RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL adoption of the amendments made to Article 9 of the Constitution (The Standards Committee), as set out in the second column of the attached table.

Council RESOLVED to adopt the amendments to Article 9 – The Standards Committee as set out in the second column of the table attached to the Council agenda. 

Councillor Tony Orgee proposed and Councillor Ray Manning seconded that the amendments to Article 9 be adopted. 

Council RESOLVED to adopt the amendments to Article 9 – The Standards Committee as set out in the second column of the table attached to the Council agenda. 

The Housing Portfolio Holder made a personal response (attached) to the consultation prospectus on the government’s proposal to replace the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Subsidy System, which offered this authority to take on £197 million of debt incurred by other councils, in return for which the authority would be able to retain 100% of housing rent collected locally, noting that the views of full Council would be sought on 22 July 2010 and any additional matters raised would be forwarded to the government.

Council is asked TO ENDORSE the Housing Portfolio Holder’s response as the view of the authority and TO AGREE any further representations to be included.

Council REFUSED TO ENDORSE the Housing Portfolio Holder’s personal response to the government consultation and required officers to forward to the government the points raised at the Council meeting as the Council’s response.

Councillor Mark Howell proposed, seconded by Councillor Francis Burkitt, that Council endorse the Housing Portfolio Holder’s response as the view of the authority and agree any further representations to be included.

Councillor Mark Howell, Housing Portfolio Holder, presented his personal response to the government’s consultation on its review of Council Housing Finance, the deadline for which had been 6 July 2010.  He explained that the government was seeking to pass back the £25 billion housing debt it had accumulated from Councils across the country, a figure which also included debt taken on by the government when Council houses were transferred to Housing Associations.  Councillor Howell stated that he personally felt that it was unfair to ask the authority, currently debt-free, to take on a debt incurred elsewhere.  The proposed debt allocated South Cambridgeshire District Council was the second highest in the country, equivalent to £36,000 per dwelling.  Councillor Howell cautioned Members that a rejection of the government’s debt offer outright left the Council unable to try to negotiate a better settlement, and that the Council had been advised that it must accept the debt voluntarily or the government would pass primary legislation to impose it.  If Members were unable to support the Portfolio Holder’s individual response, the Chairman of Council would write to the government to say that the full Council had rejected the offer in its entirety.

Councillor Howell reminded Members that the response from tenants during the Housing Futures ballot had shown that tenants were unhappy at the proposed £80 million debt to be taken on by South Cambridgeshire Village Homes, but that the debt proposed by the government was now £197 million, rising to £206 million within the first five years due both to interest and to the government’s calculations which assumed that the authority had a higher rental income than it actually received.  Councillor Howell confirmed that Members had been aware of these reforms since April 2010, and that the amount originally told to the Council had been £154 million, then £168 million, before the final consultation paper had been received with its offer of a debt of £197 million.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley stated that the Liberal Democrat group would abstain as the information supplied was insufficient to allow them to form a view.  Councillor Howell reminded Members that a report had been presented at his 19 May 2010 Portfolio Holder meeting, at which the matter had been discussed thoroughly.  Councillor Howell added that what was before Council was a response to a consultation document and not the final result of negotiations.

Councillor Tony Orgee noted that the consultation papers had been available for public consultation from April to July 2010 and read aloud his personal representations.

Comments in support of the Portfolio Holder’s response:

·                      The Portfolio Holder had said that the Council supported in principle the move to a self-financing system for council housing, but opposed the imposition of such a significant debt incurred elsewhere as the price to be paid for that settlement;

·                      Only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32b

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that:

(a)               direction be sought from the Secretary of State (under section 74 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) that the Council’s residual interest in properties disposed of under pre-2006 equity share leases be removed from the Housing Revenue Account and transferred to the General Fund; and

(b)               an increase of £1,000,000 to the 2010/11 Capital Programme be approved for the re-purchase of equity share properties funded from either:

(i)                 capital receipts (up to 100% assuming that the direction at (a) is granted); or

(ii)                the balance from an increase in the Council’s borrowing limits.

Council RESOLVED that:

(a)               direction be sought from the Secretary of State (under section 74 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) that the Council’s residual interest in properties disposed of under pre-2006 equity share leases be removed from the Housing Revenue Account and transferred to the General Fund; and

(b)               an increase of £1,000,000 to the 2010/11 Capital Programme be approved for the re-purchase of equity share properties funded from either:

(i)                 capital receipts (up to 100% assuming that the direction at (a) is granted); or

(ii)                the balance from an increase in the Council’s borrowing limits.

Councillor Simon Edwards, Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, explained that Cabinet’s recommendations for managing the shortfall in resources caused by the requirement for the authority to re-purchase properties disposed of under equity share leases entered into prior to 2006.  Councillor Edwards explained that the proposals reflected the tenants’ preference, as expressed during the Housing Futures ballot, for Council houses remaining with the Council, and therefore Cabinet had rejected the option to transfer to a Housing Association vacant properties with pre-2006 equity share leases.  Concerns were expressed at the absence of any indication from the government whether or not the Secretary of State would be minded to grant a direction to exempt the Council from capital receipts pooling of its residual interest in properties with pre-2006 equity share leases.

On the proposal of Councillor Edwards, seconded by Councillor Mark Howell, Council RESOLVED that:

(a)               direction be sought from the Secretary of State (under section 74 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) that the Council’s residual interest in properties disposed of under pre-2006 equity share leases be removed from the Housing Revenue Account and transferred to the General Fund; and

(b)               an increase of £1,000,000 to the 2010/11 Capital Programme be approved for the re-purchase of equity share properties funded from either:

(i)                 capital receipts (up to 100% assuming that the direction at (a) is granted); or

(ii)                the balance from an increase in the Council’s borrowing limits.

The Constitution Review Working Party has been asked to make the following recommendations to Council at the Working Party’s 22 July 2010 meeting:

Definitions

That Council add to the Definitions section of the Constitution, the following definitions of a whip and of a decision:

·                      "Whip: Any instruction given by or on behalf of a political group to any councillor who is a member of that group as to how that councillor shall speak or vote on any matter before the Council or any committee or sub-committee, or the application or threat to apply sanction by the group in respect of that councillor should he / she speak or vote in any particular matter"

·                      "Decision: A decision is when an issue is ultimately decided by the appropriate decision-maker.  A recommendation is not a decision.”

Scrutiny and Overview Committee Procedure Rules

That Council amend the Scrutiny and Overview Committee Procedure Rules as follows:

·                      Paragraph 12.1: “Call-in … can relate only to executive decisions made or to be made by the executive decision takers …”.

·                      Paragraph 12.9: “If, having considered the decision, the Scrutiny and Overview Committee is concerned about it or agrees that the decision is a departure, it may take one of the following courses:

12.9.1    “refer the decision back to the executive decision taker for re-consideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns. If referred back, the executive decision taker shall then re-consider within five working days, amending the decision or not, before adopting a final decision. If the decision had been made before call-in, it , which may be implemented immediately [providing clarification and making this paragraph consistent with paragraph 12.13.2];

12.9.2    “refer the matter to Council, unless the executive decision-taker has indicated a preparedness to reconsider the matter [note: scrutiny committees have a statutory right to refer a matter to Council if they wish]; or

12.9.3    “not refer the matter back or to Council, in which case the decision if made may be implemented immediately following the Scrutiny and Overview Committee meeting”

Any amendments or additions to these recommendations will be reported orally at Council.

This item was REFERRED back to the Constitution Review Working Party for further consideration. 

Councillor Charlie Nightingale, Chairman of the Constitution Review Working Party, proposed, seconded by Councillor James Hockney, Scrutiny and Overview Committee Chairman, that Council adopt the amendments to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee Procedure Rules and related Definitions.  Councillor Sebastian Kindersley expressed concern that the proposed amendments to the call-in procedure at paragraphs 12.1 and 12.9.1 removed from the Committee the right to pre-scrutinise issues, and commented that Councillor Jim Stewart had not been present at the Constitution Review Working Party meeting and therefore the Liberal Democrat Group had not had any representation.  

Councillors Nightingale and Hockney WITHDREW their motion to invite more members to participate in reviewing the proposed changes and this item was REFERRED back to the Constitution Review Working Party for further consideration. 

The Constitution Review Working Party has been asked to recommend to Council, at the Working Party’s 22 July 2010 meeting, the amendments in the attached document.  Any alterations to these recommendations will be reported orally at Council.

This item was REFERRED back to the Constitution Review Working Party for further consideration. 

This item was REFERRED back to the Constitution Review Working Party for further consideration. 

This item may require the Chairman to exclude the public on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

Council UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that:

(a)               Jean Hunter, currently Chief Executive of South Ribble Borough Council, be appointed Chief Executive Officer, Head of Paid Service, Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer for South Cambridgeshire District Council;

(b)               the offer of employment be subject to two exemplary references, medical clearance and eligibility checks in accordance with the Council’s policies. These checks have now been completed and references have been received;

(c)               the appointment commence on a date to be mutually agreed, taking account of any contractual notice period that will need to be served at South Ribble Borough Council;

(d)               the salary offered be £120,000 per annum.  There will be no other financial benefits offered with the appointment and no relocation package, with the exception of Returning Officer fees; and

(e)               the appointment be subject to a 6 month probation period.

Council further UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that:

(f)                 Steve Hampson, currently Executive Director (Operational Services), be appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer, Head of the Paid Service, Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer from 1^st September 2010 until such time that Jean Hunter takes up the Chief Executive post permanently;

(g)               Fiona McMillan, Acting Legal & Democratic Services Manager, be appointed Acting Monitoring Officer from 1^st September 2010 until such time that Jean Hunter takes up the Chief Executive post permanently; and

(h)               that remuneration for the interim arrangements be delegated to the Leader and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder.

Steve Hampson, Executive Director (Operational Services) and Fiona McMillan, Acting Legal and Democratic Services Manager, left the Chamber for the duration of this item.

Councillor Simon Edwards, as Chairman of the Appointments Panel of the Employment Committee, commended the response received to the advertisement and the number of superb candidates who applied.  The Appointments Panel’s recommendation of Jean Hunter had been unanimous.

Council UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that:

(a)               Jean Hunter, currently Chief Executive of South Ribble Borough Council, be appointed Chief Executive Officer, Head of Paid Service, Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer for South Cambridgeshire District Council;

(b)               the offer of employment be subject to two exemplary references, medical clearance and eligibility checks in accordance with the Council’s policies;

(c)               the appointment commence on a date to be mutually agreed, taking account of any contractual notice period that will need to be served at South Ribble Borough Council;

(d)               the salary offered be £120,000 per annum.  There will be no other financial benefits offered with the appointment and no relocation package, with the exception of Returning Officer fees; and

(e)               the appointment be subject to a 6 month probation period.

Council further UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that:

(f)                 Steve Hampson, currently Executive Director (Operational Services), be appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer, Head of the Paid Service, Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer from 1^st September 2010 until such time that Jean Hunter takes up the Chief Executive post permanently;

(g)               Fiona McMillan, Acting Legal & Democratic Services Manager, be appointed Acting Monitoring Officer from 1^st September 2010 until such time that Jean Hunter takes up the Chief Executive post permanently; and

(h)               that remuneration for the interim arrangements be delegated to the Leader and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder.

Councillor Manning thanked all the Appointments Panel members for their hard work.

The plan is available on the Council’s website at www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings

Hard copies of the report and plan will be provided by Democratic Services if requested no later than 48 hours before the Council meeting date.

Council RESOLVED to adopt the Food Safety Service Plan 2010/11. 

Council congratulated officers on the new Scores on the Doors Elite award and RESOLVED to adopt the Food Safety Service Plan 2010/11. 

Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council have agreed these amendments at their Council meetings on, respectively, 30 March 2010 and 22 April 2010. The terms of reference will come into effect when all three Councils have agreed them.

The maps are available on the Council’s website at www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings

Hard copies will be provided by Democratic Services if requested no later than 48 hours before the Council meeting date. 

Council RESOLVED:

(a)               to approve the amended Terms of Reference for the Cambridge Fringes Joint Development Control Committee as included in Appendix A to the report; and

(b)               that the Terms of Reference for the Joint Development Control Committee be kept under review and any proposals for revision be brought back to Council when appropriate.

Councillor David Bard, New Communities Portfolio Holder, presented the revised Terms of Reference for the Cambridge Fringes Joint Development Control Committee, amendments to which had been proposed to include the extended NIAB site, as set out in the relevant Site Specific Policy of the Development Plan Document, within the Joint Development Control Committee responsibilities.  The revisions had already been adopted by Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council, and would come into effect only once all three authorities had agreed to adopt them.

Councillors Tom Bygott and Douglas de Lacey opposed the revised site boundaries as development on the site could see Girton parish become part of Cambridge City, preferring to keep development control of the site solely the responsibility of South Cambridgeshire District Council.  Members noted that rejecting the amendments would require further consultation, delaying the delivery of sites for which applications were expected this year.

Councillor Ben Shelton proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Tom Bygott, that only South Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire County Councillors have voting rights for development on the NIAB2 site.  Forty-six members registered their presence to vote and, with 14 in favour, 31 against and 1 abstention, the amended motion was REJECTED.

Councillor Bard confirmed that additional lands would be included to allow for landscaping proposals, such as Councillor Bygott’s proposed woodlands or country park between Girton and Cambridge, as well as some of the surface drainage works.  He cautioned that rejecting the revisions would demonstrate to the Council’s partners that this authority was unwilling to work in partnership.

Forty-six members registered their presence to vote and, with 33 in favour, 13 against and no abstentions, Council RESOLVED:

(a)               to approve the amended Terms of Reference for the Cambridge Fringes Joint Development Control Committee as included in Appendix A to the report; and

(b)               that the Terms of Reference for the Joint Development Control Committee be kept under review and any proposals for revision be brought back to Council when appropriate.

During debate on the previous item and in accordance with Council Standing Order 13(d), Council RESOLVED that the meeting continue beyond four hours in duration. 

Council RESOLVED to adopt the provisions of Section 64 of the Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847.

On the proposal of Councillor Nick Wright, seconded by Councillor Pippa Corney, Council RESOLVED to adopt the provisions of Section 64 of the Town Improvement Clauses Act 1847.

Council RESOLVED

(a)               to co-opt Mrs Diane Best, Mr Raith Overhill and Mr Eric Revell to the Standards Committee as Independent Members for four years, 2010-14; and

(b)               formally to thank Ms Georgina Butcher, Independent Member 2006-10 and Chairman 2008/09, and Councillor David Kelleway, Parish Council Member 2006-10, for their contribution to the Standards Committee and service to the residents of South Cambridgeshire.

Councillor Tony Orgee noted that Councillor Iain Booth of Cambourne Parish Council had been elected to fill the Parish Member vacancy, but had had to withdraw due to new work commitments, and so a further election would be held to fill the vacancy.

On the proposal of Councillor Tony Orgee, seconded by Councillor Ray Manning, Council RESOLVED

(a)               to co-opt Mrs Diane Best, Mr Raith Overhill and Mr Eric Revell to the Standards Committee as Independent Members for four years, 2010-14; and

(b)               formally to thank Ms Georgina Butcher, Independent Member 2006-10 and Chairman 2008/09, and Councillor David Kelleway, Parish Council Member 2006-10, for their contribution to the Standards Committee and service to the residents of South Cambridgeshire.

Councillor Frances Amrani reported on the recent opening by the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, of the new Cambridge Citizens’ Advice Bureau on Devonshire Street, which she had attended with Councillor Charlie Nightingale.  The new premises would be open to the public on 26 July and the contact telephone numbers remained unchanged.

This Council publicly recognises the unique contribution that the Marshall Group has made to South Cambridgeshire for more than 100 years, both in economic terms by the provision of local employment opportunities and the supply of goods and services, but also by its direct and indirect investment in the local community, and calls upon the Chairman and Chief Executive to mark this special relationship in the form of a commemorative illuminated scroll.

Councillor Ray Manning, seconded by Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, moved that “This Council publicly recognises the unique contribution that the Marshall Group has made to South Cambridgeshire for more than 100 years, both in economic terms by the provision of local employment opportunities and the supply of goods and services, but also by its direct and indirect investment in the local community, and calls upon the Chairman and Chief Executive to mark this special relationship in the form of a commemorative illuminated scroll.”

Council unanimously RESOLVED to approve the above Motion.

Councillor Ray Manning, seconded by Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, moved that “This Council publicly recognises the unique contribution that the Marshall Group has made to South Cambridgeshire for more than 100 years, both in economic terms by the provision of local employment opportunities and the supply of goods and services, but also by its direct and indirect investment in the local community, and calls upon the Chairman and Chief Executive to mark this special relationship in the form of a commemorative illuminated scroll.”

Councillor Manning spoke of the importance of the Marshall Group to the local economy and to the local people, providing employment, supporting schools and local charities, and being a good employer genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of its employees.  Councillor Kindersley highlighted the Marshall Group’s retention of its original engineering works and development of cutting edge technologies, commending its apprenticeship scheme as a model for other companies to follow.  Many Members echoed these statements and offered personal remembrances of the Marshall Group.

Mr Jonathan Barker, company secretary for the Marshall Group, addressed the Council, was present at the meeting and received Members’ gratitude for his personal efforts on behalf of the authority.  He addressed the Council, thanking Members for their comments, for which he was grateful, and offered his thanks to Members and officers for their work in the community.  He spoke of the more than four thousand Marshall Group employees worldwide and their families, their importance to the company and their gratitude to the Council for recognising their contribution to South Cambridgeshire.

Council unanimously RESOLVED to approve the above Motion.

This Council agrees to immediately cancel the competitive tendering exercise for Responsive Repairs on the basis that the exercise is costing this Council money unnecessarily and destabilising a profitable arm of the Council.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, seconded by Councillor Liz Heazell, moved that “This Council agrees to immediately cancel the competitive tendering exercise for Responsive Repairs on the basis that the exercise is costing this Council money unnecessarily and destabilising a profitable arm of the Council.”

On being put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, seconded by Councillor Liz Heazell, moved that “This Council agrees to immediately cancel the competitive tendering exercise for Responsive Repairs on the basis that the exercise is costing this Council money unnecessarily and destabilising a profitable arm of the Council.”

Councillor Kindersley expressed his dissatisfaction with the Cabinet decision on 12 November 2009 to proceed to tender, preferring that the service be retained in-house as it had proven successful.  He felt that the tender exercise had been unnecessary and a waste of council taxpayers’ money.

Councillor Mark Howell, Housing Portfolio Holder, explained that, although tenant satisfaction with the service was high, the Housing Futures papers had said that the service likely would be put to tender if the Council were to retain the housing stock.  A peer review of the housing service had supported putting the service out for tender, as had the Tenant Services Authority (TSA).  If the Council chose not to tender the service, it would have had to undergo an inspection by the Audit Commission and would have to demonstrate why it had not proceeded with the tender exercise; an Audit Commission inspection would cost the authority more than the tender exercise.  Councillor Howell also reminded Members that one-third of the service had been awarded to Cambridge City Council.  If the Council did not put all three contracts out to tender, it might have to transfer immediately all affected employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE).  Part of the revised tender documents would extend the contract length from two to five years, making it more attractive and potentially increasing the number of tenders received.

The motion was put to the vote.  Thirty-seven Members recorded their presence.  With 17 in favour, 19 against and 1 abstention, the motion was declared LOST.

Council requests and requires that written replies be provided for elected members and the public in answer to questions submitted at Council Meetings and that these answers be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 

This motion was WITHDRAWN and REFERRED to the Constitution Review Working Party as part of the review of public and Member questions at Council meetings. 

This motion was WITHDRAWN and REFERRED to the Constitution Review Working Party as part of the review of public and Member questions at Council meetings. 

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

The Chairman’s engagements since the previous Council meeting were NOTED.