Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest for items on this agenda.

Councillors Roger Hickford, Sebastian Kindersley, Mervyn Loynes, Ray Manning, Tony Orgee, Peter Topping and Susan van de Ven declared non-pecuniary interests in minute number 33(a) as Members of Cambridgeshire County Council.

Councillor Sue Ellington declared a non-disclosable pecuniary interest in minute number 33(b) as she owned a pest control business. 

Members are requested to inform Democratic Services of any changes in their Register of Members’ Financial and Other Interests form.

No changes were reported by Members with regard to their Register of Members’ Financial and Other Interests forms.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on the 23 May 2013 as a correct record.

The minutes of the previous meeting of Council held on 23 May 2013 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the amendment of a typographical error under minute number seven on page four. 

To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader, the Executive or the Head of Paid Service.

Councillor David Bard, Chairman of the Council, reported the death of former Councillor Paul Rayment, who passed away on 15 June 2013 aged 80.  Paul Rayment represented the Histon ward from 1995 to 1999.

Councillor Bard also reported the resignation of Sally Hatton as a District Councillor for the Sawston ward, which had been received on 3 June 2013, and took this opportunity to thank her for her contributions in her time with the Council. 

Jean Hunter, Chief Executive, provided Members with the results of the District Council by-election for the Sawston ward held on 18 July 2013.  The Council congratulated Councillor Kevin Cuffley on being elected and welcomed him to his first meeting.

Councillor Bard informed Council that the Parklife event would be held on Sunday 4 August 2013 and called for any volunteers to assist in stewarding on the day.

 To note that no questions from the public have been received.

No questions from the public had been received. 

To consider the following e-petition entitled ‘Proposed Submission Local Plan’, which received 306 signatures: -

“We petition the council to review the procedures and conclusions of South Cambridgeshire District Council's Proposed Submission Local Plan. We strongly object to the Plan and believe that in its current form it does not meet the tests for soundness on at least two counts and should be withdrawn for reassessment. Reasonable alternatives appear to have been rejected arbitrarily rendering the plan unjustifiable. In addition, the SHLAA process itself was fundamentally flawed because it placed SCDC in a passive role in which it has been limited to a selection from a list of candidate sites. In our view this is not a sound way to develop a local plan because SCDC has failed to take the strategic initiative. This again renders the Plan unjustifiable, and inconsistent with national policy.”

Mr Des O’Brien (petition organiser) will be in attendance to present the e-petition.

Councillor David Bard, Chairman of the Council, reported that an e-petition of 306 signatures had been received, which met the trigger for a petition to be debated at a meeting of the Council, entitled ‘Proposed Submission Local Plan’.

Fiona McMillan, the Legal and Democratic Services Manager, advised Members that the legislation governing petitions specifically excluded making a decision on a development plan document as the Government did not wish to duplicate where established procedures already existed for local communities to have their say, via the local plan consultation process.  However the council’s procedures for how the local plan process was delivered were within the scope of a valid petition according to guidance, but Council was informed that it should restrict its consideration of the matter to whether it believed due process had been followed rather than considering any particular site.”

Keith Miles, Planning Policy Manager, was invited to provide the Council with a brief presentation on the background and process that had been followed to date with regard to the Local Plan. 

Mr Miles referred to the National Planning Policy Framework published by the Government last year, which said that in circumstances where a Council did not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land, policies for housing within adopted plans should be treated as out of date.  As a result, it stated that planning applications for housing development should be approved unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed either against specific policies or the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.  Mr Miles stated that there had already been a spate of appeals allowed across the country for varying scales of development.  He also reported that the Proposed Submission Local Plan was based on more up to date evidence of the Council’s housing needs over the next 20 years, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.  Cabinet decided at its meeting on 27 June 2013 that the draft Local Plan housing target and plan period should be used to calculate the Council’s five year supply and on that basis it had a five and a half year supply.   

Mr Miles reminded Members that the Council was over two years into the process of producing its Local Plan and public consultation on the draft version began on 19 July 2013, running for just over ten weeks to end on 30 September 2013.  Much of the first year involved evidence gathering, including undertaking a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to identify candidate housing sites that were available and deliverable for inclusion in the Plan.  Over 300 sites were submitted for assessment and a further 58 sites were submitted and tested during ‘Issues and Options 1’.  Another 40 sites were tested on the edge of Cambridge.  Over the last 12 months two rounds of consultation had been undertaken on the issues and options for the draft Local Plan, including 62 possible housing site options.  Reports on the results of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

(Councillors James Hockney and Peter Johnson left the meeting at this stage of proceedings) 

The Civic Affairs Committee and the Scrutiny and Overview Committee RECOMMENDED that the Council: -

(a)  Approves the revised version of Article 6 of the Constitution, as set out in Appendix A of the report.

(b)  Approves the revised version of the Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules, as set out in Appendix B of the report.

(c)  Approves the amendment of those sections of the Constitution referred to in paragraph 10.1 of the report to reflect the establishment of the Partnerships Review Committee as a second scrutiny and overview committee.

(d)  Amends the Member role descriptions under Part 5 of the Constitution relating to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee so that they apply to both the Partnerships Review Committee and the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

(e)  Allocates the Partnerships Review Committee as the authority’s Crime and Disorder Committee.

The Partnerships Review Committee SUPPORTED (a) to (e) above, subject to the amendments set out in Appendix C of the report.

Council APPROVED: -

(a)  The revised version of Article 6 of the Constitution, as set out in Appendix A to the report, incorporating the amendment outlined in Appendix C.

(b)  The revised version of the Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules, as set out in Appendix B to the report, incorporating the amendment outlined in Appendix C.

(c)  The amendment of those sections of the Constitution referred to in paragraph 10.1 of the report to reflect the establishment of the Partnerships Review Committee as a second scrutiny and overview committee.

(d)  The amendment of the Member role descriptions under Part 5 of the Constitution relating to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee so that they apply to both the Partnerships Review Committee and the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

(e)  The allocation of the Partnerships Review Committee as the authority’s Crime and Disorder Committee.

Council considered a report setting out proposed amendments to its Constitution following the decision at the Annual General Meeting to introduce the Partnerships Review Committee as a second scrutiny and overview committee and abolish the Sustainable Energy Committee.

Councillor Ben Shelton proposed the recommendations set out in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of the Council, and with 30 votes in favour, 12 against, 3 abstentions and 2 not voting Council APPROVED: -

(a)  The revised version of Article 6 of the Constitution, as set out in Appendix A to the report, incorporating the amendment outlined in Appendix C.

(b)  The revised version of the Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules, as set out in Appendix B to the report, incorporating the amendment outlined in Appendix C.

(c)  The amendment of those sections of the Constitution referred to in paragraph 10.1 of the report to reflect the establishment of the Partnerships Review Committee as a second scrutiny and overview committee.

(d)  The amendment of the Member role descriptions under Part 5 of the Constitution relating to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee so that they apply to both the Partnerships Review Committee and the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

(e)  The allocation of the Partnerships Review Committee as the authority’s Crime and Disorder Committee.

The content of the report for this item is dependent on the results of the Sawston By-election scheduled to be held on 18 July 2013.  The report will therefore be published and circulated on 19 July 2013.

Council APPROVED the allocation of seats on committees as follows: -

Council APPROVED the nominations of political groups to seats on committees, as set out in Appendix B to the report, subject to Councillor Jose Hales being appointed to the Civic Affairs Committee.

A report was considered which provided Council with an opportunity to review the authority’s political balance and reconsider the allocation of seats to committees following the election of a Conservative Councillor to a seat previously held by an Independent Councillor at the Sawston by-election held on 18 July 2013.

Councillor Ray Manning proposed the recommendations set out in the report.  Councillor Sebastian Kindersley seconded the proposal, subject to Councillor Jose Hales being appointed to the Civic Affairs Committee.  Councillor Manning accepted this amendment as part of his motion and Council unanimously: -

a)    APPROVED the allocation of seats on committees as follows: -

b)    APPROVED the nominations of political groups to seats on committees, as set out in Appendix B to the report, subject to Councillor Jose Hales being appointed to the Civic Affairs Committee.

The District Council is invited to appoint a Member and Substitute Member to Cambridgeshire County Council’s Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Only Members of the District Council’s Scrutiny and Overview Committee or Partnerships Review Committee are eligible to sit on the Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Council APPOINTED: -

(a)  Councillor Bridget Smith as the authority’s representative on Cambridgeshire County Council’s Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(b)  Councillor Andrew Fraser as the authority’s substitute member on the Cambridgeshire County Council’s Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Council considered an invitation from Cambridgeshire County Council to appoint a representative and substitute member to sit on its Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Ray Manning nominated Councillor Roger Hall as the Council’s representative, which was seconded by Councillor Simon Edwards.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley nominated Councillor Bridget Smith as the Council’s representative, which was seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts.

Councillor Hall left the Council Chamber during the undertaking of a vote and Councillor Bridget Smith, having submitted an apology for absence for this meeting, was also not present in the Chamber.  With 21 votes for each candidate, 1 abstention and 3 not voting the Council was required to hold a second vote in accordance with Standing Order 16.7 due to the result being a tie.  In voting for the second time, with 23 votes compared to 21, Council APPOINTED Councillor Bridget Smith as the authority’s representative on Cambridgeshire County Council’s Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Ray Manning nominated Councillor Andrew Fraser as the Council’s substitute member, which was seconded by Councillor Richard Barrett.

Councillor Douglas de Lacey nominated Councillor Roger Hall as the Council’s substitute member, which was seconded by Councillor Tumi Hawkins.

Both nominees left the Council Chamber during the undertaking of a ballot and, with 23 votes compared to 18, Council APPOINTED Councillor Andrew Fraser as the authority’s substitute member on the Cambridgeshire County Council’s Adults, Wellbeing and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To approve the membership of the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel.

Council: -

(a)  RE-APPOINTED Mr Graham Jagger as a member of the Independent Remuneration Panel for a three year term of office, with an expiry date of 31 July 2016.

(b)  CONFIRMED that the level of expenses paid to the individual members of the Independent Remuneration Panel be no more than £200 each per financial year, with the final amount payable to be agreed by the Executive Director, Corporate Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

Council considered a report which provided Members with an opportunity to agree the membership of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

Council unanimously: -

(a)  RE-APPOINTED Mr Graham Jagger as a member of the Independent Remuneration Panel for a three year term of office, with an expiry date of 31 July 2016.

(b)  CONFIRMED that the level of expenses paid to the individual members of the Independent Remuneration Panel be no more than £200 each per financial year, with the final amount payable to be agreed by the Executive Director, Corporate Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

To note the Council’s Risk Management Strategy and Strategic Risk Register.

Consideration was given to a report which provided Council with an opportunity to review the authority’s Risk Management Strategy and Strategic Risk Register.

Council NOTED the report.

No questions on joint meetings were received. 

To note a report by Councillor Sue Ellington, Health and Wellbeing Champion.

Council NOTED an update report on the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board by Councillor Sue Ellington in her capacity as Health and Wellbeing Champion.

“The Cambridgeshire Future Transport project was supposed to be working with communities to come up with alternatives to replace subsidised buses in the district.  Unfortunately, that work came to a screeching halt in May, and is currently in limbo because the County Council officer leading the project left and has not been replaced.  During the months before it stopped, a lot of effort had been put in by our officer working in partnership with the County Council lead officer, to use the Demand Responsive Transport scheme proposed by this authority, as a basis for alternative solution.  That work, particularly in Area C is now in jeopardy, and residents are in despair due to the uncertainty of the situation.  What is this authority doing to encourage its “partner” the County Council to restart the project and what help is being offered to our officer to keep the project alive?”

Councillor Tumi Hawkins asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy and Localism the following question: -

“The Cambridgeshire Future Transport project was supposed to be working with communities to come up with alternatives to replace subsidised buses in the district.  Unfortunately, that work came to a screeching halt in May, and is currently in limbo because the County Council officer leading the project left and has not been replaced.  During the months before it stopped, a lot of effort had been put in by our officer working in partnership with the County Council lead officer, to use the Demand Responsive Transport scheme proposed by this authority, as a basis for alternative solutions.  That work, particularly in Area C, is now in jeopardy and residents are in despair due to the uncertainty of the situation.  What is this authority doing to encourage its “partner” the County Council to restart the project and what help is being offered to our officer to keep the project alive?”

Councillor Pippa Corney, Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy and Localism, informed Members that the County Council had lost key staff with regard to this project at the same time as the elections in May 2013, which, she reminded Members, had brought significant changes to the political makeup of the authority.  Councillor Corney was much more confident, however, that this piece of work would pick up the pace over the coming months following a meeting she had recently attended and emphasised that things had not stopped from the District Council’s perspective.  She reported that the new County Council officer should be in post by September 2013 and that the County Council’s team had been invited to use officers from South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council in the interim period to keep the projects moving.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Hawkins asked: -

“Given that the project is now behind schedule for completion by September 2014, can I get an assurance that the project will be finished by that date?”

Councillor Corney was not in a position to give that assurance, but stated that she had heard nothing to suggest that the original completion date would not be achieved.  She added that the project was making progress and had been able to deliver successful programmes already.

“I note that the capital estimate for the Environmental Health portfolio shows a reduction of £139,000 between 2012-13 and 2013-14, so reductions in service are inevitable. While regretting the loss of a council service that is very important in this rural area - Pest Control - can the Leader tell us how the council will ensure that council properties that need this service will be treated as quickly and cost-effectively by private contractors, and how are we fulfilling the specific duty to the public under The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 to deal with rats and mice?”

Councillor Hazel Smith asked the Leader of the Council the following question: -

“I note that the capital estimate for the Environmental Health portfolio shows a reduction of £139,000 between 2012-13 and 2013-14, so reductions in service are inevitable. While regretting the loss of a council service that is very important in this rural area - Pest Control - can the Leader tell us how the council will ensure that council properties that need this service will be treated as quickly and cost-effectively by private contractors, and how are we fulfilling the specific duty to the public under The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 to deal with rats and mice?”

Councillor Mick Martin, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, answered the question on behalf of the Leader of the Council and clarified that the £139,000 was nothing to do with stopping the Pest Control service.  When the Council started charging for its Pest Control service, which it was entitled to do, people tended to prefer using private providers instead of the Council’s service.  There was a capital cost to take into consideration when subsidised against commercial competition and this was the main reason why a notice to cease the service had recently been issued.

Councillor Martin stated that the Council had a responsibility to survey any buildings or land that it owned and ensure adequate pest control measures were applied when necessary, which it would continue to do.  He added that the Council’s Environmental Services section had undergone a significant re-structure, saving the Council £150,000 per annum, resulting in more effective and efficient service delivery and invited any Member of the Council to visit teams within the service should they need any convincing.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Smith asked: -

“Is the Council on track to make its required reductions or are there further cuts in the pipeline?”

Councillor Martin said that no specific solutions had been identified within his Portfolio at this stage and that this was a corporate-wide issue.

“Can the Portfolio Holder for Housing please clarify the council's policy on self-build housing, as a potentially useful tool in the quest to bring more affordable housing to residents of all South Cambridgeshire villages, and including eco homes which may or may not comply with traditionally accepted standards of appearance?”

Councillor Susan van de Ven asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing the following question: -

“Can the Portfolio Holder for Housing please clarify the council's policy on self-build housing, as a potentially useful tool in the quest to bring more affordable housing to residents of all South Cambridgeshire villages, and including eco homes which may or may not comply with traditionally accepted standards of appearance?”

Councillor Nick Wright, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, answered the question on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Housing and stated that the Council was very supportive of self-build housing in the district, which was referred to in the draft Local Plan currently out for public consultation.  Proposals for eco homes were also welcomed and the first three had already come forward.  He informed Members that a project was currently on-going for 40 self-build properties at Orchard Park and the Council was also exploring the prospect of including some as part of the Northstowe development.

As a supplementary question, Councillor van de Ven recommended the encouragement of take-up by including an article in the Council’s magazine and asked: -

“What can we all do to bring this forward, not just in terms of new development sites but for everyone?”

Councillor Wright, whilst agreeing with the need for encouragement, reminded Members that delivery was not always as straightforward as it seemed and cited Peterborough as an example where plots were still empty after ten years.  In closing he referred to the fact that Ministers were promoting self-build development, which also had Government support, and that the Council would take it forward through its Local Plan. 

“Can you provide a detailed presentation of the data that you hold on complaints to this Council and to Mears relating to repairs and maintenance of council houses, including numbers of complaints, the nature and severity of the issue, outcomes whether positive or unresolved, the time between complaint and resolution, and who handled the complaint?”

Councillor Aidan Van De Weyer asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing the following question: -

“Can you provide a detailed presentation of the data that you hold on complaints to this Council and to Mears relating to repairs and maintenance of council houses, including numbers of complaints, the nature and severity of the issue, outcomes whether positive or unresolved, the time between complaint and resolution, and who handled the complaint?”

Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Housing, reported that 40 complaints had been forwarded to Mears in the first 12 months of its contract with the Council, with 39 being resolved and one currently with Mears’ insurers which involved a minor injury.  He reported that these complaints had all been investigated and resolved within the ten day limit for stage one complaints and confirmed that complaints were handled by Mears and by the Council’s housing staff.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Van De Weyer asked: -

“Are there particular measures in place to encourage complaints or feedback?”

Councillor Howell said that feedback was encouraged, with operatives provided with feedback forms which tenants were asked to complete either in writing, online or via the telephone.  The information from these forms, together with any complaints submitted, were very well received by Mears and the Council’s Housing team.

To note that no Notices of Motion have been received. 

No Notices of Motion had been received. 

To note the engagements undertaken by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman since the last Council meeting: -

Chairman

Vice-Chairman

Engagements undertaken by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman since the previous meeting, as set out on the agenda, were noted.