Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - South Cambs Hall. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

PRESENTATION

A presentation was given by a representative of Macmillan Cancer Support, one of the Chairman’s charities. 

 

1.

APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Doug Cattermole, Grenville Chamberlain, Simon Crocker, Lynda Harford, Phillipa Hart, Sebastian Kindersley, Mick Martin, Robert Turner and David Whiteman-Downes.

2.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive any declarations of Members’ interests.

Minutes:

The following declarations of interest were reported:

·         Councillor Douglas de Lacey declared an interest in agenda item 10 as he had been a member of the task and finish group looking at Neighbourhood Planning.

·         Councillor John Batchelor declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters concerning the Combined Authority as he was Chairman of its Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

·         Councillor Andrew Fraser declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to matters concerning the Combined Authority as he was a member of its Audit and Governance Committee.

3.

Register of Interests

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

Minutes:

The Chairman reminded Members that they needed to update the register of interests whenever their circumstances changed.

4.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 347 KB

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 25th May and authorise the Chairman to sign them as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 25th May were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following: 

 

·                In response to a question from Councillor Anna Bradnam, Councillor Sue Ellington confirmed that Dogs for the Disabled had changed its name to Dogs for Good during the year.  The minutes of the meeting would be amended to reflect this.

·                In response to a question from Councillor Douglas de Lacey it was confirmed that the total amount of time available for all questions asked under Standing Order 11 was 30 minutes.  This included questions submitted under notice and those submitted at the meeting.  The resolution in minute 22 would be amended to clarify this.

 

Councillors Douglas de Lacey and Councillor Anna Bradnam queried the appointment of substitute members to committees as set out in minute 12, recommendation 12(a).  Following the meeting, this information was checked and it was confirmed that the minutes reflected the list of appointments tabled at the meeting, which in turn reflected instructions received from Groups.  Copies of relevant correspondence was supplied to those concerned.

5.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

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

Minutes:

 The Chairman of Council made the following announcements:

·                The Chairman’s reception was being held at Wimpole Hall on November 3rd 2017.  All Members should have received an invitation and he hoped there would be a good turnout of Councillors this year.

·                The Chairman formally introduced the new Chief Executive, Beverly Agass, who was attending her first Council meeting. 

 

Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council, drew Council’s attention to the following matters:

·                He recently attended a discussion with the National Infrastructure Commission in London, which followed on from a meeting the Chief Executive and he had with them in July.  The Commission’s role was to advise Government on major chunks of infrastructure and its particular interest was the Oxford-Cambridge “corridor”.  He had taken the opportunity to remind them that we were also interested in the ability of people to access in and around our district and to get into the City centre.  He believed they took that point on board. 

·                On a lighter note, he congratulated Councillor Nigel Cathcart, who he understood had recently had a beer named after him, which would be available from Wetherspoon’s outlets for the next two weeks. 

6.

QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

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

Minutes:

No questions from the pubic had been received.

7.

PETITIONS

To note all that no petitions for consideration by Council have been received since

the last meeting.

Minutes:

No petitions for consideration by Council had been received.

8.

APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES

To approve the replacement of Councillor Nick Wright with Councillor Simon Crocker as a member of the Civic Affairs Committee.

Decision:

Council AGREED the replacement of Councillor Nick Wright with Councillor Simon Crocker as a member of the Civic Affairs Committee.

Minutes:

It was proposed by Councillor Peter Topping, seconded by Councillor Charles Nightingale and approved unanimously, that Councillor Simon Crocker replace Councillor Nick Wright as a member of the Civic Affairs Committee.

9.

Single Shared Waste Service - SCDC Recycling Service Changes pdf icon PDF 397 KB

Minutes:

Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, drew Council’s attention to the recent Cabinet decision to change the South Cambridgeshire Recycling Service so that all recycling would be collected in the blue bin, bringing to an end the separate collection of paper in a caddy box.  Councillor Howell explained the rationale, details of which were set out in the report circulated with the Council agenda.

 

Council’s views were sought on the best way of communicating these changes to residents and communities in order to ensure a smooth and effective service transition.  A summary of the comments made is set out below:

 

·                Councillor John Batchelor commented on the need to inform residents about this as a matter of urgency as he suspected the changes were already being implemented.  His caddy had been taken away earlier that week without notice and when he enquired about it he was told he wasn’t going to get another one.

·                Councillor Douglas de Lacey expressed disquiet about the last paragraph of the report [page 24 of the agenda pack] which stated that co-mingling may lead to reduced quality of recyclates, however close working with resident and MAF should be able to ensure material quality.  He was not sure what was meant by close working with residents but he could not imagine waste staff would have time to talk to residents and go through their bins to explain what they shouldn’t have recycled.  He was concerned that ‘may lead’ would almost certainly become ‘will lead’.  Communication was the key and Councillor de Lacey echoed Councillor Batchelor’s comments about this needing to be done quickly and properly.  Girton, had been part of the trial and was already managing without caddies.  Councillor de Lacey commented that the way the changes had been introduced there had been absolutely appalling as a result of confusing and contradictory communications.  The Council’s response to complaints from residents about caddies which had been removed without notice was to arrange delivery of a replacement caddy; which they could not use.  This was a gross waste of resources.  He asked that this time Council departments communicated with each other before it worried about communication with the wider public.

·                Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer confirmed that he and many other Members had spoken to parish councils about the planned change and had included information on this in their reports.  He suggested that it would be helpful if officers could provide a form of words or image that could be submitted for inclusion in parish magazines and other relevant publications.  It would be extremely helpful if this could include an explanation of why the changes were being made, as his experience had been that when this was explained to the parish councils they were much more receptive to it. 

·                Councillor Sue Ellington asked whether there would continue to be communal bins in car parks and other central places where people could dispose of paper. 

·                Councillor Graham Cone asked what residents could do with the caddies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Neighbourhood Planning pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council outlined work being done to raise awareness of Neighbourhood Planning in South Cambridgeshire and outlined the work of the Neighbourhood Planning Task and Finish Group, details of which were set out in the report circulated with the Council agenda.  Councillor Topping drew attention to the consultation with Parish Councils that had begun on 18th September.  He thanked Councillors de Lacey, Hales and Cathcart who had helped Councillor Turner on the task and finish group that had produced the recommendations. 

 

Commenting on the number of Neighbourhood Plans submitted, Councillor Topping stated that he expected the number to increase.  This was due to the economic pressures that pertained in the area.  He emphasised that the whole point of a Neighbourhood Plan was not to stop development, but to allow communities to comment on the placement of planned schemes.  The Council had increased officer capacity to support this work, including providing help for parishes undertaking technical assessments and referenda.  It was also proposed to set up a parish sounding board which would help spread best practice and enable those parishes starting this work to learn from the experience of others. 

 

Councillors  were invited to comment on the proposed future actions.  A summary of the comments made is set out below:

·           Councillor Deborah Roberts commented that unfortunately this had come at a most inopportune time.  Foxton Parish Council had started this process and she expressed thanks to officers who had been providing support.  She had no complaints about the idea or how officers had progressed it.  However, she could not confidently recommend other parishes give up their precious time and resources to do this.  She had no confidence in the Planning Department to listen to what parishes were saying and commented that, as a result parishes had lost confidence in the planning process.  Parishes spent a lot of time commenting on applications yet only 6% of requests by parishes to have applications come to the Planning Committee actually get there.  Councillor Roberts urged the new Chief Executive and lead Members to take steps to address this.

·           Councillor Bridget Smith recalled that she had been calling for the Council to provide support for Neighbourhood Planning since 2012.  Commenting on the consultation exercise, she had spoken to one of her Parish Clarks, who had been involved in the work of the task and finish group, about this and was disappointed to hear that they had received the document only 48 hours before the deadline for comments.  She was also concerned that the Council was recommending that parishes employed planning consultants and suggested this was against the whole ethos of Neighbourhood Plans which were meant to be community led.  With reference to grants, Councillor Smith commented that she had been informed that parishes didn’t need money as this was already there to be had through localities funds, but what was needed was people to support this work and she urged the Council had to resource this properly.  It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH COMBINED AUTHORITY pdf icon PDF 247 KB

At the last Council meeting Councillor Topping informed Council that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority had agreed to produce regular reports on its work [minute 9 refers].   Attached are the reports summarising the work of the Authority for June and July.  [Note: there is no report for August.  The September report will be published at the end of the month and will be circulated with the papers for the next Council meeting]

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council noted reports prepared by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority summarising the work of the Authority during June and July.  There was no report for August as there had been no meetings.  The September report would be issued at the end of the month and would be circulated as part of the agenda for the next Council meeting.  The Council’s representatives on the Combined Authority were invited to comment on the reports, details of which are summarised below:

·         Councillor Andrew Fraser, a member of the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee reported that the inaugural meeting had taken place on 26th June and had considered a number of procedural matters.

·         Councillor Alex Riley, a member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, was pleased to report that it was clear the committee intended to hold the Combined Authority to account and hoped that this would continue.  In addition to the three scheduled meetings an additional meeting had taken place to call in the Authority’s decisions on staffing.  Councillor Fraser highlighted some issues to resolve concerning transparency but overall the Committee was making progress.

·         Councillor John Batchelor, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, drew attention to the call in of the proposed officer and staffing structure, which he felt was quite significant and had potential serious implications for our own organisation.  He explained that the call in was on the basis of an increase in the staffing budget by 25% over the course of two meetings.  It was clear that the original budget had been based on information that turned out to be incorrect.  The underlying concern that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had was not about the appointment of staff, but that the Combined Authority’s Cabinet was making decisions on the basis of very little information and with very little officer support.  The question was whether in those circumstances the Cabinet was making informed decisions.  Councillor Batchelor noted that although the questions about the staffing budget were ultimately answered, there remained concerns about support.  There were currently only four officers employed by the Combined Authority with the rest of the work being done by officers seconded from constituent Councils.  If and when the new arrangement is put in place there will only be fifteen officers employed by the Combined Authority. Councillor Batchelor commented that although everyone was keen on having lean authorities it was important to ensure there was sufficient oversight of how public money was being spent.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee would continue to pursue improved governance.

·         Councillor Peter Topping, the Council’s representative on the Combined Authority, commented that the scrutiny work referred to by Councillors Riley and Batchelor had been extremely helpful.  He believed scrutiny had a valid function and in this case posed legitimate questions about the basis on which a decision had been made.  He provided an update on a recent meeting, not covered by the reports, that had agreed bids to be submitted to Government for major infrastructure proposals and confirmed that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS

Members wishing A period of 30 minutes will be allocated for this item to include those questions where

notice has been provided (as set out on the agenda below) and questions which may

be asked without notice.

 

to ask a question without notice should indicate this intention to the

Interim Democratic Services Team Manager prior to the commencement of the item.

Members’ names will be drawn at random by the Chairman until there are no further

questions or until the expiration of the time period.

12a

Question from Councillor Ben Shelton to the Leader of the Council

Please can you tell us what this council has done to support villages and Parish Council's whose land has been occupied by gypsies and travellers?

Minutes:

Please can you tell us what this Council has done to support villages and Parish Council's whose land has been occupied by gypsies and travellers?

 

In response Councillor Howell, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services confirmed that there had been some illegal encampments recently which had involved working with landowners, the County Council and Police in order to review the policies we have.  A briefing note had been produced explaining how to deal with illegal encampments.  This had been sent to Parish Councils and all Councillors.  Work was also being done with Traveller Groups try and minimise the impact on communities.  Councillor Howell took the opportunity to thank staff involved in this work, particularly those who had worked on site clean-up.

12b

Question from Councillor Ruth Betson to the Leader of the Council

Please could you give us an update on the number and progress of neighbourhood plans are in our district?

Minutes:

Councillor Betson’s question asked for an update on the number and progress of Neighbourhood Plans in the district and she indicated this had been answered in the context of the discussion on agenda item 10.

12c

Question from Councillor Ray Manning to the Leader of the Council

Please can you explain why we no longer need paper caddies. Is it possible to dispense with them without damaging our recycling rates?  What savings could be made by the council if paper is placed directly in the blue bin?

Minutes:

Please can you explain why we no longer need paper caddies.  Is it possible to dispense with them without damaging our recycling rates?  What savings could be made by the Council if paper is placed directly in the blue bin?

 

In response, Councillor Howell, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services replied that in addition to the information already reported under agenda item 9, he confirmed that the changeover date would be 11th December and this would be promoted primarily through the South Cambridgeshire magazine.

12d

Question from Councillor Charlie Nightingale to the Leader of the Council

After the terrible Grenfell fire please could the Council set up a task and finish group to look at how this council deals with safety and emergency planning?

Minutes:

After the terrible Grenfell fire please could the Council set up a task and finish group to look at how this council deals with safety and emergency planning?

 

In response, Councillor Howell, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services replied that the Council had undertaken a full range of checks on its properties to ensure they met fire safety standards and no problems had been identified.  The Department for Communities and Local Government had tasked the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service to undertake checks on all buildings over eight storeys as these posed the highest risk.  However this did not apply locally as there were no residential buildings over five storeys in South Cambridgeshire. 

 

Councillor Howell explained that South Cambridgeshire had a detailed emergency plan shared with Cambridge City Council.  This was regularly updated and tested.  Training exercises to test readiness and responsiveness was planned for November and January.  The Leader of the Council and Councillor Howell had been asked to take part in this exercise.  At Chief Executive and Director level the Council was part of the Local Resilience Forum whose role it was to co-ordinate work across agencies. 

 

With reference to the specific suggestion that a task and finish group be set up, Councillor Howell commented that it would be better if all Members got involved to support their parishes and villages to develop emergency response plans in the event of an emergency. The Council could then work with them to draw on local knowledge and expertise.

12e

Question from Councillor Bridget Smith to the Greater Cambridge Partnership Portfolio Holder

Does the Portfolio Holder for the GCP believe that the widely predicted 1% in modal shift from car to bus is sufficient justification for building an off road Busway from Cambourne to Cambridge City?

Minutes:

Does the Portfolio Holder for the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) believe that the widely predicted 1% in modal shift from car to bus is sufficient justification for building an off road Busway from Cambourne to Cambridge City?

 

In response, Councillor Francis Burkitt, Portfolio Holder for the GCP, commented that the GCP had been consulting about a potential Cambridge to Cambourne busway to support the local Plans for the past two or three years.  He confirmed there would be public consultation during November on two on road and one off road route. Councillor Burkett noted that the question was about the off road option and explained he was not prepared to talk about one option in particular as he did not want to predetermine the ultimate decision which would be taken by the GCP Executive Board.  This would take account of the outcome of the public consultation and a significant amount of relevant date to be collated over the next six months.  This included the GCP’s ‘Big Conversation’ which was a huge data gathering exercise to feed into the decision making process. 

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Smith asked below what level of modal shift would an off road busway be deemed non-feasible?

 

In response, Councillor Burkitt replied that he was unable to answer that question without notice.

12f

Question from Councillor Philippa Hart to the Leader of the Council

Concern has been expressed by members of the Combined Authority Scrutiny Committee about the workload of all CA Board members, particularly those who are portfolio holders. Cllr Topping, as leader of our council, is a Board Member and is the CA Portfolio Holder for Housing. He combines these positions with his role as a County Councillor where despite assuring us that he would not take on any additional responsibilities, he is now Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board and sits on the Constitution and Ethics and Health committees. Please could Cllr Topping inform members how he apportions his time between his many and varied responsibilities and in particular what percentage of his time does he devote to leadership of this Council?

Minutes:

The Chairman reported that unfortunately Councillor Hart was not present to ask her question as she had been taken ill.  He had however agreed that the question be put in her absence.

 

Concern has been expressed by members of the Combined Authority Scrutiny Committee about the workload of all CA Board members, particularly those who are portfolio holders. Cllr Topping, as leader of our council, is a Board Member and is the CA Portfolio Holder for Housing. He combines these positions with his role as a County Councillor where despite assuring us that he would not take on any additional responsibilities, he is now Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board and sits on the Constitution and Ethics and Health committees. Please could Cllr Topping inform members how he apportions his time between his many and varied responsibilities and in particular what percentage of his time does he devote to leadership of this Council?

 

In response, Councillor Peter Topping replied that he carried out a number of roles, primarily Leader of this Council and the Housing Portfolio Holder for the Combined Authority. He was also Chairman of the County Council’s Health and Wellbeing Committee.  Also he maintained what he hoped was a strong connection with Parish Councils in his patch and across this district.  He was sure that Members would agree that there was nothing more important to quality of life than good health, good housing, good jobs and local amenities.  It was his aim in assuming these different roles to ensure that the voice of South Cambridgeshire communities was heard and represented on vital issues, such as health and wellbeing, housing and prosperity and to make the case for continuing to respect the value the Council placed on the special features of its villages.  Councillor Topping commented that he believed the work that he did ensures that he had a seat at the table and exert influence on decision makers.  In summary he respectfully suggested that the responsibilities he undertook were not entirely separate but were overlapping and complementary because in carrying them out he did his utmost to represent the views of our residents and the views of this Council and its Members at all times.  Councillor Topping, in conclusion stated that he looked to ensure that the future of South Cambridgeshire was as best as it possible could be and he did that with 100% commitment, 100% of the time.

12g

Question from Councillor Aiden Van de Weyer to the Planning Portfolio Holder

The recent performance report to Cabinet describes the decline in satisfaction in the planning service to the unacceptably low level of just 58% in June. The figures, however, are based on a very small number of responses. What is the Planning Portfolio Holder doing to investigate the genuine level of dissatisfaction with the planning service, what the reasons for dissatisfaction are, and what can be done to improve service levels?

Minutes:

The recent performance report to Cabinet describes the decline in satisfaction in the planning service to the unacceptably low level of just 58% in June.  The figures, however, are based on a very small number of responses. What is the Planning Portfolio Holder doing to investigate the genuine level of dissatisfaction with the planning service, what the reasons for dissatisfaction are, and what can be done to improve service levels?

 

Councillor Nick Wright, on behalf of the Planning Portfolio Holder, confirmed that the 58% approval rating was taken from the first quarterly performance report.  The formal feedback that the service received was based on the outcome of the post application survey that was sent out.  Response rates were relatively low and as the reported survey only involved 20 applications and it was difficult to draw a representative conclusion from such a small sample.  The information was however taken very seriously.  In addition to considering responses from applicants through the post decision survey process users were engaged through a number of channels.  This included Councillor Turner’s biannual agents’ forum meetings, now shared with the City Council.  In addition all Members received feedback on planning matters from time to time and Councillor Turner took the opportunity to speak to a variety of people, including representatives of parish councils at regular planning forums.  Councillor Wright added that earlier in the year the planning service held an open day which it was hoped would become an annual event. 

 

In addition the planning service had recently looked to apply additional focus to engage with people contacting the Council about planning matters and the business support team now has a dedicated officer focused on investigating and responding to people who contact the service to address concerns about performance.  The commitment to a shared planning service with the City Council would also provide opportunities to improve resilience, capacity and consistency of approach.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Van de Weyer commented that it was useful to have hard data and asked what was being done to improve the amount and quantity of data available to assess service performance.

 

Councillor Wright replied that the Portfolio Holder was working with officers to enact changes very quickly and over the next couple of months Councillors would see this coming to the fore.

12h

Question from Councillor Henry Batchelor to the Planning Portfolio Holder

Could the Planning Portfolio Holder please tell us how many live planning applications the Council currently has awaiting decision?

Minutes:

Could the Planning Portfolio Holder please tell us how many live planning applications the Council currently has awaiting decision?

 

Councillor Nick Wright, on behalf of the Planning Portfolio Holder, replied major applications on hand 67, minor applications on hand 192, other applications on hand 52, and 383 pre-planning applications.  This was a substantial number and showed the pressure that this Council was under with volume of applications. 

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Batchelor asked if the leadership of this Council was concerned by these figures.

 

In response, Councillor Wright commented that of course they were and they were working as hard as possible to try and mitigate them.

12i

Question from Councillor Anna Bradnam to the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing

Whilst I believe statutory training has been provided this year, there seems to have been little offered in the way of member development.

 

Please would the Portfolio Holder advise if any training will be offered before the end of the financial year?

 

In particular I would appreciate training about the recent changes in Data Protection.

Minutes:

Whilst I believe statutory training has been provided this year, there seems to have been little offered in the way of member development.  Please would the Portfolio Holder advise if any training will be offered before the end of the financial year?  In particular I would appreciate training about the recent changes in Data Protection.

 

Councillor Simon Edwards, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, replied that in short the answer was yes.  He confirmed that the focus had to be on providing regulatory training.  With reference to more general training Councillor Edwards commented that there was a limited budget for structured training and all too often attendance was poor which meant that this was not a good use of resources.  It was important to strike a balance.  Training could take a number of formats, not just formal sessions. If a Member was interested in a particular topic they could always approach the relevant officer who would be only too happy to put some time aside to hold a one to one session.

12j

Question from Councillor Douglas de Lacey

Minutes:

We seem to be losing staff, particularly in certain services such as waste collection, significantly faster than we are recruiting.  I assume the shortfall is being made up with agency staff, rather than making the posts more attractive to encourage higher recruitment.  Would the Portfolio Holder please tell us how much we have spent on agency staff this year, how that relates to what we would have paid permanent staff, and whether he feels this is value for money?

 

Councillor Simon Edwards, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, replied that his impressions were very similar in some ways, particularly in relation to sickness.  He confirmed that sickness levels had gone up but was hopeful that by using the same methods as used in the past, this trend could be reversed. 

 

In terms of staff turnover, Councillor Edwards commented that as an authority in the past there had been very low turnover, intentionally so.  He recalled that some years ago the Single Status Agreement and associated job evaluations had resulted in a large number of staff taking a significant pay cut.  The Council encouraged those members of staff to apply for more senior positions within the authority to get their salaries back up to where they were.  This internal recruitment led to low levels of turnover.  Councillor Edwards was of the view that this was the right thing to do at the time but the pendulum had now swing the other way.  He commented that turnover was a good thing in that new blood brought in fresh ideas and new approaches.  It was important to get the right balance.  The Council’s turnover in 2016/17 was 12.7%, compared to an average turnover rate in the UK of 15%, although this varied a lot between industries.  Councillor Edwards confirmed that Council’s turnover rate was a bit higher than he would like it, ideally he’d like to see it around 10%. 

 

With reference to the use of agency staff, Councillor Edwards commented that the Council did use agency staff as this was necessary for it to be able to deliver essential services to its residents.  Total spend on agency staff in 2016/17 was £328,000.  The Waste Service had spent £270,000 on agency staff but had saved £263,000 on salaries, so the position was about break even.  Given the need to deliver services, Councillor Edwards confirmed that he did feel this was value for money.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor de Lacey commented that he was encouraged by the answer, but was not convinced that the way to get people better off was to promote them so they could have higher salaries.  He had suggested to the Portfolio Holder that when the Council offered people a salary increase, instead of a percentage increase it should divvy up the pot between all employees equally.  That would do a lot to address the disparity that is increasing in our society today between the better off and the worse off.

 

In response to the comment about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12j

13.

NOTICES OF MOTION

13a

Motion from Councillor Tim Wotherspoon

This Council resolves to partner with the County Council, the City Council, the Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership (in the hope and expectation that they will each be willing to do so) to undertake a comprehensive review of bus services in and around the District and the wider area (and not just to/from Cambridge), in order to assess how significant short- and long-term improvements can be made for the benefit of our residents, employees, employers, students, patients, leisure-travellers and all others; and, to signal it's keenness for this review to take place, and as soon as possible, hereby allocates £50,000 to co-fund such a review.

 

Decision:

Council AGREED the following motion:

 

This Council resolves to partner with the County Council, the City Council, the Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership (in the hope and expectation that they will each be willing to do so) to undertake a comprehensive review of bus services in and around the District and the wider area (and not just to/from Cambridge), in order to assess how significant short- and long-term improvements can be made for the benefit of our residents, employees, employers, students, patients, leisure-travellers and all others; and, to signal it's keenness for this review to take place, and as soon as possible, hereby allocates up to £50,000 to co-fund such a review.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon moved the following motion as set out on the agenda, but indicated he wished to amend the wording by adding the words ‘up to’ before £50,000 in the last line:

 

This Council resolves to partner with the County Council, the City Council, the Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership (in the hope and expectation that they will each be willing to do so) to undertake a comprehensive review of bus services in and around the District and the wider area (and not just to/from Cambridge), in order to assess how significant short- and long-term improvements can be made for the benefit of our residents, employees, employers, students, patients, leisure-travellers and all others; and, to signal its keenness for this review to take place, and as soon as possible, hereby allocates £50,000 to co-fund such a review.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor David Bard.

 

Speaking against the proposed motion, Councillor John Williams commented that in the context of the Council’s budget, £50,000 was a significant amount of money and there were other things that this could be spent on that would have a direct benefit to residents.  He added that a number of similar reviews were in the pipeline, including a County Council review of subsidised bus services.  He suggested the motion had come about through naivety or a crude attempt to have this authority spend scarce tax payers money on a Conservative election gimmick.   Councillor Bridget Smith supported the comments made and added that as a member of the GCP Joint Assembly she was aware of the work being done by the GCP as well as work planned by the Mayor.  As the district council had no responsibility for public transport, she questioned why this was being proposed.  She noted comments made by Councillor Edwards that the Council could not afford to provide anything other than the statutory minimum training for Members, so asked where this money was coming from.  Councillor Van de Weyer commented that the Mayor was happy to advocate alternative forms of mass transport but was not convinced he was interested in bus services.  Feedback from users confirmed there was significant concern about the impact of recent changes to rural bus services and in his opinion the fundamental problem was there was insufficient money to fund services following the removal of subsidies.  He called for radical action including possible congestion charging, provided that the revenue was used to provide improved public transport.  Councillor John Batchelor commented there were already too many fingers in this pie and this was clearly a matter for the Combined Authority.  He saw no justification for this authority committing resources to support a review.  Councillor Tumi Hawkins urged the Council to keep its money in South Cambridgeshire to do work for its own residents. 

 

Councillor Deborah Roberts was unsure what it was hoped to get out of this and why the Council should be looking at spending £50,000 when the Mayor, who had lots of money, had already  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13a

13b

Motion from Councillor David Bard

This Council notes with dismay the recent instruction  to Network Rail by the DfT to remove electrification from the scope of the East West Rail project and instructs the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Transport requesting that electrification of this route be reinstated over its whole length.

Decision:

Council AGREED the following motion:

 

This Council notes with dismay the recent instruction by the DfT to remove electrification from the scope of the East West Rail project and instructs the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Transport requesting that electrification of this route be reinstated over its whole length.

 

Minutes:

Councillor David Bard moved the following motion which was seconded by Councillor Tom Bygott. 

 

This Council notes with dismay the recent instruction to Network Rail by the DfT to remove electrification from the scope of the East West Rail project and instructs the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Transport requesting that electrification of this route be reinstated over its whole length.

 

In response to comments by Councillor John Williams, Councillor Bard agreed to the deletion of reference to the words ‘Network Rail’.  On being put to the vote, Council approved the following motion by affirmation:

 

This Council notes with dismay the recent instruction by the DfT to remove electrification from the scope of the East West Rail project and instructs the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Transport requesting that electrification of this route be reinstated over its whole length.

13c

Motion from Councillor Bridget Smith

This Council supports the establishment of a member led Task and Finish  working group, complimentary to the GCP, to look in more detail at the functionality of potential rural transport hubs within the District?

 

Decision:

The motion was lost.

Minutes:

Councillor Bridget Smith moved the following amendment which was duly seconded by Councillor Aiden Van de Weyer.

 

This Council supports the establishment of a member led Task and Finish working group, complimentary to the GCP, to look in more detail at the functionality of potential rural transport hubs within the District?

 

Speaking against the motion, Councillor Tim Wotherspoon on behalf of Councillor Francis Burkitt commented that the Council was an active partner in the Greater Cambridge Partnership.  It has recently restructured to give its members greater voice through the creation of working groups to support portfolio holders to develop projects to take forward to the Joint Assembly and Board.  Councillor Burkitt was supported by a group looking at the rural transport hubs project.  Council was urged to support the structure set up by the Greater Cambridge Partnership and not create an additional group to duplicate that work.

 

A vote was taken on the motion and was cast as follows:

 

In favour (9) Councillors, Anna Bradnam, Nigel Cathcart, Tumi Hawkins, Cicely Murfitt, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Against (20) Councillors David Bard, John Batchelor, Ruth Betson, Brian Burling, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Mark Howell, David McCraith, Raymond Matthews, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

 

The motion was therefore declared rejected.

13d

Motion from Councillor Aiden Van de Weyer

This Council believes that local government decision making should take place In an open and transparent manner, unless personal or commercial confidentiality requires otherwise.

 

This Council notes that attendees of a workshop of the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum on 19 September have been banned from filming, taking pictures or tweeting.

 

This Council requests that the Greater Cambridge Partnership, of which this Council is a constituent member, removes all such restrictions on material that is not commercially confidential.

Decision:

Council AGREED the following motion:

 

This Council believes that local government decision making should take place In an open and transparent manner, unless personal or commercial confidentiality requires otherwise.

 

This Council notes that attendees of a workshop of the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum on 19 September have been banned from filming, taking pictures or tweeting.

 

This Council requests that the Greater Cambridge Partnership, of which this Council is a constituent member, removes all such restrictions on material that is not commercially confidential.

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Aiden Van de Weyer moved the following amendment which was duly seconded and agreed by affirmation:

 

This Council believes that local government decision making should take place In an open and transparent manner, unless personal or commercial confidentiality requires otherwise.

 

This Council notes that attendees of a workshop of the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum on 19 September have been banned from filming, taking pictures or tweeting.

 

This Council requests that the Greater Cambridge Partnership, of which this Council is a constituent member, removes all such restrictions on material that is not commercially confidential.

14.

CHAIRMAN'S ENGAGEMENTS

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

 

Date

Event

Attended

May  

 

 

Monday 29th

Cambridge American Cemetery Memorial Day Ceremony

Chairman

 

June 

 

 

Sunday 18th        

City of Peterborough Mayors Installation             

Chairman

Monday 19th

Armed Forces Day Flag Raising Ceremony, South Cambridgeshire          

Chairman

Wednesday 21st

Proclamation of Midsummer Fair

Chairman

Friday 23rd     

Armed Forces Day Flag Raising Ceremony, Huntingdon              

Chairman

Sunday 25th

Parklife at Milton Country Park                 

Chairman

Wednesday 28th

Wisbech Rose Fair Gala Evening

Chairman

July

 

 

Saturday 1st

Saint George's Day celebrations                 

Chairman

Sunday 2nd

Godmanchester Annual Picnic in the Park   

Chairman

Friday 7th

Fenland District Council Chairman's Civic Reception         

Vice Chairman

 

Sunday 9th

Mayor of Northampton Civic Service 

Vice Chairman

Monday 10th    

Battle of Britain Flag Raising Ceremony - Huntingdon      

Vice Chairman

 

Monday 17th    

Visit to South Cambs Depot to give out water bottles to crew      

Chairman

Monday 31         

Huntingdon: Flag raising to commemorate the centenary of the Battle of Passchendaele

Chairman

August

 

 

Saturday 12th     

Annual Camp Army Cadet Force, Thetford, Norfolk          

Chairman

Friday 17th

Mayor of St Edmundsbury Charity Cheese and Wine Evening       

Chairman

September 

 

 

Friday 1st           

Fly the Red Ensign for Merchant Navy Day @ SCDC

Chairman

Friday 1st          

Fly the Red Ensign for Merchant Navy Day @ Peterborough        

Vice Chairman

 

Sunday 3rd        

Mayor of Ramsey: Ramsey Town Council Civic Service     

Chairman

Wednesday 13th

Papworth Trust Centenary Celebration              

Chairman

Wednesday 13th  

Papworth Trust visit of HRH The Duchess of Gloucester 

Chairman

Friday 15th   

Best Kept Garden Competition 2017 

Chairman

Saturday 16th   

A show fit for a Mayor: Mayor of St Ives   

Chairman

Sunday 17th         

Mayor of Edmundsbury Battle of Britain Parade and Service        

Vice Chairman

 

Sunday 24th  

St Ives Civic Sunday                                     

Chairman

Monday 25th

2484 Air Cadets Annual Awards Evening

Chairman

 

 

Minutes:

Council noted those engagements attended by the Chairman and Vice Chairman since the last meeting.