Agenda, decisions and minutes

Council
Thursday, 27 September 2018 2.00 p.m.

Venue: Council Chamber - South Cambs Hall. View directions

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

Items
No. Item

1.

APOLOGIES

To receive apologies for absence from Members.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Grenville Chamberlain and Gavin Clayton.

2.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

 

Item 8 (a) – Adoption of South Cambridgeshire Local Plan

 

The Chairman advised that it would be taken as read that all Members who had declared interests at the meeting of Council  on 13 March 2014 would have the same interest at this meeting. 

 

Members who had recorded such interests at Minute 94 of the meeting held on 13 March 2014, which may be inspected via this link Members' declarations - Council, 13 March 2014 were:-

 

·         Councillor Nigel Cathcart - disclosable pecuniary interest.  Councillor Cathcart reiterated at this meeting that he had a disclosable pecuniary interest (as he was the joint owner of a potential site in Bassingbourn).  He had been granted a dispensation to both speak and vote by the Monitoring Officer on 26 September 2018 and so could fully participate in the meeting.

 

·         Councillor Tumi Hawkins - non-pecuniary interest.  Councillor Hawkins restated her interest at this meeting.

 

·         Councillor Douglas de Lacey  - non-pecuniary interest

 

·         Councillor Deborah Roberts - non-pecuniary interest

 

·         Councillor Bridget Smith - non-pecuniary interest

 

·         Councillor Hazel Smith - non-pecuniary interest

 

·         Councillor Peter Topping - non-pecuniary interest

 

·         Councillor Aidan Van De Weyer - a non-pecuniary interest

 

·         Councillor John Williams - non-pecuniary interest

 

·         Councillor Nick Wright - non-pecuniary interest

 

Item 14(e) – Question from Councillor Nick Wright

 

Councillor Bridget Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in the question from Councillor Wright relating to The Tree at Stapleford, insofar as she had invited residents involved in the Tree campaign to a meeting at the Eco Hub in Gamlingay.

 

Item 15(b) – Motion in the name of Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn

 

Councillor Dr. Cahn declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Motion he had submitted on the basis of his membership of Cambridge Stays and South East Cambridgeshire for Europe.

 

Item 15(c) – Motion in the name of Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer

 

Councillor Philippa Hart declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the Motion submitted by Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer and indicated that she would withdraw during discussion and voting thereon.

 

3.

Register of Interests

Members are requested to inform Democratic Services of any changes in 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 275 KB

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2018 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 19 July 2018 were confirmed as a correct record for signature by the Chairman, subject to the amendment of the fifth bullet point of Minute 9(e) by deletion of the words “Council’s benchmarking group” and their replacement by the word “Country”.  Clarification was sought as to whether the words “carrot and stick” in the second bullet point of Minute 16(a) on page 14 of the minutes accurately reflected the words used by Councillor John Williams but no evidence to the contrary was forthcoming.  

5.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

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

Minutes:

With reference to item 8(a) on the agenda (Adoption of South Cambridgeshire Local Plan), the Chairman referred to the circulation of an Errata sheet and the recommendations from Cabinet at its meeting held on 24 September 2018.  The recommendations were identical to those in the officer report on page 23 of the Council agenda.

 

The Chairman reminded Members that at the last Council meeting an item had been included to enable reports to be given by the Leader/Deputy Leader and Lead Cabinet members.  He reported that, following feedback, Cabinet had concluded that the format had not worked well and the item had therefore been dropped from the agenda for the time being.  Cabinet members would be happy to provide updates in relation to their areas of responsibility outside the meeting.

 

Councillor Philippa Hart, Lead Cabinet Member for Customer Services and Business Improvement, announced that after a successful trial using Office 365, it was planned to roll out Office 365 to all Members in the week commencing Monday 8 October 2018.  Councillor Hart asked for a few Members to volunteer to test the guides supplied to set up the new access.  She would be emailing further information to Members shortly.  Councillor Mark Howell, pointed out that he had been one of the Members identified to trial Office 365 but noted that he had not received a single email.  He indicated that he had raised this issue with 3C ICT.  The Chairman suggested that Councillor Howell should pursue this further with the Lead Cabinet Member outside the meeting.

6.

QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

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

 

 

6a

From Tim Wotherspoon (County Councillor for the Cottenham and Willingham Division) to the Leader of the Council

The following question has been received from Tim Wotherspoon (who is the County Councillor for the Cottenham and Willingham division):

Dame Kate Barker published the final report of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review in the middle of September. It says things such as "Our findings show that the area continues to grow strongly, in all likelihood significantly more so than the government's figures suggest". Some surveys indicate that business is growing at 10% a year, and faster in South Cambridgeshire than Cambridge City. Now that we are embarking on the next round of plan making, can the Leader give residents, entrepreneurs and businesses - not just in our own district but across the country and throughout the world - confidence that the planning system is fast enough to match this level of growth?

Minutes:

The following question had been received from Tim Wotherspoon (County Councillor for the Cottenham and Willingham division):

“Dame Kate Barker published the final report of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review in the middle of September. It says things such as "Our findings show that the area continues to grow strongly, in all likelihood significantly more so than the government's figures suggest". Some surveys indicate that business is growing at 10% a year, and faster in South Cambridgeshire than Cambridge City. Now that we are embarking on the next round of plan making, can the Leader give residents, entrepreneurs and businesses - not just in our own district but across the country and throughout the world - confidence that the planning system is fast enough to match this level of growth?”

 

The Chairman noted that County Councillor Wotherspoon was unable to attend the meeting owing to another commitment and would therefore be sent a written response.

7.

PETITIONS

To note that no petitions have been received since the last Council meeting.

Minutes:

 No petitions for consideration by the Council had been received.

8.

TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:

8a

Adoption of South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (Cabinet - 24 September 2018) pdf icon PDF 291 KB

The Cabinet’s meeting will take place after the Council agenda has been despatched.  The recommendations of the Cabinet will therefore be circulated to follow.

 

A copy of the Council report  is enclosed.

 

Appendices 1, 4 and 5 to the report will be printed and circulated separately.  All appendices (including Appendix 2 and 3) have been published on the Council’s website.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Council AGREED to

 

1.

Note the Inspectors’ Report containing the Inspectors’ Main Modifications to be made to the submitted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan in order for it to be found sound (Appendix 1); and

 

2.

Note the schedule of Additional Modifications (Appendix 2) to the submitted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan to make minor updates and corrections; and

 

3.

Note the Main Modifications to the submitted Policies Map published alongside the Inspectors’ Report as a reference document to the examination (Appendix 3);

 

4.

Adopt the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, including both Main and Additional Modifications (Appendix 4);

 

5.

Adopt the South Cambridgeshire Policies Map 2018, including Main Modifications and Additional Modifications (Appendix 5); and

 

6.

Authorise the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, in liaison with the Deputy Leader, to make minor typographical amendments or updates in preparing the final version of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies Map.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Bridget Smith, the Leader of the Council, in introducing this item, recorded her thanks to all staff involved in working on the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and noted that she would be writing to thank them for their efforts.

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer, Deputy Leader of the Council proposed the recommendations of Cabinet, at its meeting held on 24 September 2018, regarding adoption of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan.  Councillor Van de Weyer acknowledged that he had previously expressed reservations about the Local Plan process. However, the Inspector’s report had now been received and, subject to incorporating the associated Main Modifications, the Inspector had concluded that the Plan was sound. The only options available to the Council were to adopt or reject the Local Plan. He believed that it was important to act in the best interests of the whole District as failure to adopt the Plan could lead to a return to the problems associated with a lack of five year housing land supply. With the Local Plan in place, the focus should be on how to create superb places for residents to live and to address housing need. Councillor Van de Weyer noted that the Council would almost immediately need to begin developing the next Local Plan.

 

Councillor Deborah Roberts seconded the motion.

 

During discussion upon the motion:-

 

·         Having repeated her thanks to the officers for their work on the Plan, Councillor Dr.Tumi Hawkins observed that her concern had always been about the proposal for Bourn Airfield and that she had represented the views of the residents in her ward on this.  Notwithstanding continuing reservations, Councillor Dr. Hawkins accepted that the best course of action was to adopt and begin to deliver the Plan in order to protect communities, subject to provision of the required infrastructure, particularly along the A428 and A10. In view of her vocal opposition to the Bourn Airfield proposal she planned to abstain on the vote and did not intend to lead the delivery of the Bourn Airfield development as Lead Cabinet Member for Planning. However as ward councillor she would work with the Deputy Leader and Officers to achieve the best outcomes possible, including good quality housing of all types and the right infrastructure.

·         Councillor Peter Topping was concerned that Cabinet had only met to consider the Local Plan on 24 September 2018 given his understanding that it had been received on 31 August 2018 and questioned why the Cabinet had not met earlier on such an important issue. He remarked that he would be supporting the Plan given its importance in protecting green belt and investing in large community development on existing brownfield sites. He was sceptical about whether the Lead Cabinet Member for Planning could fulfil her responsibilities in the light of the position she had expressed.

·         Councillor Mark Howell referred to previous comments and indicated that he would vote against the Local Plan and suggested that the Lead Cabinet Member for Planning should do likewise.  

·         Councillor Sue Ellington  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

9.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH COMBINED AUTHORITY pdf icon PDF 353 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council noted reports prepared by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority summarising the work of the Authority during June and July 2018.

 

The Council’s representatives on the Combined Authority were invited to comment on the reports, as summarised below.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith, the Leader of the Council, provided an update on the meeting of the Combined Authority Board held on 26 September 2018 and highlighted the following issues:

·         The Board had considered a review of the Constitution.  The Mayor had power to nominate appointments to Committees, Chairmanships and Portfolio holders.

·         The appointment of an interim Chief Finance Officer had been confirmed.

·         Interim arrangements for covering the role of Chief Executive had been discussed.  The role was to be shared jointly between the Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive of East Cambridgeshire District Council. The Leader had argued for external recruitment to the role to be undertaken.

·         The Board had considered the Housing Strategy and it was now proposed to use £60m of the £100m affordable housing fund to enable provision of 2,000 additional affordable housing units, with £40m being allocated to a new revolving fund. However there had been no indication of funding being allocated according to greatest need. The Leader indicated that she would continue the work of her predecessor, Councillor Topping, to fight to ensure that South Cambridgeshire got its fair share of the funding allocation.

·         Discussion had taken place on the submission of a Business Rates pilot bid. It had been agreed that 10% of funds would be ringfenced for use by the Combined Authority for a growth fund; 10% would be split between the two Social Care Authorities in recognition that the costs of growth fell disproportionately on those authorities with the remaining 80% of funds being distributed per capita across all constituent authorities. The Leader indicated that she had refused to take the decision to consent to the bid on behalf of the Council as a constituent authority unilaterally and had taken the matter to Cabinet for decision.

·         The Board had received the Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) report.  The Leader had sought to obtain the Board’s approval to accept all of the recommendations in the report, which had not been supported, although the Board had agreed to “welcome” rather than “note” the report.

·         The Leader had submitted a motion calling on the Combined Authority urgently to commission an independent organisational review to include delivery objectives for 2018/19; governance, staffing, operations and project delivery in order to give assurance as to the impact, independence and transparency of the Combined Authority. The motion had not been approved but a review would be conducted by the two Interim Chief Executives which was expected to focus on the internal staffing structure.

 

Councillor Allen reported on the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 24 September 2018, noting that cross party support had been received for a number of the issues raised including concerns about:- 

·         the number of temporary appointments at the Combined Authority and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Appointment to the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) pdf icon PDF 200 KB

To authorise officers to proceed with a recruitment and selection exercise to recruit a new member of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

Decision:

Council AGREED

 

To authorise the Executive Director to undertake a recruitment and selection process and recommend the appointment of a new member of the Independent Remuneration Panel for a three year term of office.

Minutes:

The report of the Executive Director was submitted which invited Council to authorise officers to proceed with a recruitment and selection exercise to recruit a new member of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) in the light of the decision of Mr Kevin McIntyre not to seek reappointment for a further term of office. 

 

Councillor Bridget Smith, the Leader of the Council, moved the recommendations in the report. In so doing, she thanked Mr McIntyre, on behalf of the Council, for his work during his term of office as a member of the IRP.

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer seconded the proposal.

 

Council by affirmation

 

RESOLVED

 

To authorise the Executive Director to undertake a recruitment and selection process and recommend the appointment of a new member of the Independent Remuneration Panel for a three year term of office.

11.

Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel: Scheme of Members' Allowances 2018/19 pdf icon PDF 220 KB

To consider the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) in respect of the Scheme of Members’ Allowances 2018/19.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Council AGREED

 

1.

That the Independent Remuneration Panel be thanked for their work in producing the report at Appendix A.

 

2.

That, having had regard to the report, this Council does not support the adoption of the recommendations on the grounds that it does not appear adequately to evidence the reasoning behind the proposed allowances.

 

3.

That the Council therefore agrees  that:

 

(a)

in accordance with the mechanism adopted in previous years,  all allowances be raised in line with the staff pay award for 2018/19; and

 

(b)

an SRA of £444 (to be adjusted in accordance with 3 (a) above), be awarded to the Chairmen of the Grants Advisory and Climate Change and Environment Advisory Committees.

 

4.

That the Scheme of Members’ Allowances for 2018/19, revised in accordance with 3 (a) and (b) above, be introduced with effect from 8 May 2018.

 

5.

That the Executive Director be authorised to implement and advertise the scheme and make any consequential amendments to the Scheme of Members’ Allowances in Part 6 of the Constitution.

 

6.

That the Independent Remuneration Panel be requested to undertake a review of the Scheme of Members’ Allowances for 2019/20.

 

Minutes:

The Council received the report of the Executive Director which invited consideration of the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) in respect of the Scheme of Members’ Allowances 2018/19.  A copy of the Panel’s report was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

 

Councillor Ian Sollom moved the following motion:

 

1.    That the Independent Remuneration Panel be thanked for their work in producing the report at Appendix A.

 

2.    That, having had regard to the report, this Council does not support the adoption of the recommendations on the grounds that it does not appear adequately to evidence the reasoning behind the proposed allowances.

 

3.    That the Council therefore agrees that:

(a)  in accordance with the mechanism adopted in previous years,  all allowances be raised in line with the staff pay award for 2018/19; and

(b)  an SRA of £444 (to be adjusted in accordance with 3 (a) above), be awarded to the Chairmen of the Grants Advisory and Climate Change and Environment Advisory Committees.

4.    That the Scheme of Members’ Allowances for 2018/19, revised in accordance with 3 (a) and (b) above, be introduced with effect from 8 May 2018.

 

5.    That the Executive Director be authorised to implement and advertise the scheme and make any consequential amendments to the Scheme of Members’ Allowances in Part 6 of the Constitution.

 

6.    That the Independent Remuneration Panel be requested to undertake a review of the Scheme of Members’ Allowances for 2019/20.

 

In moving the motion, Councillor Sollom thanked the IRP for their work.  He noted that the review had been a challenging one bearing in mind the implementation of the new ward boundaries, the reduction in the size of the Council and the change in the political management arrangements. However he did not think that there was sufficient evidence to justify to the public supporting the recommended increase in the Basic Allowance or to increase the Special Responsibility Allowances without further analysis of what those special responsibilities entailed.  He therefore proposed that the Council should adopt the practice followed in previous years to increase allowances in line with the staff pay award. 

 

In response to a question from Councillor Mark Howell, the Executive Director confirmed that the costs shown for the current scheme on page 91 of the report related to a Council of 57 Members.  To reflect the cost of the current scheme on the basis of 45 Members the overall total would need to be reduced by about £60,000.

 

Councillor Mark Howell seconded the motion.

 

During discussion:-

 

·         Councillor Deborah Roberts observed that during her service as a councillor, the Council had repeatedly not accepted the recommendations of the IRP.  She noted that following the recent boundary review, some wards had grown considerably in size and the workload had likewise increased.  It was not reasonable to expect councillors to be out of pocket and it was important that recompense was sufficient not to deter candidates from standing for election.  She suggested that it would be reasonable to at least  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Urgent Executive Decisions pdf icon PDF 200 KB

To provide an information report on an urgent decision which was exempted from call-in under Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules 12.18 – 12.20.

Minutes:

The Council received an information report from the Monitoring Officer on a decision taken as a matter of urgency and which had been exempted from call-in under Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules 12.18 – 12.20.  Rule 12.19 provided that decisions taken as a matter of urgency must be reported to the next available meeting of the Council.

 

The report indicated that a decision had been taken by Cabinet, at its meeting held on 5 September 2018, to approve submission of a Bid for funding through the Government’s Additional HRA Borrowing Programme 2019/20 – 2021/22 Prospectus to support the construction of additional new build council homes as detailed in the exempt report to Cabinet (which was not for publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972).  The Government’s deadline for submission of bids had been 7 September 2018.  The decision therefore needed to be implemented before the expiry of any call-in period in view of the deadline set by the Government for submission of bids.

 

Council NOTED the report.

13.

Membership of Committees and Outside Bodies

To note and endorse any changes in the membership of Committees which have been made in accordance with the wishes of the Leader of the political group to which the seat concerned has been allocated.

 

To agree any changes required in membership of outside bodies.

Minutes:

Council NOTED AND ENDORSED the following amendments to memberships of committees:

 

Scrutiny and Overview Committee:

 

·         Councillor Steve Hunt to replace Councillor Dawn Percival as a member of the Committee.

·         Councillor Judith Rippeth to replace Councillor Eileen Wilson as a member of the Committee.

·         Councillor Jose Hales to replace Councillor Hunt as a substitute on the Committee

·         Councillor Henry Batchelor to replace Councillor Rippeth as a substitute on the Committee

 

Planning Committee:

 

·         Councillor Heather Williams to replace Councillor Grenville Chamberlain as a member of the Committee

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain to replace Councillor Williams as a substitute on the Committee

 

Council AGREED to appoint Councillor Alex Malyon as a representative on the Swavesey Internal Drainage Board as a replacement for Councillor Dawn Percival.

14.

ADJOURNMENT

Minutes:

The Chairman adjourned the meeting for a short break at 3:30pm.  The meeting resumed at 3:47pm.

15.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed 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.

 

Members wishing to ask a question without notice should indicate this intention to the Democratic Services Team Leader prior to 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.

15a

From Councillor Sue Ellington

South Cambridgeshire District Council is a rural district with significant rural responsibilities although the district is becoming increasingly urban with significant housing development. Can the Environment Portfolio Holder reassure the Council that given recent staff changes the vitally important historical knowledge and expertise in relation to the management of 200 miles of awarded water courses will be retained and managed to enable farming and prevent flooding.

 

Minutes:

South Cambridgeshire District Council is a rural district with significant rural responsibilities although the district is becoming increasingly urban with significant housing development. Can the Environment Portfolio Holder reassure the Council that given recent staff changes the vitally important historical knowledge and expertise in relation to the management of 200 miles of awarded water courses will be retained and managed to enable farming and prevent flooding?

 

Councillor Neil Gough, the Lead Cabinet Member for Environmental Services and Licensing, agreed that institutional knowledge in this area was very important and indicated that he would work with the Director of Health and Environmental Services to ensure that this was not lost.  He commented that this area of work had been overseen by Paul Quigley, Head of Service, Environmental Commissioning, with Pat Matthews, and noted that Paul would be retiring on 28 September 2018 after 31 year’s service with South Cambridgeshire District Council.  The Lead Cabinet Member for Environmental Services and Licensing placed on record the Council’s collective thanks to Paul for his advice, support and exemplary work during his service with the Council. 

 

Councillor Ellington, as a supplementary question, asked when the work on Mare Fen would be complete as she understood that the planning permission for Stage 2 at Northstowe was dependent on the work being completed. The Lead Cabinet Member for Environmental Services and Licensing commented that work was continuing on the scheme but referred to his understanding that whilst the legal documentation had not been completed, the agreements for the construction and adoption of Mare Fen had been agreed between the Environment Agency and Homes England.  He would update Councillor Ellington on further progress.

 

15b

From Councillor Ruth Betson

The Deputy Leader of the Council has said that there is an "urgent need to bring forward new transport infrastructure to keep up with the demand of new builds”. As this Council’s representative on the board of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, can he tell us which proposals for the A428 route he supports to address that urgency?

 

Minutes:

The Deputy Leader of the Council has said that there is an "urgent need to bring forward new transport infrastructure to keep up with the demand of new builds”. As this Council’s representative on the board of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, can he tell us which proposals for the A428 route he supports to address that urgency?

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer, the Deputy Leader of the Council, acknowledged that the newly adopted Local Plan would provide for 19,500 houses in District, including growth at Bourn Airfield and Cambourne.  There was therefore a need for high quality public transport links along the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor and it was an important part of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s (GCP) work to deliver that route.  The GCP had been working on the scheme for 3.5 years and was now working closely with the Combined Authority to ensure that provision of infrastructure in the A438 corridor aligned with the objectives for the wider area.  He acknowledged the urgency of delivering a high quality public transport link between Cambourne and Cambridge and confirmed he would do his upmost, within the institutional framework available, to ensure that this happened.

 

Councillor Betson, as a supplementary question, asked whether the Deputy Leader would support her in making representations to Highways England to ask them to review their modelling and to bring the short single lane section of the carriageway on the A428, where it joined the A14 at the Girton Interchange section, back to dual carriageway. The Deputy Leader concurred that it was illogical for the section of highway in question to be single carriageway and agreed to support Councillor Betson in making representations to Highways England.  He noted that there were further plans for improvements of the Girton Interchange and upgrading of the A428 but these were some way off and therefore he was happy to support the making of representations to Highways England with the aim of bringing this section of road back to dual carriageway.

 

 

15c

From Councillor Bunty Waters

What is the Leader of the Council doing to ensure the dualling of the A10 proceeds at a pace sufficient to cope with the traffic from the new Waterbeach development?

 

Minutes:

What is the Leader of the Council doing to ensure the dualling of the A10 proceeds at a pace sufficient to cope with the traffic from the new Waterbeach development?

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council reported that the Combined Authority had commissioned the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study to explore proposals for securing enhancement of capacity in the A10 corridor, including making the transport mitigations necessary to support the phased delivery of the new town north of Waterbeach.  The results of the survey were expected by the end of the year and whilst it was necessary to await the outcomes of the survey, it was anticipated that the improvements would be likely to include dualling of the A10 and junction improvements.

 

Councillor Waters referred to concerns expressed by residents about traffic and blocking in Cody Road, Waterbeach and suggested that previous experience in Bar Hill and Northstowe had highlighted the need for robust communications with Highways England.  The proposals for dualling the A10 were likely to have a significant impact for residents in Waterbeach and, as a supplementary question, she asked what could be done to support the local community.  The Deputy Leader confirmed that he was conscious of the potential problems that could arise in the absence of good communications.  He noted that the A10 scheme would be a Combined Authority, rather than Highways England, project and agreed that appropriate and timely communication would be essential.

15d

From Councillor Dr. Shrobona Bhattacharya

What efforts is the Council making to ensure the right balance is achieved for Cambourne High Street, particularly ensuring that community interests are served?

 

Minutes:

What efforts is the Council making to ensure the right balance is achieved for Cambourne High Street, particularly ensuring that community interests are served?

 

The Leader of the Council reported that proposed development of the High Street in Cambourne had received enthusiastic local support.  There had been extensive consultation with the community and Council officers were working with the Greater Cambridge Partnership to seek to obtain funding for highways infrastructure associated with the scheme.  She understood frustrations that the project was not moving along more quickly but repeated that there was real enthusiasm to ensure that the right scheme was delivered to enable development of a sustainable and vibrant high street.

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor Dr. Bhattacharya asked when it was expected that the plans for the High Street might be agreed so that she could communicate this to local residents.  The Leader indicated that she was unable to give a firm indication of when the plans might be agreed as this was dependent on negotiations with the GCP, developers, architects and designers.  It was also important to ensure that proper account was taken of the outcomes of the consultation.  She shared Councillor Dr. Bhattacharya’s frustrations but would provide more information as soon as she was able.

15e

From Councillor Nick Wright

Why is this Liberal Democrat administration slow and reluctant to support our village community groups trying to purchase The Tree at Stapleford and the Three Tuns at Guilden Morden by failing to start the compulsory purchase orders?

 

Minutes:

Why is this Liberal Democrat administration slow and reluctant to support our village community groups trying to purchase The Tree at Stapleford and the Three Tuns at Guilden Morden by failing to start the compulsory purchase orders?

 

The Leader of the Council  reported on her understanding that the community group was proceeding with the purchase of the Three Tuns at Guilden Morden and thus a compulsory purchase order would not be necessary.  She asked whether Councillor Wright had spoken with the community group in Stapleford since May.  She noted that she had met with the community group and officers a few weeks earlier to establish current progress.  This had taken place shortly after the landowner had lost the planning appeal and a window of opportunity accordingly remained for the community group to seek to negotiate a voluntary sale.  It was therefore hoped that a sale might still be achievable.  The Leader therefore believed that the community group was content with the way in which the Council was engaging in respect of this matter.  

 

Councillor Wright commented that the owners of the sites appeared to have an unrealistic expectation of their value and that if compulsory purchase powers were triggered, this would enable independent valuers to establish the true value of the sites, which had now stood vacant for some years.  As a supplementary question, he therefore asked whether the Council would trigger compulsory purchase orders to help community residents realise a sensible price so that their business ventures were not overloaded with debt at the outset.  The Leader indicated that she understood the point being made but the community group in Stapleford had agreed that there was still time in which to negotiate a private purchase and were happy to proceed on that basis.  The community group would no doubt come back to the Council if appropriate.

15f

From Councillor Peter Topping

Will the Leader of the Council undertake to instruct officers to consider, with their counterparts in the Cambridgeshire Constabulary, pre-emptive injunctions as one means by which to prevent unlawful trespass and encampments on village greens and recreation grounds in South Cambridgeshire?

 

Minutes:

Will the Leader of the Council undertake to instruct officers to consider, with their counterparts in the Cambridgeshire Constabulary, pre-emptive injunctions as one means by which to prevent unlawful trespass and encampments on village greens and recreation grounds in South Cambridgeshire?

 

The Leader recognised that Councillor Topping’s ward had experienced issues as outlined in the question but noted that pre-emptive injunctions were expensive and complicated and served only to displace encampments to other areas rather than properly to address the issue.  The Council was talking to local authorities who were using pre-emptive injunctions to learn more about the implications of their use.  However the seeking of such injunctions represented a last resort response and it was important to be mindful of the impact on other neighbouring authorities in terms of displacement of encampments.  The Leader noted that the Council had responded to the Government’s consultation on the subject but recognised the need to aim for an effective long term solution.  She also pointed out that many of the encampments recently experienced had been on private land and thus injunctions would not have been of any assistance.  Where encampments had been on public land it had proved possible to manage the issue relatively quickly.  Officers had been instructed to consider all options in order to achieve a long term solution and nothing was off the table.

 

Councillor Topping observed that some communities had resorted to digging banks to discourage further encampments and whilst he was pleased to hear that nothing was off the table, he was concerned that longer term solutions were being sought and felt action should be taken to support communities.  As a supplementary question, he asked what other “shots were available in the locker” to address the issue.  In response, the Leader reminded Councillor Topping of comments made by Councillor Hazel Smith at a previous Council meeting regarding the need for transit sites to be built into the next Local Plan.  Whilst this would not wholly address the problem it could be part of a longer term solution.  Pre-emptive injunctions were expensive, complex and lengthy processes and it was important to spend public money wisely.  It was also necessary to be mindful of the impact of displacing encampments elsewhere.  The Leader advised that a workshop on illegal encampments was taking place on 18 October 2018.

15g

From Councillor Heather Williams

The need to be on target with recycling contamination levels is key to getting the best value from our rubbish, what initiatives are happening to explain to our residents the issues and encourage recycling?

 

Minutes:

The need to be on target with recycling contamination levels is key to getting the best value from our rubbish, what initiatives are happening to explain to our residents the issues and encourage recycling?

 

The Lead Cabinet Member for Environmental Services and Licensing acknowledged that recycling contamination was both financially and environmentally wasteful and indicated that the real target was to reduce waste contamination to nil in order to avoid both current penalties in the order of £10,000 a month and diversion during the course of a year of about 2,500 tons of waste placed in blue bins to landfill.  The Council was therefore doing all possible via its communication channels to educate residents to recycle correctly. The last South Cambridgeshire magazine had contained an article on plastic recycling and this week events linked to the national “Plastic Recycling Week” had taken place.

 

Councillor Williams, as a supplementary question, asked whether the new Administration would support the promotion of recycling champions and community co-ordinators to engage with residents about recycling. The Lead Cabinet Member for Environmental Services and Licensing confirmed that engaging with the community in getting the recycling message across was critically important and therefore all channels for achieving this would be explored.  The scope for engaging with key stakeholders and other groups would also be looked at.

16.

NOTICES OF MOTION

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30 minute period, debate shall cease immediately, the mover of the original Motion will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote.

 

 

16a

Standing in the name of Councillor Peter Topping

The Leader of the Council received a letter from the Housing Minister dated 26 July asking her “to bring forward ambitious proposals for transformational housing growth, including new settlements”, by mid-September.

 

This Council notes the recommendations set out in the recently published report by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review that councils should focus on “exemplary” place making and quality of design in order to ensure that accelerated house building does not remove the qualities that make South Cambridgeshire an attractive place for companies to invest in and people to move to, and therefore instructs the Chief Executive and the Director of Planning and Economic Development to bring proposals forward, as the planning authority, that demonstrate how the Council is proposing to meet this expectation.

 

Decision:

Following amendment of the original motion, Council AGREED the following motion:

 

The Leader of the Council received a letter from the Housing Minister dated 26 July asking her “to bring forward ambitious proposals for transformational housing growth, including new settlements”, by mid-September.

 

This Council notes the recommendations set out in the recently published report by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review that councils should focus on “exemplary” place making and quality of design in order to ensure that accelerated house building does not remove the qualities that make South Cambridgeshire an attractive place for companies to invest in and people to move to, and therefore instructs the Chief Executive and the Director of Planning and Economic Development to prepare a presentation, as the planning authority, that demonstrates how the Council is seeking to meet this expectation.

Minutes:

Councillor Peter Topping moved the following motion as set out in the agenda:-

 

“The Leader of the Council received a letter from the Housing Minister dated 26 July asking her “to bring forward ambitious proposals for transformational housing growth, including new settlements”, by mid-September.

 

This Council notes the recommendations set out in the recently published report by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review that councils should focus on “exemplary” place making and quality of design in order to ensure that accelerated house building does not remove the qualities that make South Cambridgeshire an attractive place for companies to invest in and people to move to, and therefore instructs the Chief Executive and the Director of Planning and Economic Development to bring proposals forward, as the planning authority, that demonstrate how the Council is proposing to meet this expectation.”

 

In moving the motion, Councillor Topping commented that, during a visit to South Cambridgeshire earlier in the year, Sir Oliver Letwin had observed that some of the settlements under construction fell short of the ambition to achieve quality place making.  Councillor Topping noted that the Council owed a duty to its residents to ensure that the significant amount of development to be delivered in the future was of the very highest standard.  He drew comfort from the wording in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) report that called for exemplary design.  Whilst welcoming the opportunity being afforded to communities to take part in design workshops, Councillor Topping emphasised the importance of the Council focusing on place making and high quality design so that people continued to move to South Cambridgeshire because it was an attractive place to live. 

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Nick Wright.

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer moved that the second paragraph of the motion be amended by the deletion of words and their replacement (as indicated in strikethrough and underlined text below respectively) to read as follows:

 

This Council notes the recommendations set out in the recently published report by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review that councils should focus on “exemplary” place making and quality of design in order to ensure that accelerated house building does not remove the qualities that make South Cambridgeshire an attractive place for companies to invest in and people to move to, and therefore instructs the Chief Executive and the Director of Planning and Economic Development to prepare a presentation bring proposals forward, as the planning authority, that demonstrates how the Council is meeting proposing to meet this expectation.”

 

Councillor Van de Weyer explained that the motion as worded did not recognise the active work already being undertaken by the Council in this area.  His amendment accordingly proposed that officers should make a presentation to Members highlighting the activity of the Council in promoting high quality design and he gave some examples of work already taking place.

 

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins. 

 

During discussion:-

 

·         Councillor Nick Wright indicated that he did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16a

16b

Standing in the name of Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn

In the 2016 Referendum on the European Union the South Cambridgeshire District voted 60.2% in favour of remaining in the European Union.

 

The negotiations on withdrawal that have followed the national decision to leave the EU have progressed at a slow rate and the precise nature of any final deal is still uncertain with clear divisions among those who voted to leave and a lack of support among the Government’s members of parliament for the adopted ‘Chequers proposals’. It is therefore clear that there is uncertainty whether any final deal will have wholehearted support and can be carried through Parliament.

 

In recent months a campaign has developed which proposes a People’s Vote on any final deal (or no deal), with the alternative to remain in the EU, to ensure that the path taken has majority support among the electorate.

 

A number of letters have been received by members asking the Council to support this initiative.

 

The Council notes that:

(i)    The Governor of the Bank of England has stated that the average household income in Britain is now £900 lower than that anticipated if the decision to leave the EU had not been taken.

(ii)   There are a large number of non-UK EU nationals resident in the district whose life, and that of their UK-national families, has been destabilised by uncertainty. Apart from the social impacts, this has resulted in the loss of staff by local businesses and the NHS. 

(iii)  Due to uncertainty about whether the deal that will be agreed with the EU will achieve a Parliamentary majority, ‘no deal’ appears a very credible outcome. This has been described by Chancellor Hammond as having “large fiscal consequences” and by independent observers as “overwhelmingly negative”.

(iv) All avenues currently being considered by the Government impose increasing delays for goods at our international frontiers and no facilitation would be provided for trade in services which form a major element in the local economy.

(v)  Recent opinion poll evidence has suggested an overall trend in public opinion away from support for leaving  the EU and in favour of a vote on the conditions of any departure. A vote on the terms of withdrawal with the option to remain would ensure that we leave, should we do so, with wholehearted support for the actual conditions of withdrawal.

(vi) The anticipated rapidly deteriorating economic situation if Brexit proceeds is likely to accelerate austerity, which has already caused acute problems in providing local authority services and has severely affected local residents, in particular those in social housing or in receipt of benefits.

(vii)Evidence of illegal overspending has been presented (and accepted by the Electoral Commission) and court challenges on the constitutional position are still continuing. A vote on the withdrawal terms would ensure that any decision is accepted as sound by both sides of the argument rather than being fought out in the courts.

 

The Council believes that the interests of its residents would be best protected by a referendum on the terms  ...  view the full agenda text for item 16b

Decision:

Following alteration of the original motion by the mover, with the consent of Council, Council AGREED the following motion:

 

In the 2016 Referendum on the European Union the South Cambridgeshire District voted 60.2% in favour of remaining in the European Union.

 

The negotiations on withdrawal that have followed the national decision to leave the EU have progressed at a slow rate and the precise nature of any final deal is still uncertain with clear divisions among those who voted to leave and a lack of support among the Government’s members of parliament for the adopted ‘Chequers proposals’. It is therefore clear that there is uncertainty whether any final deal will have wholehearted support and can be carried through Parliament.

 

In recent months a campaign has developed which proposes a People’s Vote on any final deal (or no deal), with the alternative to remain in the EU, to ensure that the path taken has majority support among the electorate.

 

A number of letters have been received by members asking the Council to support this initiative.

 

The Council notes that:

(i)    The Governor of the Bank of England has stated that the average household income in Britain is now £900 lower than that anticipated if the decision to leave the EU had not been taken.

(ii)   There are a large number of non-UK EU nationals resident in the district whose life, and that of their UK-national families, has been destabilised by uncertainty. Apart from the social impacts, this has resulted in the loss of staff by local businesses and the NHS. 

(iii)  Due to uncertainty about whether the deal that will be agreed with the EU will achieve a Parliamentary majority, ‘no deal’ appears a very credible outcome. This has been described by Chancellor Hammond as having “large fiscal consequences” and by independent observers as “overwhelmingly negative”.

(iv) All avenues currently being considered by the Government impose increasing delays for goods at our international frontiers and no facilitation would be provided for trade in services which form a major element in the local economy.

(v)  Recent opinion poll evidence has suggested an overall trend in public opinion away from support for leaving  the EU and in favour of a vote on the conditions of any departure. A vote on the terms of withdrawal with the option to remain would ensure that we leave, should we do so, with wholehearted support for the actual conditions of withdrawal.

(vi) The anticipated rapidly deteriorating economic situation if Brexit proceeds is likely to accelerate austerity, which has already caused acute problems in providing local authority services and has severely affected local residents, in particular those in social housing or in receipt of benefits.

(vii)Evidence of illegal overspending has been presented (and accepted by the Electoral Commission) and court challenges on the constitutional position are still continuing. A vote on the withdrawal terms would ensure that any decision is accepted as sound by both sides of the argument rather than being fought out in the courts.  ...  view the full decision text for item 16b

Minutes:

In accordance with Council Standing Order No. 14.7 (a), Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn altered the motion of which he had given notice, with the consent of the meeting by revision of the seventh paragraph of the motion to read as follows (additions shown in underlined text and deletions in strikethrough text):

 

“The Council calls on the Government to abandon plans for a hard Brexit and to give the electorate, in particular the South Cambridgeshire electorate, the opportunity to assess the original promises of a seamless Brexit with minimal impact made by the Leave campaign by givingthe electorate (including resident European citizens) a vote on whether to accept the proposed withdrawal arrangements or to retain the many benefits local residents currently enjoy by with the option of staying in the European Union.

 

Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn accordingly moved the following motion as altered:-

 

“In the 2016 Referendum on the European Union the South Cambridgeshire District voted 60.2% in favour of remaining in the European Union.

 

The negotiations on withdrawal that have followed the national decision to leave the EU have progressed at a slow rate and the precise nature of any final deal is still uncertain with clear divisions among those who voted to leave and a lack of support among the Government’s members of parliament for the adopted ‘Chequers proposals’. It is therefore clear that there is uncertainty whether any final deal will have wholehearted support and can be carried through Parliament.

 

In recent months a campaign has developed which proposes a People’s Vote on any final deal (or no deal), with the alternative to remain in the EU, to ensure that the path taken has majority support among the electorate.

 

A number of letters have been received by members asking the Council to support this initiative.

 

The Council notes that:

(i)    The Governor of the Bank of England has stated that the average household income in Britain is now £900 lower than that anticipated if the decision to leave the EU had not been taken.

(ii)   There are a large number of non-UK EU nationals resident in the district whose life, and that of their UK-national families, has been destabilised by uncertainty. Apart from the social impacts, this has resulted in the loss of staff by local businesses and the NHS. 

(iii)  Due to uncertainty about whether the deal that will be agreed with the EU will achieve a Parliamentary majority, ‘no deal’ appears a very credible outcome. This has been described by Chancellor Hammond as having “large fiscal consequences” and by independent observers as “overwhelmingly negative”.

(iv) All avenues currently being considered by the Government impose increasing delays for goods at our international frontiers and no facilitation would be provided for trade in services which form a major element in the local economy.

(v)  Recent opinion poll evidence has suggested an overall trend in public opinion away from support for leaving the EU and in favour of a vote on the conditions of any departure. A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16b

16c

Standing in the name of Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer

This Council welcomes the commitment by government to invest in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and to enable it to make a nationally significant contribution to economic growth.

 

This Council sees the construction of the central section of the East West Rail line as being transformational for the regional economy, allowing sustained growth and geographical expansion of our high value industries such as life sciences, IT and digital.

 

This Council believes that at this stage in the design process it is essential for all route options to be evaluated. The selection of route options must be based on analysis of how they support and unlock housing and employment growth and how they fit with our existing development strategies.

 

This Council acknowledges that infrastructure investment on this scale carries enormous risks in its impacts on the environment while also presenting us with an unprecedented opportunity to make positive contributions to the net biodiversity and natural capital gain of the areas affected. This Council therefore commits itself to promoting environmental enhancement of benefits (such as flood management, water availability, noise and air pollution mitigation, health and landscape/amenities) along the corridor and asks that this is included in the route evaluation criteria.

 

This Council recognises that East West Rail and the growth of the corridor more generally will bring significant change to existing communities. It will work closely with those affected from the earliest stages of the project and will ensure that the delivery bodies do likewise.

 

This Council will continue to collaborate with the East West Railway Company on the route options and on analysing their benefits and impacts.

 

This Council will coordinate its work with all the local partners as well as the East West Rail Consortium, of which the Council is a long-standing member.

 

This Council requests that the Leader and Chief Executive write to the East West Railway Company, the Department of Transport, Network Rail and our MPs to express our aspirations for East West Rail in these terms.

 

Decision:

Following amendment with the consent of the mover, Council AGREED the following motion:

 

This Council welcomes the commitment by government to invest in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and to enable it to make a nationally significant contribution to economic growth.

 

This Council sees the construction of the central section of the East West Rail line as being transformational for the regional economy, allowing sustained growth and geographical expansion of our high value industries such as life sciences, IT and digital.

 

This Council believes that at this stage in the design process it is essential for all route options to be evaluated. The selection of route options must take account of analysis of how they support and unlock housing and employment growth and how they fit with our existing development strategies.

 

This Council acknowledges that infrastructure investment on this scale carries enormous risks in its impacts on the environment while also presenting us with an unprecedented opportunity to make positive contributions to the net biodiversity and natural capital gain of the areas affected. This Council therefore commits itself to promoting environmental enhancement of benefits (such as flood management, water availability, noise and air pollution mitigation, health and landscape/amenities) along the corridor and asks that this is included in the route evaluation criteria.

 

This Council recognises that East West Rail and the growth of the corridor more generally will bring significant change to existing communities. It will work closely with those affected from the earliest stages of the project and will ensure that the delivery bodies do likewise.

 

This Council will continue to collaborate with the East West Railway Company on the route options and on analysing their benefits and impacts.

 

This Council will coordinate its work with all the local partners as well as the East West Rail Consortium, of which the Council is a long-standing member.

 

This Council requests that the Leader and Chief Executive write to the East West Railway Company, the Department of Transport, Network Rail and our MPs to express our aspirations for East West Rail in these terms.

Minutes:

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer moved the following motion as set out on the agenda:

 

“This Council welcomes the commitment by government to invest in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and to enable it to make a nationally significant contribution to economic growth.

 

This Council sees the construction of the central section of the East West Rail line as being transformational for the regional economy, allowing sustained growth and geographical expansion of our high value industries such as life sciences, IT and digital.

 

This Council believes that at this stage in the design process it is essential for all route options to be evaluated. The selection of route options must be based on analysis of how they support and unlock housing and employment growth and how they fit with our existing development strategies.

 

This Council acknowledges that infrastructure investment on this scale carries enormous risks in its impacts on the environment while also presenting us with an unprecedented opportunity to make positive contributions to the net biodiversity and natural capital gain of the areas affected. This Council therefore commits itself to promoting environmental enhancement of benefits (such as flood management, water availability, noise and air pollution mitigation, health and landscape/amenities) along the corridor and asks that this is included in the route evaluation criteria.

 

This Council recognises that East West Rail and the growth of the corridor more generally will bring significant change to existing communities. It will work closely with those affected from the earliest stages of the project and will ensure that the delivery bodies do likewise.

 

This Council will continue to collaborate with the East West Railway Company on the route options and on analysing their benefits and impacts.

 

This Council will coordinate its work with all the local partners as well as the East West Rail Consortium, of which the Council is a long-standing member.

 

This Council requests that the Leader and Chief Executive write to the East West Railway Company, the Department of Transport, Network Rail and our MPs to express our aspirations for East West Rail in these terms.”

 

In introducing the motion, Councillor Van de Weyer reported that consultation was about to start on the route of the central section of the East West rail line and that it was important to raise awareness in advance of the consultation of the impact that the project could make on the regional economy. It was expected that the East West Rail Company would consult on more than one route and it was important that the benefits and impacts of each route were analysed.  Councillor Van de Weyer argued that the more the Council got involved in the discussion, the more it could influence and shape the outcomes. He noted that he had already raised issues about mitigating environmental impacts and securing environmental enhancements along the route.  Councillor Van de Weyer explained that another reason for putting forward the motion was to underline the need to look at a range of routes.  He referred to a previous report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16c

17.

CHAIRMAN'S ENGAGEMENTS

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

 

 

Date            Venue/Event                                                             Attending

 

July

 

Friday 20    Cogwheel Trust, Cambridge – 30th Anniversary        Chairman

 

August 

 

Friday 10    Presentation of Queen’s Award of Enterprise            Chairman

                   to Zettlex UK Ltd. Cambridge 

 

Friday 24    Funeral of F/E Keith Jeevar of 625 and 170               Chairman

                   Squadrons.

 

September

 

Monday 3    Merchant Navy Day – SCDC                                     Chairman

 

Friday 14     South Cambs Annual Tenant Gardening

                    Competition – David Rayner Centre, Scottsdales.   Chairman                   

 

Friday 14     Reception, Neale-Wade Academy, March                 Vice Chair

 

Friday 21     The USAF 501st Combat Support Wing Freedom      Vice Chair

                     of the Town Parade, Huntingdon.                                                   

 

Sunday 23   Service of Thanksgiving & Farewell. Ely Cathedral.    Chairman

 

Minutes:

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

 

18.

Exclusion of Press and Public

The press and public are likely to be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act).

 

Paragraph 3 refers to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

Decision:

Council AGREED

 

To exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that if present there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended).

Minutes:

Council

 

RESOLVED:

 

To exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that its consideration is likely to involve disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended).

19.

TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:

19a

Ice Rink Funding Agreement (Cabinet - 5 September 2018)

The recommendation of Cabinet and the report of the Executive Director, contain exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of Section 100(a) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Decision:

Council AGREED to defer further consideration to a future meeting of the Council as further information was required from a 3rd party before Members could make an informed decision.

Minutes:

Council received the recommendations of the Cabinet at its meeting held on 5 September 2018, together with the report of the Executive Director (which were not for publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972) regarding the Cambridge Ice Arena funding agreement.  Members noted that the recommendations of the Cabinet had been superceded by the recommendation in the report of the Executive Director.

 

Councillor John Williams moved the recommendations in the report, which were seconded by Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer.

 

Detailed discussion ensued and a short adjournment took place between 6.08pm and 6.14pm.

 

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Mark Howell and seconded by Councillor Neil Gough.

 

Council John Williams agreed to accept the amendment.

 

Council by affirmation

 

RESOLVED:

 

That consideration be deferred to a future meeting of the Council as further information is required from a third party before Members can make an informed decision.