Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Nick Wright declared a personal interest in item 5d as a primary producer.

Councillor Mark Howell declared a personal interest in item 5e as a Member who was frequently liaising with Travellers.

Councillor Frances Amrani declared a personal interest in item 7b on Housing Rents and Service Charges 2010/11, as her brother was a Council tenant.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal interest in item 7d, the Investment Strategy, as a Director of a company that did business with investment organisations.

Councillor Sue Ellington declared a personal interest in item 8 the Swavesey Byeways Rate 2010/11, as a resident of Swavesey.

Councillors John Batchelor, Sebastian Kindersley, Tony Orgee and Susan van de Ven declared personal interests in the item 11a, the motion to the County Council regarding the District’s highways, as elected County Councillors.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on the 28 January 2010 as a correct record.

The minutes of 28 January 2010 were agreed as a correct record subject to the following amendments.

• On page 1 under the “Declarations of Interest” heading, the interest declared by Councillor Nigel Bolitho was amended to read “… as a ratepayer on a small unit of land.”
• On page 1 under the “MINUTES” heading the following text was added:

“It was agreed that the minutes of the 26 November 2009 should be amended to include the presence of residents and parish councillors at the meeting.”

• On page 3 under item 55(d) the words “the Leader” were removed from the first sentence.
• On page 6 under item 60 the word “clearly” was amended to “yearly” in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
• On page 6 under 61(b) the words “by another member” were added to the final sentence.

Councillor Douglas de Lacey stated that his criticisms of the new e-mail system in minute 62(a) had not been fully recorded. His comments were noted.

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

Chairman stated that a letter had been received from the Government in reply to the Council’s motion on clearing snow. This was distributed at the meeting.

Councillor Ray Manning stated that the Government Minister responsible for Travellers had visited Willingham and met the Parish Council and Travellers living in the Parish. The Minister appeared impressed with the work that was carried out by the Council and stayed longer than originally intended.

Could the Portfolio Holder outline what is being done to encourage local businesses in South Cambridgeshire to sort and recycle as much of their waste as possible? 

Councillor Jonathan Chatfield asked the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder the following question:

“Could the Portfolio Holder outline what is being done to encourage local businesses in South Cambridgeshire to sort and recycle as much of their waste as possible?”

Councillor Sue Ellington stated that encouraging businesses to recycle their waste was one of the three recently agreed strategic priorities for the RECAP Board and it was also a prominent feature of the Council’s Actions.  As a result the Council had introduced two new recycling services for businesses.  Businesses in the District could now recycle their paper and cardboard waste through the Council’s trade waste collection services.  A flyer encouraging businesses to use these services was included in last year's NNDR bills and this would be repeated again this year albeit with a more eye-catching booklet.

Councillor Ellington also reported that, in addition to these services, the Council had been a driving force in successful applications for DEFRA's BREW funding (Business Resource Efficiency and Waste). This had paid for the:

• Temporary appointment within SCDC of a Trade Waste Recycling Officer
• Training of non-specialist waste officers on offering advice to businesses in dealing with their waste
• Development of the RECAP website as a specific local source for business on how and where they can deal with their waste more sustainably.

Councillor Ellington concluded that the new recycling service, due to come on stream this October, would provide the Council with further opportunities to assist businesses to recycle other waste materials such as plastics and glass.

In response to Councillor Chatfield’s supplementary question, Councillor Ellington agreed to find out whether businesses could acquire different sized bins for recycling their waste.

While realising that the CLG housing windfall will be greeted with relief by some sheltered residents fearing the loss of a familiar warden, others will realise that this money was a one-off and will not solve the underlying problems. In the interest of clarity regarding the internal subsidy, will the housing Portfolio holder answer the following question:

By how much will, on average, a general needs tenant subsidise sheltered housing equity share residents and tenants each week, and by how much will new general needs tenants pay via a target rent in terms of subsidy as above? 

Councillor Liz Heazell asked the Housing Portfolio Holder the following question:

By how much will, on average, a general needs tenant subsidise sheltered housing equity share residents and tenants each week, and by how much will new general needs tenants pay via a target rent in terms of subsidy?

Councillor Mark Howell explained that it was untrue that only general needs tenants subsidised sheltered housing tenants as the question implied. He explained that the figures only existed for all tenants, which amounted to an extra £13.80 per week. In response to Councillor Mrs Heazell’s supplementary question, Councillor Howell explained that a tenants’ working party could not be set up to examine this issue, until after the sheltered housing task and finish group had concluded its business.

Can we have an update on how Cabinet intends to make up some, any or all of the proposed c£600k savings per annum that were to accrue between both Authorities from the joint shared service project in partnership with Uttlesford DC and in particular (given recent Council announcements) may we know what services are to be cut if these savings do not materialise for whatever reason? 

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley asked the Leader of Council the following question:

Can we have an update on how Cabinet intends to make up some, any or all of the proposed approximate £600,000 savings per annum that were to accrue between both Authorities from the joint shared service project in partnership with Uttlesford District Council and in particular (given recent Council announcements) may we know what services are to be cut if these savings do not materialise for whatever reason?

Councillor Ray Manning explained that whilst the anticipated total savings for the project had been about £600,000, the anticipated savings for this authority was £350,000. This had been put in the Medium Term Financial Strategy and £200,000 of the savings would be covered through internal savings within the Revenues and Benefits section. He further explained that the Council had not done a business case for these or any other savings for the Council based on reductions in staff.

May we have an update on the Council's move towards Fair Trade status as agreed at Council some years ago now? 

Councillor Trisha Bear asked the Planning Portfolio Holder the following question:

May we have an update on the Council’s move towards Fair Trade status as agreed at Council some years ago now?

Councillor Nick Wright stated that progress on this matter had been slow to date. Initial problems included concerns over the quality of Fair Trade products and the extra cost. He reported that since 2006 the market for Fair Trade had changed with a wider variety of quality products on offer. A fresh look would be taken during 2010 at the cost implication of moving to a wider use of Fair Trade and specifically the criteria required to achieve Fair Trade accreditation.

In response to Councillor Bear’s supplementary question Councillor Wright explained that the Council had decided to use Fair Trade coffee in its refreshments, which cost the authority an extra £2,000 a year and had led to complaints regarding the quality of the product. Fair Trade was a brand name and the Council needed to consider whether more good could be done by purchasing other ethical brands, local produce, or encouraging farmers’ markets.

I was interested to read recently in the Cambridge News Cllr Bard's views on bridge-building and partnership working with our travelling communities. Could he please tell us exactly what he has done to achieve this and what steps he plans to implement further positive relations between the Cabinet and the travelling communities of South Cambridgeshire? 

Councillor Hazel Smith asked the New Communities Portfolio Holder the following question:

I was interested to read recently in the Cambridge News Councillor Bard's views on bridge-building and partnership working with our travelling communities. Could he please tell us exactly what he has done to achieve this and what steps he plans to implement to further positive relations between the Cabinet and the travelling communities of South Cambridgeshire? 

Councillor David Bard explained that the Council was doing a great deal of work on Gypsy and Travellers, including liaising with multi-agencies. Considerable work was being done on the Blackwell Site and a noise barrier by the A14 was established. In response to Councillor Smith’s supplementary question he explained that officers were visiting Travellers and encouraging them to vote and engage in the political process.

Is the stopping of the essential car users allowance for the Sheltered Housing Officers a deliberate attempt to completely undermine the sheltered housing service in south cambs? If the housing officer only had one site to look after then this would not be a problem but that is not the case as the cabinet well know. If this is actioned it will again put peoples lives at risk and may end in a fatality this is just not acceptable. 

Mr Peter Abrahams asked the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder the following question:

Is the stopping of the essential car users allowance for the Sheltered Housing Officers a deliberate attempt to completely undermine the sheltered housing service in South Cambs? If the housing officer only had one site to look after then this would not be a problem but that is not the case as the Cabinet well know. It this is actioned it will again put people’s lives at risk and may end in a fatality; that is just not acceptable.

Councillor Simon Edwards explained that mileage payments were being reviewed for all staff and so this initiative was certainly not an “attempt to undermine” one section of officers. The Senior Management Team had recently decided not to implement the proposed changes, to allow a full review that would be fair to all officers. It was agreed that Mr Abrahams would receive a written answer in response to his supplementary question regarding whether there would be further changes to the Sheltered Housing service, as this could not be answered by the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder.

I understand that the council proposes to issue a blue wheelie bin for recycling purposes to each household. As we have a very small back garden and nowhere to store a third bin, I would like to know what provision you has been made for alternatives for someone like myself who does not need or want another large bin.  Will I be able to refuse it?  Will we be able to continue to use our green box?  Will everyone be given a choice as I am sure many people feel the same way?  I would appreciate it if you could look at this matter and advise me of the outcome.  

In the absence of Gillian Greenwood, the Chairman asked the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder the following question:

I understand that the Council proposes to issue a blue wheelie bin for recycling purposes to each household, As we have a very small back garden and nowhere to store a third bin I would like to know what provision has been made for alternatives for someone like myself who does not need or want another large bin. Will I be able to refuse it? Will we be able to continue to use our green box? Will everyone be given a choice, as I am sure many people feel the same way? I would appreciate it if you could look at this matter and advise me of the outcome.

Councillor Sue Ellington stated that the existing green box recycling scheme was being replaced with a blue bin recycling scheme from October 2010. Residents would be able to recycle all the materials that they currently put in their green boxes (cans, glass, plastic bottles and paper) as well as a number of new materials which they currently could not recycle: plastic pots, tubs and trays and cartons (tetra packs). They would also be able to put cardboard in the blue bin instead of the green bin, so that for the first time it would be recycled, instead of simply being composted. A comprehensive communications plan was being developed and full details of what was happening and when would be appearing in the summer edition of the South Cambs Magazine.

Councillor Ellington added that this was a very exciting development and would not only help the Council towards its target of recycling 65%, but would make it easier for residents to recycle far more materials. It would mean no more lifting of heavy boxes, no more material being blown about and would also cost less, saving everyone money. It would also be better for the environment with more recycling, fewer vehicles and less waste going to landfill.

Councillor Ellington stated that Ms Greenwood's question touched on a number of important policy issues which officers were already considering and a policy report would be presented to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder on 16 March 2010 covering these and other issues. Councillor Ellington concluded that, in considering this report, she would be mindful of the need to provide the best quality of service that the Council could afford.

Comments from Councillor Roberts regarding the non-acceptance of these bins were noted.

To note all petitions received since the last Council meeting.

None. 

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

(a)               that the capital programme and the associated funding up to the year ending 31 March 2015 be approved as submitted;

(b)               that the revised revenue estimates for the year 2009/10 and the revenue estimates for 2010/11 be approved as submitted in the General Fund summary;

(c)               that the Medium Term Financial Strategy be approved based on the assumptions set out in the report to Cabinet;

(d)               that the District Council demand for general expenses for 2010/11 be £6,827,780;

(e)               that the Council sets the amount of Council Tax for each of the relevant categories of dwelling in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 on the basis of a District Council Tax for general expenses on a Band D property of £115.46 plus the relevant amounts required by the precepts of Parish Councils, Cambridgeshire County Council and the Cambridgeshire Police and Fire Authorities, details of those precepts and their effect to be circulated with the formal resolution required at the Council meeting; and

(f)                 that the prudential indicators be approved.

FURTHER TO RECOMMENDATION (e) ABOVE, COUNCIL IS RECOMMENDED TO AGREE THE FOLLOWING STATUTORY RESOLUTION IN RESPECT OF THE COUNCIL TAX FOR 2010-11:

That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2010-11 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

Council RESOLVED

(a)               that the capital programme and the associated funding up to the year ending 31 March 2015 be approved as submitted;

(b)               that the revised revenue estimates for the year 2009/10 and the revenue estimates for 2010/11 be approved as submitted in the General Fund summary;

(c)               that the Medium Term Financial Strategy be approved based on the assumptions set out in the report to Cabinet;

(d)               that the District Council demand for general expenses for 2010/11 be £6,827,780;

(e)               that the Council sets the amount of Council Tax for each of the relevant categories of dwelling in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 on the basis of a District Council Tax for general expenses on a Band D property of £115.46 plus the relevant amounts required by the precepts of Parish Councils, Cambridgeshire County Council and the Cambridgeshire Police and Fire Authorities, details of those precepts and their effect to be circulated with the formal resolution required at the Council meeting; and

(f)                 that the prudential indicators be approved.

FURTHER TO RECOMMENDATION (e) ABOVE, COUNCILRESOLVED THAT THE FOLLOWING STATUTORY RESOLUTION IN RESPECT OF THE COUNCIL TAX FOR 2010-11:

That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2010-11 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

Councillor Simon Edwards presented this item which detailed:

• the level of expenditure necessary to carry out those services chargeable to the District Council’s General Fund in the financial year 2010/11 and the demand on the Collection Fund required to meet District Council Expenses after allowing for the use of balances and Formula Grant;
• the Council Tax for 2010/11 required to meet the demand on the Collection Fund from the District Council; and
• the indicators required by the Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities.

In the table on page 11 the parish of Chishill was corrected to Great & Little Chishill.

Councillor Edwards explained how the budget had been reduced and the savings that had been made in recent years.

Councillor Kindersley expressed regret that this was a budget about cuts and that further cuts would have to be made. He criticised the administration for the resources spent on the Housing Futures project, for its handling of the proposed shared services with Uttlesford District Council and its abandonment of the Transformation Project. He concluded that the proposed 2.9973% Council Tax rise meant that the authority could be capped and so did not agree with the administration’s no risk strategy.

Councillor Manning explained that it was necessary to raise Council Tax and make cuts to balance the budget and invited those who disagreed to come up with a viable alternative. He added that the Government’s advice implied that only authorities which set a Council Tax above 3% ran the risk of being capped. The decision to go ahead with the Housing Futures project was defended on the grounds that it allowed tenants to decide whether to remain with the Council but endure cuts to their services, or to transfer the housing stock to a Housing Association which would be able to keep all the revenue raised from rents and so avoid cuts. It now appeared likely that the Government would be transferring £164 million debt to the Council, which would have to be paid back over 30 years. Councillor Manning defended the decision to cancel the Transformation Project, as it was not going to deliver the expected savings and was damaging to the authority.

Councillor Edwards explained that he supported using reserves to fund the Council’s capital expenditure programme, as it obviously would be unsustainable to use it to fund ongoing expenditure. It was noted that it would be illegal to use the reserves to fund housing expenditure, which could be funded only from the Housing Revenue Account.

The following views were also expressed:

• The proposed increase in Council Tax amounted to an extra £3.36 a year for a Band D property, which compared favourably to neighbouring authorities and would be accepted by residents.
• New homes were banded unfairly compared to homes in existing communities. It was noted that the leaflet sent out with the Council Tax bills included advice on how to have the banding of a home reassessed.
• It was immoral to raise Council Tax whilst reducing services.
• The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69a

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that:

(a)               from the first rent week in April 2010, rents for existing tenants be increased by an average of 2.7% based on a deflationary adjustment of –0.9%, with a maximum variation of £2.75 towards the phasing in of rent restructuring;

(b)               subject to written confirmation from the Department of Communities and Local Government that there will be no adverse impact on the negative housing subsidy, from the first rent week in April 2010, properties be let to new tenants at the target rent level;

(c)               new lifeline alarm users be charged £18 from 1 April 2010 for the installation of lifeline alarms;

(d)               tenants living in flats with communal areas and with door entry systems be charged £2 a week from 1 April 2010 towards the cost of these communal areas;

(e)               tenants living in flats with communal areas where there is no door entry system be charged £1 a week from 1 April 2010 towards the cost of the communal areas;

(f)                 charges for other services and facilities be increased as follows from 1 April 2010:

(g)               the grounds maintenance budget be funded by an additional £20,000, with an equivalent amount to be met from the General Fund;

(h)               a £300,000 revenue contribution be funded to capital outlay to provide increased support to the disabled adaptation budget; and

(i)                  the HRA budget as summarised in the revised Appendix A be approved.

Council RESOLVED that

(a)               from the first rent week in April 2010, rents for existing tenants be increased by an average of 2.7% based on a deflationary adjustment of –0.9%, with a maximum variation of £2.75 towards the phasing in of rent restructuring;

(b)               subject to written confirmation from the Department of Communities and Local Government that there will be no adverse impact on the negative housing subsidy, from the first rent week in April 2010, properties be let to new tenants at the target rent level;

(c)               new lifeline alarm users be charged £18 from 1 April 2010 for the installation of lifeline alarms;

(d)               tenants living in flats with communal areas and with door entry systems be charged £2 a week from 1 April 2010 towards the cost of these communal areas;

(e)               tenants living in flats with communal areas where there is no door entry system be charged £1 a week from 1 April 2010 towards the cost of the communal areas;

(f)                 charges for other services and facilities be increased as follows from 1 April 2010:

(g)               the grounds maintenance budget be funded by an additional £20,000, with an equivalent amount to be met from the General Fund;

(h)               a £300,000 revenue contribution be funded to capital outlay to provide increased support to the disabled adaptation budget; and

(i)                  the HRA budget as summarised in the revised Appendix A be approved.

Councillor Mark Howell, Housing Portfolio Holder, presented this item which recommended variations in housing rent and charges for 2010/11 and asked Council to reconsider changes to the sheltered housing services as previously discussed by Cabinet in November 2009. He urged Council to agree to the rent increase to prevent redundancies in Sheltered Housing and to stay in line with the Government’s instruction to continue to raise rent in order to bring it into line eventually with the rent of housing associations.

It was noted that there would be an extra charge for those properties protected by door entry systems. Concerns were expressed regarding the increasing rent for some of the district’s poorest residents and asking them to subsidise a service.

Councillor Howell explained that no guarantee could be given regarding the future of the housing service, as the Council was totally dependent on the Government and had to respond to changes it announced.

With over six members in favour, Council agreed to hold a recorded vote.

Councillor Howell proposed and Councillor Edwards seconded Cabinet’s recommendation and the motion was carried, with the voting recorded as follows:

FOR (30) Councillors:

David Bard                  Richard Barrett            Val Barrett            

David Bird                   Nigel Bolitho             Francis Burkitt

Tom Bygott                 Pippa Corney                        Neil Davies            

Jaime Dipple               Sandra Doggett            Simon Edwards

Sue Ellington               Janice Guest              Roger Hall                 

James Hockney            Mark Howell             Mervyn Loynes

Ray Manning               Ray Matthews                     David McCraith         

David Morgan              Lorraine Morgan            Charlie Nightingale

Tony Orgee                 Neil Scarr               Peter Topping          

Bunty Waters              Tim Wotherspoon            Nick Wright

AGAINST (6) Councillors:

Frances AmraniLiz Heazell                        Deborah Roberts

James Stewart           Susan van de Ven      John Williams

ABSTAIN (13) Councillors:

John Batchelor            Trisha Bear                Jonathan Chatfield

Sally Hatton                 Sebastian Kindersley            Douglas de Lacey

Janet Lockwood            Robin Martlew                        Mike Mason

Alex Riley                    Bridget Smith               Hazel Smith

Richard Summerfield

Council RESOLVED that

(a)               from the first rent week in April 2010, rents for existing tenants be increased by an average of 2.7% based on a deflationary adjustment of –0.9%, with a maximum variation of £2.75 towards the phasing in of rent restructuring;

(b)               subject to written confirmation from the Department of Communities and Local Government that there will be no adverse impact on the negative housing subsidy, from the first rent week in April 2010, properties be let to new tenants at the target rent level;

(c)               new lifeline alarm users be charged £18 from 1 April 2010 for the installation of lifeline alarms;

(d)               tenants living in flats with communal areas and with door entry systems be charged £2 a week from 1 April 2010 towards the cost of these communal areas;

(e)               tenants living in flats with communal areas where there is no door entry system be charged £1 a week from 1 April 2010 towards the cost of the communal areas;

(f)                 charges for other services and facilities be increased as follows from 1 April 2010:

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL adoption of the refreshed Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership Rolling Plan 2008-11.  The full Plan is available electronically on the Council’s website, www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings, as part of the the agenda papers for Cabinet on 11 February 2010, and a hard copy is available in the Members’ Lounge.

Council ADOPTED the refreshed Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership Rolling Plan 2008-11.

Councillor Manning introduced this item, which sought the adoption of the annual refresh of the South Cambridgeshire Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership Rolling Plan 2008-11.  That the Plan was a statutory document and needed to be in place by 1 April 2010.

Councillor Manning explained that the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership was a statutory body and that, unlike the Local Strategic Partnerships, it could not be amalgamated with another Partnership.

Council, with one abstention,

ADOPTED      The refreshed Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership Rolling Plan 2008-11

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder has been requested to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL the Investment Strategy for 2010/11 in the Appendix and to request that authority be delegated to the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder to make minor amendments to the Strategy in the event that the final guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government differs from the draft guidance.

Any change to the above recommendation will be reported at the Council meeting.

Council AGREED the Investment Strategy for 2010/11 with amendments, with delegated authority to the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder to make minor amendments to the Strategy in the event that the final guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government differs from the draft guidance.

Councillor Edwards introduced this report, which recommended the Investment Strategy 2010/11 to Council. Councillor Edwards stated that he had amended paragraph 4.4 of the Investment Strategy at his Portfolio Holder meeting to state that the Corporate Governance Committee, instead of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee, would be responsible for ensuring effective scrutiny of the treasury management strategy and policies.

It was noted that under the terms of the Strategy, quarterly reports would be received by the Finance and Staffing Portfolio holder, with an annual report to Council.

Councillor Francis Burkitt proposed and Councillor Jaime Dipple seconded that the maximum investment limit and maximum proportion that could be invested with the Treasury be removed, as it was the safest option which officers should have access to in times of crisis. This amendment was accepted by Councillor Edwards who had proposed the original motion and Councillor Manning who had seconded it.

Council,  with one vote against

AGREED        the Investment Strategy for 2010/11 with amendments, with delegated authority to the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder to make minor amendments to the Strategy in the event that the final guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government differs from the draft guidance.

Council RESOLVED that the following advice of the Swavesey Byeways Advisory Committee be accepted and agreed:

(a)               That the current level of byeway maintenance be maintained for the period 2010/11;

(b)               That a rate at 90 pence be levied to fund the required maintenance for the period 2010/11.

Councillor Sue Ellington presented this report, which provided details of the annual meeting of the Swavesey Byeways Advisory Committee and set the level of the Swavesey Byeways rate.

Councillor Topping proposed and Councillor Ellington seconded and Council RESOLVED that the following advice of the Swavesey Byeways Advisory Committee be accepted and agreed:

(a)               That the current level of byeway maintenance be maintained for the period 2010/11;

(b)               That a rate at 90 pence be levied to fund the required maintenance for the period 2010/11.

Council is RECOMMENDED to approve the appointment of Councillor David McCraith to the Corporate Governance Committee in place of Councillor Janice Guest. 

Council AGREED the appointment of Councillor David McCraith to the Corporate Governance Committee in place of Councillor Janice Guest.

Council AGREED the appointment of Councillor David McCraith to the Corporate Governance Committee in place of Councillor Janice Guest.

None. 

In the light of the serious, rapid and dangerous deterioration in the state of South Cambridgeshire's highways this Council requests that Cambridgeshire County Council take immediate and effective steps to restore the District's highways to at least a reasonable and safe state for use by all South Cambridgeshire citizens. 

Council RESOLVED that the following Motion be agreed:

In the light of the severe winter weather, the worst for 30 years, this Council recognises the four-fold increase in potholes and carriageway failures compared with last year, and requests that Cambridgeshire County Council take timely and effective steps to restore the District’s highways to at least a reasonable and safe state for use by all South Cambridgeshire citizens. 

Councillor Kindersley proposed and Councillor Mike Mason seconded the following  motion:

In the light of the serious, rapid and dangerous deterioration in the state of South Cambridgeshire’s highways this Council requests that Cambridgeshire County Council take immediate and effective steps to restore the District’s highways to at least a reasonable and safe state for use by all South Cambridgeshire citizens.

Councillor Mason added that money which was being allocated to the Guided Bus could be used for the above project, whilst Councillor Stewart suggested that pavements also needed to be considered.

Councillor Wright proposed and Councillor Manning seconded amendments to this motion to acknowledge the severe weather and the fact that immediate action may not be practical.

Council RESOLVED that the following Motion be agreed:

In the light of the severe winter weather, the worst for 30 years, this Council recognises the four-fold increase in potholes and carriageway failures compared with last year, and requests that Cambridgeshire County Council take timely and effective steps to restore the District’s highways to at least a reasonable and safe state for use by all South Cambridgeshire citizens.

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

The Chairman explained that the coffee morning at Denson Close was at Waterbeach, not Wisbech as stated in the agenda.

Council NOTED the Chairman’s engagements.