Issue - meetings

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure outside the budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies, early retirements and payment in lieu of notice brought about as a consequence of the restructuring proposals for the Property Service set out in this report. 

Council

RESOLVED    That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure outside the budgetary provision, of up to £150,000, to meet the costs of any redundancies, early retirements and payment in lieu of notice brought about as a consequence of the restructuring proposals for the Property Service.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley raised a point of order, stating that as this proposal was very similar to that discussed at the last meeting of Council it could not be discussed again without 12 Councillors’ signatures or the suspension of Standing Orders. The Chief Executive addressed the meeting and explained that it was considered that the proposal was substantially different from the proposal before the last Council meeting and therefore it was not deemed necessary to get 12 signatures, but that if the meeting preferred it could suspend Standing Orders for this item. After a brief discussion Council suspended Standing Orders for this item.

Councillor Mark Howell presented this item. He explained that the pension rules were changing on 31 March and it was agreed that the Council should consider paying in lieu of notice to allow officers to retire on a full pension.

It was agreed that the resolution should be amended to include a maximum figure for the proposed authorised expenditure and on the advice of the Chief Executive this was set at £150,000.

Councillor Howell moved and Councillor Ray Manning seconded and Council

RESOLVED    That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure outside the budgetary provision, of up to £150,000, to meet the costs of any redundancies, early retirements and payment in lieu of notice brought about as a consequence of the restructuring proposals for the Property Service.

Cabinet AGREED that sympathetic consideration be given to those affected staff seeking redundancy before 31 March 2010, including pay in lieu of notice.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure outside the budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies, early retirements and payment in lieu of notice brought about as a consequence of the restructuring proposals for the Property Service set out in this report.

Cabinet AGREED that sympathetic consideration be given to those affected staff seeking redundancy before 31 March 2010, including pay in lieu of notice.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure outside the budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies, early retirements and payment in lieu of notice brought about as a consequence of the restructuring proposals for the Property Service set out in this report.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented the report on the Property Services Restructure, and drew attention to the fact that, if any redundancies arose, these would not take effect until 2011, as a funded project was available which could support two posts during 2010/11, should any of the officers at risk of redundancy wish to apply.

Cabinet AGREED that sympathetic consideration be given to those affected staff seeking redundancy before 31 March 2010, including pay in lieu of notice.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure outside the budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies, early retirements and payment in lieu of notice brought about as a consequence of the restructuring proposals for the Property Service set out in this report.

At the request of the Housing Portfolio Holder, this item was WITHDRAWN from the agenda, to allow further details to be provided about proposals to retain three extra staff to provide front-line sheltered housing services.

At the request of the Housing Portfolio Holder, this item was WITHDRAWN from the agenda, to allow further details to be provided about proposals to retain three extra staff to provide front-line sheltered housing services.

The following amendment to a Motion standing in the names of Cllrs Liz Heazell and Sebastian Kindersley, stands deferred from the last meeting, following the passing of a Procedural Motion to adjourn the debate (amendments to the Substantive Motion marked in bold italics below):

 ‘Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory, and realise that service charges are very much lower than in the private sheltered sector, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change, less staff on-site hours together with increased charges / rents.

Council agrees to subject all services for sheltered housing residents, provided by us or by partners across the district, to a review, with the objective of achieving the best possible standard of service provision, which will be conducted by a Task and Finish Group set up by the Portfolio Holder.’

Since this Motion was considered on 24 September 2009, Cabinet has considered a report, and agreed recommendations, in respect of the future structure of the housing service. In considering any Resolution arising from this item of business, Members may consider it appropriate to agree a further amendment to provide for any review to take place within the parameters of the decisions in respect of the housing services review, agreed by Cabinet.

Council RESOLVED that the following Notice of Motion be approved:

 ‘Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change and less staff on-site hours.

Council agrees to subject all services for sheltered housing residents, provided by us, to a review, with the objective of achieving the best possible standard of service provision,which will be conducted by a Task and Finish Group set up by the Portfolio Holder.’

Council considered an amended Motion standing deferred from the last meeting, following the passing of a Procedural Motion to adjourn the debate. Prior to the adjournment, Councillor Nigel Cathcart had moved and Councillor Jim Stewart seconded the amendment set out at Agenda item 13(a).

Councillor Liz Heazell, mover of the original Motion, indicated her acceptance of the amendment, which, in accordance with Standing Order 14.6(b), was therefore incorporated into the substantive Motion.

Following representations from Councillor Mark Howell in his capacity as Housing Portfolio Holder, and with the consent of the meeting required under Standing Order 14.7(a), she altered her Motion further to incorporate the following changes (marked in bold italics):

 ‘Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory and realise that service charges are very much lower than in the private sheltered sector, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change and less staff on-site hours together with increased charges / rents.

Council agrees to subject all services for sheltered housing residents, provided by us or by partners across the district, to a review, with the objective of achieving the best possible standard of service provision,which will be conducted by a Task and Finish Group set up by the Portfolio Holder.’

Council RESOLVED, with no Members voting against, that the Motion be agreed as altered and set out above.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure, outside budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies and early retirements brought about as a consequence of the proposals in respect of exposing the district responsive repairs service to competitive tendering, the restructuring of the sheltered housing service from a site-based to a floating support model and the reduction in the grounds maintenance budget. 

The report and appendix considered by the Cabinet are available to view using the following link to the Council's website (www.scambs.gov.uk) - Item 6 refers. In addition, paper copies have been placed in the Members’ Room, and are available from Democratic Services, telephone (01954) 713016, e-mail democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk 

The following proposal was DEFEATED by 25 votes to 22:

‘That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure, outside budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies and early retirements brought about as a consequence of the proposals in respect of exposing the district responsive repairs service to competitive tendering, the restructuring of the sheltered housing service from a site-based to a floating support model and the reduction in the grounds maintenance budget.’ 

Councillor Mark Howell moved and Councillor Ray Manning seconded the following recommendation by the Cabinet:

‘That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure, outside budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies and early retirements brought about as a consequence of the proposals in respect of exposing the district responsive repairs service to competitive tendering, the restructuring of the sheltered housing service from a site-based to a floating support model and the reduction in the grounds maintenance budget.’ 

The vote was declared invalid by the Chairman. The proposal, on being put again, was declared LOST, with 22 Members voting in favour and 25 against.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL, that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure, outside budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies and early retirements brought about as a consequence of the proposals below.

Subject to Council agreement of the above for those matters where Council’s agreement is required, Cabinet AGREED:

(a)               the district responsive repairs contract be exposed to competitive tendering;

(b)               the sheltered housing service be restructured to move from a site based to a floating support model; and

(c)               the grounds maintenance budget  be reduced to £164,500 for 2010/11, incorporating the service reductions recommended by the Housing Portfolio Holder at his meeting held on 21 October 2009, as detailed in Appendix E attached to the report to Cabinet.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL, that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder, be authorised to approve expenditure, outside budgetary provision, to meet the costs of any redundancies and early retirements brought about as a consequence of the proposals below. 

Subject to Council agreement of the above for those matters where Council’s agreement is required, Cabinet AGREED:

(a)               the district responsive repairs contract be exposed to competitive tendering;

(b)               the sheltered housing service be restructured to move from a site based to a floating support model; and

(c)               the grounds maintenance budget  be reduced to £164,500 for 2010/11, incorporating the service reductions recommended by the Housing Portfolio Holder at his meeting held on 21 October 2009, as detailed in Appendix E attached to the report to Cabinet.

Mr Peter Abraham of Willingham addressed the Cabinet about proposals to change the support system for sheltered housing scheme residents, presenting a 400-signature petition asking the Council to retain the current system.  The Housing Portfolio Holder, whilst sympathetic to residents’ views and commending the level and quality of support and care offered by staff, explained that the financial pressures facing the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), including a reduction in income associated with the Supporting People regime, necessitated changes to the way services were provided.  He cited a recent review by the charity Essential Role of Sheltered Housing (ERoSH), which had considered the introduction of floating support models instead of residential models for sheltered housing nationally and concluded that the level of care would improve under the new system.

In response to questions, the Housing Portfolio Holder confirmed that:

·                      It was proposed that three officers would focus on organising activities in communal rooms to maintain the community feeling of the schemes;

·                      The Council’s legal position with respect to each resident was specific to each case, depending upon what was agreed at the time the lease was signed;

·                      If the Council did not change its service provision to the floating support model, it would not be best placed to win the forthcoming tender for the Supporting People sheltered housing contract. If the Council did not win the tender, all of the sheltered housing officers would be transferred (TUPEd) to the winning organisation and the Council would no longer run the sheltered housing service for its tenants;

·                      Wardens and scheme managers who were familiar with the residents and their individual requirements would be in charge of assessing those residents with the highest levels of need, and a procedure would exist for re-assessments if an individual’s circumstances changed;

·                      The new model has the potential in future to be expanded to allow older residents in private or general needs Council housing to also have access to supported housing officers; and

·                      A task and finish group would be established to consider the future development of the service once employment matters had been concluded.  In the meantime, members were encouraged to attend the Housing Portfolio Holder’s meetings to give their input.

Cabinet also considered proceeding to a competitive tendering of the responsive repairs contract.  Opposing views, both oral and e-mailed, were in favour of retaining the service in-house and saving the cost of tendering, citing the high levels of resident satisfaction with the existing service.  The Leader explained that the purpose of a competitive tender was to ensure that the Council was receiving best value for money.  It was possible that other authorities might bid for the contract, as bidding would not be restricted to private companies, and it was also possible that the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO), which currently held two of the three existing South Cambridgeshire contracts, could win all three contracts.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL, that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51

District councillors are invited to attend a briefing on proposed changes to the Affordable Housing Service ahead of its consideration at November's Cabinet meeting.  The briefing will also cover details of Supporting People funding.  The briefing will take place in the Council Chamber on Tuesday 3 November at 3.30pm.  Please contact Rhian Offord on (01954) 713293 if you plan to attend.

Could the Portfolio holder for housing set out his assessment of the pressures faced by the Council's sheltered housing scheme, and its warden service in particular?

Councillor PW Topping asked the Housing Portfolio Holder the following question:

Could the Portfolio holder for housing set out his assessment of the pressures faced by the Council's sheltered housing scheme, and its warden service in particular?

Councillor MP Howell, Housing Portfolio Holder, advised that pressures on the sheltered housing service arose from two sources:

1. The need to make savings within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA)
2. The need to respond to changes within the Supporting People regime.

In respect of the the HRA, income from service charges and Supported People was not sufficient to cover the current level of expenditure on the sheltered housing service. A cross subsidy from HRA rental income was required to balance the books,  currently running at around £600K per year. The retention by the Council of its council homes required a saving on the HRA of around £500K to be in place by 2011/12. Cuts across all service areas were being considered, but a significant proportion of the £500K savings would have to come from the cross subsidy to sheltered housing services.

With regard to Supporting People, Councillor Howell advised that the budget managed by the County Council would be subject to cuts over the next three years. In addition there was a proposed shift of resources from services to older people to services for others with housing needs. There was also a steer from Supporting People that there would be a shift of resources from residential based services to floating support style services.

The contract to provide housing support services to the elderly was due to be competitively tendered in around 3 years time. In order to prepare the service at the Council to be able to win such a tender, work was underway now to redesign the service as a floating support model. This was intended to ensure that the resources available were targeted at those that most needed support, and were not spent on providing visits to those that did not need them.

The Council had already moved away from providing resident wardens some years ago. The current set up involved three teams of sheltered housing officers providing a semi floating service to the sheltered housing schemes. The developing proposals would see a shift away form a scheme based service to an individually tailored support service. The role of the sheltered housing staff would therefore change, with some staff providing the support services to individual people whilst others focussed on working with groups of residents to assist with social activities in the common rooms.

Councillor Topping thanked the Portfolio Holder for his answer and stated that he had intended to invite Councillor Howell to visit the Sheltered Housing Scheme in Whittlesford; however, he would delay that invitation given the more immediate urgency of work to develop solutions to the severe challenges facing the sheltered housing service.

The Portfolio Holder stated that he had visited the Sheltered Housing scheme at Gamlingay to hear residents’ concerns expressed directly, and advised that he would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43

Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory, and realise that service charges are very much lower than in the private sheltered sector, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change, less staff on-site hours together with increased charges / rents.

Council agrees to subject all services for the vulnerable elderly, whether provided by us or partners across the district, to a review. Such a review could be conducted by our own Scrutiny and Overview Committee, or as a pilot study by the county-wide Joint Accountability Committee.  

Council RESOLVED, in accordance with Standing Order 14.11(a)(iii), to adjourn to the next meeting, consideration of the following Notice of Motion standing in the names of Councillors Mrs EM Heazell and SGM Kindersley, amended with their authorisation (as marked below) following an amendment moved by Councillor Mrs SM Ellington and seconded by Councillor JA Hockney:

‘Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory, and realise that service charges are very much lower than in the private sheltered sector, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change, less staff on-site hours together with increased charges / rents.

Council agrees to subject all services for the vulnerable elderly, whether provided by us or partners across the district, to a review. Such a review could be conducted by our own Scrutiny and Overview Committee, or as a pilot study by the county-wide Joint Accountability Committee.  

Council agrees to subject all services for sheltered housing residents, provided by us or by partners across the district, to a review, which will be conducted by a Task and Finish Group set up by the Portfolio Holder.

Councillor Mrs EM Heazell moved and Councillor SGM Kindersley seconded a Motion in the following terms:

‘Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory, and realise that service charges are very much lower than in the private sheltered sector, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change, less staff on-site hours together with increased charges / rents.

Council agrees to subject all services for the vulnerable elderly, whether provided by us or partners across the district, to a review. Such a review could be conducted by our own Scrutiny and Overview Committee, or as a pilot study by the county-wide Joint Accountability Committee.’

Councillor Mrs SM Ellington moved and Councillor JA Hockney seconded an amendment in the following terms (alterations marked in bold italics):

‘Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory, and realise that service charges are very much lower than in the private sheltered sector, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change, less staff on-site hours together with increased charges / rents.

Council agrees to subject all services for sheltered housing residents, provided by us or by partners across the district, to a review, which will be conducted by a Task and Finish Group set up by the Portfolio Holder.’

The mover and seconded of the original Motion agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 14.6(b), to accept the amendment through its incorporation into their Motion. With the consent of the mover of the amendment, the original Motion stood altered accordingly, the amendment was deemed withdrawn and debate proceeded on the Substantive Motion.

Councillor NN Cathcart moved and Councillor JH Stewart seconded an amendment in the following terms (alterations marked in bold italics):

‘Concern is mounting particularly amongst our sheltered housing residents and their families regarding our services provided for the vulnerable elderly. There is also rising public concern on this issue.

While many Council sheltered residents have found the emergency cover very satisfactory, and realise that service charges are very much lower than in the private sheltered sector, there are many apprehensions being voiced about the prospect of more change, less staff on-site hours together with increased charges / rents.

Council agrees to subject all services for sheltered housing residents, provided by us or by partners across the district, to a review, with the objective of achieving the best possible standard of service provision, which will be conducted by a Task and Finish Group set up by the Portfolio Holder.’

Councillor NS Davies moved, Councillor D de Lacey seconded and Council RESOLVED, with 40 votes in favour and 9 against,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51

The Portfolio Holder considered an update report summarising actions taken to refocus the service delivery of Affordable Homes, following the Housing Futures ballot result, prior to the submission of a full report for decision to a subsequent Cabinet meeting.

The Corporate Manager for Affordable Homes (CM) introduced the report, advising that the three key issues emerging during the review were around a reduced capital programme, the requirement for savings within the Housing Revenue Account once reserves were no longer available to cover shortfalls, and external drivers in respect of Supporting People and new regulatory standards.

The Portfolio Holder and Members presented considered each of the above issues in terms of their implications for the service. In order to ensure that Members were fully equipped with the facts about changes to the Supporting People programme, opposition spokespersons and Monitors were requested to act as conduits of information within their political groups, whilst the CM advised he would prepare briefings as required. Officers were further requested to forward relevant Internet links to access information about the Tenant Participation Service and Tenant Services’ Authority.

In response to a question, the CM advised that he hoped that the loss of posts, referred to in paragraph 18 of the report, could be achieved through measures other than compulsory redundancy wherever possible, for example through the abolition of vacant posts.

Following the discussion, the Portfolio Holder NOTED the report and its contents.

Councillor MP Howell, Housing Portfolio Holder, introduced this report which set out the future of the Council’s housing service.

It was noted that the “tipping point” mentioned in paragraph 3(c) of the report where the Council was likely to be at risk of not fulfilling its legal obligations was now estimated to be in 2013/14.

Format of the report

Members of the Committee expressed disappointment at the lack of up to date information and plans in the report received by the Committee, which was an amended version of the report sent to the Housing Portfolio Holder meeting in August 2008. It was suggested that either a new report was required or more information should have been added to reflect the changes that had occurred over the last 10 months.

Plans agreed by Council

Councillor Howell explained that the Five Year Housing Maintenance Plan and the Affordable Housing Action Plan had been agreed by Council and to meet these commitments following the vote to retain the housing stock, cost savings would have to be made.

Cost savings

Councillor Howell highlighted the following savings:

• The subsidising of the rent and charges paid by Sheltered Housing residents by other Council housing tenants would not continue.
• The contract for an Anti-Social Behaviour Officer would not be renewed.
• The Supporting People scheme would be stopped and adaptations for disabled tenants would no longer be carried out, beyond those required by the Disability Discrimination Act.

Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH)

In response to questioning Councillor Howell stated that there was no plan to join the Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH) although this had not been ruled out for the future.

Direct Labour Organisation (DLO)

It was noted that the contract for the Direct Labour Organisation was coming up for renewal later this year.

Rent paid to the Government

It was noted that 56% of the rent collected by the Council had been paid to the Government and concern was expressed that this could increase in the future.

Stock Condition Survey

Councillor Howell noted anecdotal evidence which challenged the methodology and therefore the accuracy of the recent Stock Condition Survey. He stated that the maintenance plan had been agreed by tenants and Members.

The Committee NOTED the report and the Chairman thanked the portfolio holder for his attendance.

This public question for Council on 21 May 2009 was received with some background comments which were not included in the Council agenda.  Members have requested that the full background be circulated to all Councillors and we have since obtained the permission of Ms Watson (now Mrs Smith) to publish it.

Subject: Question on South Cambs Housing Transfer.

As a member of the public and a tenant of South Cambs District Council I should like to ask a question and raise some concerns I have over the proposed transfer of Housing stock to the Housing Association set up by South Cambs District Council.

I have read all the literature that has come through my door on a very regular basis and at great expense. I also note that the information does appear to be one sided to the point that it only seems to be positive information in relation to the transfer. Surely there also would be risks to this procedure, as with any plan for anything financial. I am also concerned that this plan is being rushed through at an alarming rate even though the Country is in a Recession and whether if this fails the tenant would be disadvantaged in any way now or in the future.

I have noted that the local media has covered this story at various times in the past year giving all parties an equal say and if this wasn't so I would be none the wiser that my security as a tenant could be in any way compromised.

The one question that I would like an answer to is what is being used to borrow the money (loan) for The Housing Association to purchase the Council Houses? If someone takes a loan out it is usually either unsecured for a small amount or secured for a large amount (against someone's home if they own it) Large loans are very very rarely given to someone who has no collateral

Yours Sincerely

Ms Teresa Watson

Members of the public are welcome to ask questions of any member of the Council (including the Leader and Portfolio Holders) at meetings of the full Council, and of the Leader and Portfolio Holders at meetings of the Cabinet.  The following protocol applies:

General

At the discretion of the Chairman, members of the public may ask questions of any member at ordinary meetings of the Council. A standard protocol to be observed by questioners is given below:

1.                  Questioners will not be permitted to raise the competence or performance of a Councillor or officer, nor any matter involving exempt information or normally considered 'confidential'.

2.                  Questioners cannot make any abusive or defamatory comments.

3.                  Each questioner must make it clear whether he or she is speaking as a private individual or as a representative of an organisation.

4.                  If any clarification of what the questioner has said is required, the Chairman will have the discretion to allow Councillors to ask questions.

5.                  The questioner will not be permitted to participate in any subsequent discussion and will not be entitled to vote.

6.                  The Chairman will decide when and what time will be set aside for questions depending on the amount of business on the agenda for the meeting. Normally questions will be dealt with as the first substantive item of the meeting. A maximum of ten minutes will be allowed for public questions on any specific agenda item.

7.                  Individual questioners, to set the scene for their questions, will be permitted to speak for a maximum of three minutes.

Order of questions

Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received, except that the Chairman may group together similar questions.

Notice of questions

A question may only be asked if notice has been given by delivering it in writing or by electronic mail to the Democratic Services Section no later than midday 3 days before the day of the meeting. Each question must give the name and address of the questioner. The Chairman may permit a question to be asked if shorter notice is given. If a substantive answer cannot be given at the meeting, the Chairman may refer the question to any other body of the Council or for a written response by the member or by the relevant Chief Officer.

Number of questions

At any one meeting no person may submit more than one question but one supplementary question may also be asked. More than one question shall not be submitted on behalf of any organisation.

Scope of questions

The proper officer may reject a question if it:

·                      is not about a matter for which the local authority has a responsibility or which affects the district;

·                      is defamatory, frivolous or offensive;

·                      is substantially the same as a question which has been put at a meeting of the Council in the past six months; or

·                      requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information.

Record of questions

The proper officer will keep a record of submitted questions open to public inspection and will immediately send a copy of the question to the member to whom it is to be put. Rejected questions will include reasons for rejection.

Asking the question at the meeting

The Chairman will invite the questioner to put the question. If a questioner who has submitted a written question is unable to be present, they may ask the Chairman to put the question on their behalf. The Chairman may ask the question the questioner's behalf, indicate that a written reply will be given or decide, in the absence of the questioner, that the question will not be dealt with.

Supplemental question

A questioner who has put a question in person may also put one supplementary question without notice to the member who has replied to his or her original question. A supplementary question must arise directly out of the original question or the reply. The Chairman may reject a supplementary question on any of the grounds under Scope of Questions above.

Written answers

Any question which cannot be dealt with during public question time, either because of lack of time or because of the non-attendance of the member to whom it was to be put, will be dealt with by a written answer.

Reference of question to the executive or a committee

Where a question is not recorded in the agenda of a meeting, no discussion shall take place unless the provisions of urgency apply. Where a question is recorded in the Agenda, no discussion will take place unless the Chairman decides otherwise. However, any member may move that a matter raised by a question be referred to the executive or the appropriate committee or sub-committee. Once seconded, such a motion will be voted on without discussion.

Democratic Services Section

South Cambridgeshire District Council

South Cambridgeshire Hall

Cambourne Business Park

Cambourne

Cambridge

CB23 6EA

democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

01954 713016