Agenda, decisions and minutes

Prior to the formal start of the meeting, the Leader of the Council made a presentation reviewing performance during 2008.

Councillor Manning advised that he and the Chief Executive had delivered similar talks to staff in December 2008. He thanked and paid tribute to all staff, Members and partners for their hard work and dedication which had contributed hugely to the Council’s achievements over the past 12 months. The Improvement Board had recognised that the Council had made significant progress since its reinspection by the Audit Commission in January 2008, progress which was paying dividends in a number of key areas of previous weakness, including the following:

·         Member development, through the agreement of a Member Development Strategy, the Member Mentoring programme and attendance at the National Leadership Academy for Councillors;

·         Community leadership, as a result of which the Council was now recognised as an outward-looking and proactive local and regional partner;

·         Scrutiny and overview, which was producing valuable pieces of work such as the report and recommendations by the Orchard Park task and finish group;

·         Handling major projects such as the Northstowe planning application and lobbying effectively to achieve the rejection of the Hanley Grange eco-town proposal;

·         Being a low-spending Council which had achieved further efficiencies, exceeding its target.

·         The award of external funding through the Local Public Service Agreement (£1.5 million) and Planning Delivery Grant (£860,000).

·         The introduction of new policy initiatives such as plastics recycling and the Homelink scheme.

·         The hard and work and commitment of the team bringing forward proposals for the future of the Council’s housing stock;

·         External recognition through awards for the Council’s residents’ magazine;

·         Achieving smoke-free status for the Council’s properties and working with businesses to help them to achieve this status.

Councillor Manning advised that the district had been recognised nationally as being one of the best places in which to live and hoped that the support being offered to businesses and residents during the current economic downturn would help to ensure that this situation continued into the future. Whilst progress in addressing the Council’s weaknesses had been good, he recognised that it still had a long way to travel in its ongoing improvement journey.

Councillors NN Cathcart, Mrs SJO Doggett, Mrs DP Roberts and NJ Scarr declared personal non-prejudicial interests in Agenda item 7(a) (Housing futures – Formal Offer Document) as members of the lobby group ‘South Cambridgeshire Against Transfer’. Given that the interests were not prejudicial, and in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors, they remained in the meeting and took part in the discussions and voting.

Councillors NCF Bolitho, RE Barrett, Mrs EM Heazell and PW Topping declared personal non-prejudicial interests in Agenda item 7(a) (Housing futures – Formal Offer Document) as members of the South Cambridgeshire Village Homes Shadow Board. Given that the interests were not prejudicial, and in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors, they remained in the meeting and took part in the discussions and voting.

Councillor RT Summerfield declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Agenda item 7(a) (Housing futures – Formal Offer Document) on the grounds that his mother-in-law was a resident on a sheltered housing scheme. Given that the interest was not prejudicial, and in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors, he remained in the meeting and took part in the discussions and voting.

Councillor Ms FAR Amrani declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Agenda item 7(a) (Housing futures – Formal Offer Document) on the grounds that her brother was a tenant of the Council. Given that the interest was not prejudicial, and in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors, she remained in the meeting and took part in the discussions and voting.

Councillor RE Barrett declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Agenda item 7(a) (Housing futures – Formal Offer Document) on the grounds that his daughter was a Council tenant. Given that the interest was not prejudicial, and in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors, he remained in the meeting and took part in the discussions and voting.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2008 as a correct record (attached).

Council RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to an amendment to Minute 53 (Declarations of Interests) to refer to Councillor RT Summerfield’s mother-in-law not his mother. 

The Chairman drew Members’ attention to research work being undertaken by the Council’s Human Resources service as part of the values project; the work sought feedback on councillors’ perceptions of their roles. He encouraged Members to contribute by contacting Ian Cawthra, HR Officer.

Councillor TJ Wotherspoon, the Council’s Design and Heritage Champion, drew Members’ attention to the consultation on draft Supplementary Planning Documents relating to Biodiversity and Listed Buildings. He hoped that many members would consider and comment upon these important topics.

‘In the Council’s consultation on the prospective transfer of the housing stock, emphasis has been given to the likelihood of improvements to the condition of existing homes, and not to the scope for increasing the supply of affordable homes.

Many current tenants are concerned about the provision of new housing as part of the transfer deal, for their family members currently on the housing register.

At the moment the housing register indicates that about 3,500 extra dwellings are needed.  Very few vacancies occur. How many new affordable homes does South Cambridgeshire Village Homes intend to build in its first five years, bearing in mind that need will only grow under present economic conditions?’

Councillor Dr SEK van de Ven asked the Housing Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘In the Council’s consultation on the prospective transfer of the housing stock, emphasis has been given to the likelihood of improvements to the condition of existing homes, and not to the scope for increasing the supply of affordable homes.

Many current tenants are concerned about the provision of new housing as part of the transfer deal, for their family members currently on the housing register.

At the moment the housing register indicates that about 3,500 extra dwellings are needed.  Very few vacancies occur. How many new affordable homes does South Cambridgeshire Village Homes intend to build in its first five years, bearing in mind that need will only grow under present economic conditions?’

Councillor SM Edwards, Housing Portfolio Holder, acknowledged the need for an increased supply of affordable housing to meet the need identified and advised that, in the event of transfer, South Cambridgeshire Village Homes would seek funding and work in partnership with the Council, Homes and Communities Agency and other housing associations to meet its commitment within the draft offer document to provide more affordable homes in its first five years.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Dr van de Ven expressed concern that the Council’s proposed contribution of £2 million towards the provision of new affordable homes created an expectation amongst tenants that the supply of such homes would be significant; she wondered how many units the £2 million would actually provide.

The Portfolio Holder advised that it was not considered prudent to make detailed commitments within the draft offer document in respect of targets which would be the responsibility of the housing association to deliver, however in his view the draft offer document clearly set out the overarching objective to increase the supply of affordable housing in the district.

‘It is apparent that vulnerable tenants are sometimes unable to uphold the condition of their tenancy requiring them to maintain their property in a fit state. This has in some circumstances led to serious problems of vermin infestation for neighbours which in turn is costing South Cambridgeshire District Council significant amounts of money to remedy, as well as taking up huge amounts of officer time. 

What routine measures are there in place to support tenants identified as vulnerable to live in our properties without breaching their tenancy agreements, thus causing nuisance to their neighbours and costing the Council a lot of money? If no such measures exist, is a proactive support structure not going to be more cost effective than the reactive system that appears to be current practice?

Councillor BZD Smith asked the Housing Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘It is apparent that vulnerable tenants are sometimes unable to uphold the condition of their tenancy requiring them to maintain their property in a fit state. This has in some circumstances led to serious problems of vermin infestation for neighbours which in turn is costing South Cambridgeshire District Council significant amounts of money to remedy, as well as taking up huge amounts of officer time. 

What routine measures are there in place to support tenants identified as vulnerable to live in our properties without breaching their tenancy agreements, thus causing nuisance to their neighbours and costing the Council a lot of money? If no such measures exist, is a proactive support structure not going to be more cost effective than the reactive system that appears to be current practice?’

Councillor SM Edwards, Housing Portfolio Holder, addressed the question in terms of the issues for environmental health, anti-social behaviour and supporting vulnerable residents.

In respect of environmental health, Council was advised that Affordable Homes and Health and Environmental Services operated a proactive liaison group to identify emerging cases for concern and agree action plans to address them.

In terms of neighbourly nuisance, the Affordable Homes Services had employed a temporary Housing Officer to deal specifically with Anti-Social Behaviour cases, working with the Council’s Community Safety Team, Anti-Social Behaviour Task Group and prolific offenders panel to deal with cases of concern.

In respect of support for vulnerable tenants, the Council operated a Floating Support service which worked to maintain tenancies and visited all new tenants. When it became apparent that elderly residents were unable to remain in their homes, such cases would be referred to social services. The Council tried to be as proactive as possible in identifying and supporting vulnerable tenants, however in some cases it only became aware of tenants experiencing problems when they reached crisis point.

By way of a Supplementary Question, Councillor BZD Smith asked, in the event of housing transfer, in what ways vulnerable tenants would be protected from eviction by the housing association where they were unable to maintain their tenancies?

The Housing Portfolio advised that the housing association would have no greater ability to evict tenants than did the Council under current arrangements.

"At the December meeting of Cabinet, the Conservative administration made a decision to submit a request for a review of the boundary between South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City.  Given that Cabinet is fully aware of local opposition, following the parish council consultation earlier in the year, what benefit does the Leader of the Council believe this decision will offer to the people of South Cambs?"

Councillor FAR Amrani asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

"At the December meeting of Cabinet, the Conservative administration made a decision to submit a request for a review of the boundary between South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City.  Given that Cabinet is fully aware of local opposition, following the parish council consultation earlier in the year, what benefit does the Leader of the Council believe this decision will offer to the people of South Cambs?"

The Leader of the Council advised that Teversham was the only Ward in which the boundary review proposal had been opposed. The key reasons for the submission of the request had been to prevent any application for unitary status being submitted and to secure safe, secure and unambiguous boundaries. Under the present boundaries there were significant anomalies, including the boundary crossing the same street twice, and many locations where residents lived in South Cambridgeshire but used the City Council’s services.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Amrani asked whether, given the Cabinet’s intention to transfer the Council’s duties wherever possible, the Leader would consider transferring the entire district to the City Council?

The Leader of the Council replied that he did not consider transferring to a Liberal Democrat-run Council to be in residents’ best interests.

Since the Cabinet appointed a member to be Olympic Champion for the Council as long ago as July last year, what exactly has been achieved other than the raising of an Olympic flag?

Councillor Mrs PM Bear asked the New Communities Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘Since the Cabinet appointed a member to be Olympic Champion for the Council as long ago as July last year, what exactly has been achieved other than the raising of an Olympic flag?’

Councillor Dr DR Bard, New Communities Portfolio Holder, drew Councillor Bear’s attention to an article on the subject in the last edition of South Cambs Magazine and advised that he would forward her a copy, before going on to set out details of the following relevant initiatives in which the Council had been involved:

• The handover event for the Paralympics.
• The ‘Best 8’ bringing people together in sport campaign.
• The Living Sport awards, attended by Councillor Dipple in her role as Champion for the Olympics, at which Swavesey Village College had won the award for school of the year, whilst the Cambridge and Coleridge Athletics Club had won the award for club of the year in recognition of its work to support participants with disabilities in rural areas.
• Free swimming for the under-16s and over-60s in the district’s three swimming pools, with an intention to extend this scheme to other community groups.
• Organising a 10-kilometre run as part of Cambourne’s 10^th anniversary celebrations.
• Membership of the ‘Gold Group’ to promote the Olympic vision;
• The designation of Comberton Village College as an Olympic training site.

Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that the refuse collection service was successful over the Christmas period? Will she agree that Council should thank the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) and Direct Services Organisation (DSO) for their efforts? 

Councillor CR Nightingale asked the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that the refuse collection service was successful over the Christmas period? Will she agree that Council should thank the Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) and Direct Services Organisation (DSO) for their efforts?’

Councillor Mrs. SM Ellington, Environmental Services Portfolio Holder, confirmed that refuse collection arrangements had been much better; no complaints had been received, compared to several the previous Christmas. Specifically, the amount of dry recyclables collected had increased by 13% (6% excluding plastics), the amount of residual waste had dropped by 4% and the number of missed bin collections had also reduced.

Can the Leader of the Council update Council on the position in terms of addressing the recommendations from the Corporate Governance Inspection and in particular the continuing need for the Improvement Board? 

Councillor PW Topping asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

‘Can the Leader of the Council update Council on the position in terms of addressing the recommendations from the Corporate Governance Inspection and in particular the continuing need for the Improvement Board?’

Councillor RMA Manning, Leader of the Council, advised that the Improvement Board had met on 28 January and had paid tribute to the work accomplished by the Council. The board had concluded that progress had been such that regular meetings were no longer required, as the Council had made progress above and beyond that anticipated within its original improvement plan. That it had done so was a tribute to the Council’s staff and to the Improvement and Development Agency and GO-East for their financial support and advice. The Leader advised that communication channels to individual members of the board remained open for the Council to seek further support and advice in the future.

Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that the Medium Term Financial Strategy coming to Council next month will consider the economic downturn in general and the impact of the reductions in interest rates in particular?

Councillor R Hall asked the Finance Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that the Medium Term Financial Strategy coming to Council next month will consider the economic downturn in general and the impact of the reductions in interest rates in particular?’

Councillor AG Orgee, Finance Portfolio Holder, advised that the answer to both parts of Councillor Hall’s question was ‘yes’. Specifically, the Cabinet was proposing to reduce its period for the payment of invoices to 20 days to improve suppliers’ cashflows, had allocated £15k to tidy the Arbury site on which development had ceased and was in discussions with partners to ensure that there was no duplication of work.

In terms of interest rates, Councillor Orgee noted the example of a parish council which had lost seven eighths of the interest on its balances. The risk to the Council’s balances was less extreme as its deposits had been made on a fixed-interest basis over periods of six months or one year; the impact would be felt, however, when these fixed periods expired, at which detailed review of each investment would be required.

Will the Portfolio Holder:-

(a)    Publish the email sent to the Corporate Manager for Health and Environmental Services, copied to the Chief Executive, the Leader and herself on 13 October 2008, concerning a major environmental incident in Histon and Impington , which had caused total failure of the sewage rising main for a period of six days?

(b)    Provide a comprehensive written answer to Council today, giving reasons why the request for a reply to a member, has been ignored despite reminders?

(c)    Now publish a detailed schedule of actions by the Manager and his staff to ensure better management by Anglian Water Services Ltd and this Council working in partnership, of any similar emergencies in future?

Councillor MJ Mason asked the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘Will the Portfolio Holder:-

(a) Publish the email sent to the Corporate Manager for Health and Environmental Services, copied to the Chief Executive, the Leader and herself on 13 October 2008, concerning a major environmental incident in Histon and Impington, which had caused total failure of the sewage rising main for a period of six days?

(b) Provide a comprehensive written answer to Council today, giving reasons why the request for a reply to a member, has been ignored despite reminders?

(c)Now publish a detailed schedule of actions by the Manager and his staff to ensure better management by Anglian Water Services Ltd and this Council working in partnership, of any similar emergencies in future?

Councillor Mrs SM Ellington, Environmental Services Portfolio Holder, thanked Councillor Mason for his question as it provided a good opportunity for her to highlight the good work officers had carried out to resolve the problem, and to clarify the issues raised. She did not consider it necessary to publish the e-mail of 13 October 2008 as its contents had been summarised within the question.

Councillor Ellington advised that the Corporate Manager had ensured that the relevant officer within his service was investigating the incidents referred to, it transpiring that the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) was already in discussions with Premier Foods and Anglian Water in response to the incident. The EHO arranged to meet Councillor Mason on site, at which Councillor Mason accompanied him during negotiations with the relevant parties and supervision of work; Councillor Mason had been fully briefed on the situation.

Mrs. Ellington advised that she had telephoned the Corporate Manager to ensure that actions were being taken in response to the incidents. She then referred to an e-mail from Councillor Mason, in which he confirmed that he had attended a site meeting with the EHO, that repairs had been completed and disturbance kept to a minimum. Councillor Mason followed this with a telephone message to confirm that the problem had been resolved. Through these actions he appeared to have answered his subsequent question.

Mrs. Ellington advised that in her view the Council had dealt with the matter satisfactorily and had kept Councillor Mason fully informed throughout. She advised that she had acknowledged an e-mail from Councillor Mason in December 2008 bute had not been in touch since due to the Christmas period and a personal injury. Councillor Ellington’s intention had been to discuss the issue in person; she apologised that she had not done so.

By way of a Supplementary Question, Councillor Mason advised that he had received no direct reply from the Corporate Manager. As such, how could he convince residents that Health and Environmental Services justified re-accreditation of its Investors in People status?

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder advised that Councillor Mason had been in contact with the appropriate level of officer throughout the process; as such, it had not been necessary nor appropriate to involve the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77h

Three months ago, in November a fellow resident on the Ferndale estate in Teversham suffered a serious electrical fault to their house that resulted in a fire, with the fire brigade in attendance. Because of this event, it came to light that many properties in our block had not had a recent electrical safety check - our property being one of them. The Council has since checked our flat (14th January), but I understand that some 1,200 other council properties in South Cambridgeshire have not had their electrical installation checked within the last 10 years. What assurance can the Council give that these properties will be checked as a matter of urgency during the next few months?

The Chairman put the following question on behalf of Ms. Jayne Armstrong who was unable to attend in person at the meeting:

‘Three months ago, in November a fellow resident on the Ferndale estate in Teversham suffered a serious electrical fault to their house that resulted in a fire, with the fire brigade in attendance. Because of this event, it came to light that many properties in our block had not had a recent electrical safety check - our property being one of them. The Council has since checked our flat (14th January), but I understand that some 1,200 other council properties in South Cambridgeshire have not had their electrical installation checked within the last 10 years. What assurance can the Council give that these properties will be checked as a matter of urgency during the next few months?’

Councillor SM Edwards, Housing Portfolio Holder, advised that he considered safety to be of paramount importance and thanked Councillor Turner for bringing the matter to his attention in advance of the receipt of Ms. Armstrong’s question. He advised that therefore was no legal requirement for fire certificates or electrical safety checks other than in multiple occupancy properties; however, the Council carried out such tests when new tenants moved into properties and following major repair work. The property in question had been checked in 2001, along with the rest of the block concerned. In this case, the fuse board had overheated due to a faulty trip switch. In order to demonstrate a more proactive approach to property safety in future, the Council had committed £100k funding to undertake relevant surveys.

To note all petitions received since the last Council meeting.

No petitions had been submitted since the last meeting. 

The Housing Portfolio Holder RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

(i)                  That Council notes the headline net capital receipt and General Fund impacts set out in appendix 2.

(ii)                That Council supports the additional enhancements within the offer to tenants of £5m in the first five years, including at least £2m for SCVH to enable the provision of new affordable homes in the district, over and above an investment programme of £323m over 30 years reflected in the indicative gross valuation, as reflected in appendix 2.

(iii)               That Council supports, subject to any amendments agreed to reflect comments from the Shadow Board or at the meeting, the draft formal consultation document attached as Appendix 3 as being the best possible transfer offer to tenants having regard to the financial impact on the Council.

(iv)              That Council agrees to proceed to formal consultation with its tenants on its transfer proposal, and to consider responses to that consultation at a future meeting.

(v)                That Council, while recognising that it can only proceed with its transfer proposal if the majority of secure tenants support its transfer offer in a secret ballot, will arrange an advisory ballot of leaseholders.

(vi)              That authority is delegated to the Executive Director, in consultation with the Housing Portfolio Holder, to approve the final print version of the offer document to be distributed to tenants.

The covering report of the Executive Director and appendices 1-3 are attached.

Council RESOLVED:

(i)                  That the headline net capital receipt and General Fund impacts set out in appendix 2 to the report be noted.

(ii)                That the additional enhancements within the offer to tenants of £5m in the first five years, including at least £2m for SCVH to enable the provision of new affordable homes in the district, over and above an investment programme of £323m over 30 years reflected in the indicative gross valuation, as reflected in appendix 2 to the report, be supported.

(iii)               That the draft formal consultation document attached as Appendix 3 to the report be agreed as being the best possible transfer offer to tenants having regard to the financial impact on the Council, subject to the incorporation of the amendments requested by the South Cambridgeshire Village Homes, Tenant Services Authority and Homes and Communities Agency, circulated prior to, and tabled at, the meeting.

(iv)              To proceed to formal consultation with its tenants on its transfer proposal, and to consider responses to that consultation at a future meeting.

(v)                That, while recognising that it can only proceed with its transfer proposal if the majority of secure tenants support its transfer offer in a secret ballot, an advisory ballot of leaseholders be undertaken.

(vi)              That authority be delegated to the Executive Director, in consultation with the Housing Portfolio Holder, to approve minor typographical amendments to the final print version of the offer document to be distributed to tenants.

Councillor SM Edwards moved and Councillor RMA Manning seconded the recommendations of the Cabinet set out under Agenda Item 7(a), subject to the incorporation within the Offer Document of the amendments requested by the South Cambridgeshire Village Homes, Tenant Services Authority and Homes and Communities Agency, circulated prior to, and tabled at, the meeting.

Councillor JP Chatfield moved and Councillor NN Cathcart seconded the following Procedural Motion under Standing Order 13(d):

'This Council considers that, in light of the negative financial outlook for the banking sector and housing associations, it would not be prudent to proceed with formal consultation on its housing transfer proposal at this stage. Council therefore resolves to refer the matter to the Housing Portfolio Holder and Cabinet for a further recommendation to Council at the end of a 12-month period when the financial outlook is likely to be more certain.'

During debate of this Motion Council RESOLVED, in accordance with Standing Order 22.1, to suspend Standing Order 12.5 to enable the duration of the debate to exceed thirty minutes.

The Procedural Motion, on being put, was declared lost.

The Substantive Motion proposed by Councillor Edwards, on being put, was declared carried.

Council RESOLVED:

(i) That the headline net capital receipt and General Fund impacts set out in appendix 2 to the report be noted.

(ii) That the additional enhancements within the offer to tenants of £5m in the first five years, including at least £2m for SCVH to enable the provision of new affordable homes in the district, over and above an investment programme of £323m over 30 years reflected in the indicative gross valuation, as reflected in appendix 2 to the report, be supported.

(iii) That the draft formal consultation document attached as Appendix 3 to the report be agreed as being the best possible transfer offer to tenants having regard to the financial impact on the Council, subject to the incorporation of the amendments requested by the South Cambridgeshire Village Homes, Tenant Services Authority and Homes and Communities Agency, circulated prior to, and tabled at, the meeting.

(iv) To proceed to formal consultation with its tenants on its transfer proposal, and to consider responses to that consultation at a future meeting.

(v) That, while recognising that it can only proceed with its transfer proposal if the majority of secure tenants support its transfer offer in a secret ballot, an advisory ballot of leaseholders be undertaken.

(vi) That authority be delegated to the Executive Director, in consultation with the Housing Portfolio Holder, to approve minor typographical amendments to the final print version of the offer document to be distributed to tenants.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the following Vision for the Council be adopted:

“We will make South Cambridgeshire a safe and healthy place where residents are proud to live and where there will be opportunities for employment, enterprise and world-leading innovation. We will be a listening Council, providing a voice for rural life and first-class services accessible to all.” 

Council RESOLVED that the following Vision for the Council be adopted:

“We will make South Cambridgeshire a safe and healthy place where residents are proud to live and where there will be opportunities for employment, enterprise and world-leading innovation. We will be a listening Council, providing a voice for rural life and first-class services accessible to all.” 

Councillor RMA Manning moved, Councillor TJ Wotherspoon seconded and Council RESOLVED that the following Vision for the Council be adopted:

“We will make South Cambridgeshire a safe and healthy place where residents are proud to live and where there will be opportunities for employment, enterprise and world-leading innovation. We will be a listening Council, providing a voice for rural life and first-class services accessible to all.” 

Cabinet RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the authority “opts in” to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 by:

A)     Publicising the process locally, including a deadline for proposals to be submitted the Council for consideration by the Panel (see below);

B)     Asking the membership of the South Cambridgeshire Local Strategic Partnership Board to set up a Panel to consider proposals and try to reach agreement with the Panel as to the merits of a proposal and priorities between different proposals;

C)     Consulting with those parties affected if the proposal involves the transfer of a responsibility from one public body to another;

D)    Having regard to a list of matters set out in a Schedule to the Act;

E)     Finally making a formal decision on whether to forward the proposal/s onwards to the Selector; and

F)     Assessing the effectiveness of these arrangements at the end of the 2009/10 civic year.

The report considered by the Cabinet is available to view using the following link to the Council's website (www.scambs.gov.uk). Alternatively, a copy is available to view in the Members’ Room or from Democratic Services, telephone (01954) 713016 e-mail democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk.  

Council RESOLVED to “opt in” to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 by:

A)     Publicising the process locally, including a deadline for proposals to be submitted the Council for consideration by the Panel (see below);

B)     Asking the membership of the South Cambridgeshire Local Strategic Partnership Board to form a Panel to consider proposals and try to reach agreement as to the merits of a proposal and priorities between different proposals;

C)    Consulting with those parties affected if the proposal involves the transfer of a responsibility from one public body to another;

D)    Having regard to a list of matters set out in a Schedule to the Act;

E)     Finally making a formal decision on whether to forward the proposal/s onwards to the Selector; and

F)     Assessing the effectiveness of these arrangements at the end of the 2009/10 civic year.

Councillor DR DR Bard moved, Councillor RMA Manning seconded and Council RESOLVED to “opt in” to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 by:

A)     Publicising the process locally, including a deadline for proposals to be submitted to the Council for consideration by the Panel (see below);

B)     Asking the membership of the South Cambridgeshire Local Strategic Partnership Board to form a Panel to consider proposals and try to reach agreement as to the merits of a proposal and priorities between different proposals;

C)    Consulting with those parties affected if proposals involved the transfer of a responsibility from one public body to another;

D)    Having regard to a list of matters set out in a Schedule to the Act;

E)     Finally making a formal decision on whether to forward the proposal/s onwards to the Selector; and

F)     Assessing the effectiveness of these arrangements at the end of the 2009/10 civic year.

At its last meeting, Council considered a recommendation from the Standards Committee, resolving that the matter be referred back to committee for further consideration. The committee subsequently reconsidered the matter at its meeting on 10 December 2008. The following draft Minute from the meeting sets out the background to and reasons for, the recommendation: 

‘The Committee considered the matter afresh as directed by Council. Under the current legislation, following the receipt of a complaint against a councillor, the information allowed to be given to a subject member was simply the name of the complainant and the paragraphs of the Code which were alleged to have been breached. No details of any incident alleged to have led to a potential breach could be given. 

The Committee expressed a preference for the subject member to be fully informed of the substance of a complaint as soon as possible, however noted this was precluded by law. The committee felt that only being able to give the prescribed information could be upsetting for a subject member who may then try to put pressure on officers to supply further information. On balance it was felt that giving the Monitoring Officer the discretion whether to inform the subject member, depending on individual circumstances, which reflected the procedure set down in the statutory guidance, was preferable. Under the proposed amendment, it was anticipated that the subject member would be informed when the Assessment Panel had met to consider whether the case should be investigated at which stage the subject member could be given full details of the complaint. 

In order to provide further clarification, it was felt that all members of the district council and all parish councillors should be asked to notify the Monitoring Officer in writing if they wished to be notified immediately if a complaint was made against them, rather than waiting for the Assessment Panel to meet when full details of the complaint could be given to them.’

The Committee RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Procedure for the Initial Assessment of Complaints, set outat Part 5 M(2) of the Constitution be amended to read (amendments and additions marked in bold italics):

Acknowledging receipt of a complaint

On receiving a complaint and after determining that it is a Code complaint:

(a)         The Monitoring Officer shall send written acknowledgement to the complainant,

(b)         The Monitoring Officer has the discretion, subject to (c) below, to inform the subject member of that complaint, (having due regard to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Section 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 as modified by Regulation 12 of the regulations) including:

                                  (i.)       the name of the complainant (unless the complainant has requested confidentiality and the standards committee has not yet considered whether or not to grant it)

                                (ii.)        the relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct that are alleged to have been breached.

                               (iii.)       a statement explaining that a written summary of the allegation will only be provided to the subject member once the assessment sub-committee  ...  view the full agenda text for item 79d

Council RESOLVED that the Procedure for the Initial Assessment of Complaints, set outat Part 5 M(2) of the Constitution be amended to read (amendments and additions marked in bold italics):

Acknowledging receipt of a complaint

On receiving a complaint and after determining that it is a Code complaint:

(a)         The Monitoring Officer shall send written acknowledgement to the complainant,

(b)         The Monitoring Officer has the discretion, subject to (c) below, to inform the subject member of that complaint, (having due regard to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Section 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 as modified by Regulation 12 of the regulations) including:

                                  (i.)       The name of the complainant (unless the complainant has requested confidentiality and the standards committee has not yet considered whether or not to grant it)

                                (ii.)      The relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct that are alleged to have been breached.

                               (iii.)        A statement explaining that a written summary of the allegation will only be provided to the subject member once the assessment sub-committee has met to consider the complaint, and

                              (iv.)      The date of the meeting of the Assessment Panel, if known. 

(c) To assist the Monitoring Officer in the application of the discretion referred to in (b) above, all Councillors shall be invited to notify him/her in writing should they wish to be notified upon receipt of Code of Conduct complaints against them.

Councillor Mrs CAED Murfitt moved, Councillor RMA Manning seconded and Council RESOLVED that the Procedure for the Initial Assessment of Complaints, set outat Part 5 M(2) of the Constitution be amended to read (amendments and additions marked in bold italics):

Acknowledging receipt of a complaint

On receiving a complaint and after determining that it is a Code complaint:

(a)         The Monitoring Officer shall send written acknowledgement to the complainant,

(b)         The Monitoring Officer has the discretion, subject to (c) below, to inform the subject member of that complaint, (having due regard to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Section 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 as modified by Regulation 12 of the regulations) including:

                                  (i.)       The name of the complainant (unless the complainant has requested confidentiality and the standards committee has not yet considered whether or not to grant it)

                                (ii.)      The relevant paragraphs of the Code of Conduct that are alleged to have been breached.

                               (iii.)        A statement explaining that a written summary of the allegation will only be provided to the subject member once the assessment sub-committee has met to consider the complaint, and

                              (iv.)      The date of the meeting of the Assessment Panel, if known. 

(c) To assist the Monitoring Officer in the application of the discretion referred to in (b) above, all Councillors shall be invited to notify him/her in writing should they wish to be notified upon receipt of Code of Conduct complaints against them.

The Independent Remuneration Panel RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that, effective from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (unless specified otherwise):

(a)        In recognition of the work undertaken by Members, in particular those balancing work and council commitments, and in order to encourage people from a wide range of backgrounds and skills to serve as local councillors in the future and not suffer an unreasonable financial disadvantage, the basic allowance be increased by 3%.

(b)        The Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the Leader, Deputy Leader, Cabinet Members, Chairmen/Vice-Chairmen of Council, Scrutiny & Overview and Planning Committees; Chairmen of Corporate Governance and Employment Committees be increased by 3%.

(c)        In recognition of its standing, an SRA be awarded to the Convenor of the Minor Opposition Group; the amount to be 50% of the SRA payable to the Leader of the Major Opposition Group.

(d)               Having taken into account the reduction in the number of meetings held in the municipal year, the SRA for the Chairman of the Licensing Committee be gradually phased out; therefore, for 2009/10, the allowance to be reduced by 50% of the 2008/09 allowance.

(e)               No payments be made to Chairs of the Licensing (2003) Act panels.

(f)                 In noting that the workload had substantially increased since April 2008, the SRA paid to the Chairman of the Standards Committee be increased to £1,000 pa, the Independent members allowance be increased to £600 pa and Parish members allowance be increased to £400 pa. The foregoing amounts to be backdated to 1 April 2008.

(g)               In recognition of the impact of the project on the district and, due to the position having comparable duties to those of the Planning Committee Chairman, an SRA of £4570 be payable to the Chair of the Northstowe Joint Development Control Committee. A backdated payment of £4437 from 1 April 2008 should also be paid. This particular SRA to apply only when the Chairman of the Committee is a South Cambridgeshire District councillor.

(h)               The Dependants’ Carer’s allowance to be increased by 3%.

(i)                 No changes to be made to the Travel, Subsistence or Overnight Subsistence allowances.

Report and appendix attached. 

Council RESOLVED:

(1)   That the report and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) be noted and that the Panel be thanked for its work in preparing the report;

(2)   That the following recommendations of the IRP be approved:

(i)     Having taken into account the reduction in the number of meetings held in the municipal year, the SRA for the Chairman of the Licensing Committee be gradually phased out; therefore, for 2009/10, the allowance to be reduced by 50% of the 2008/09 allowance.

(ii)    That the Dependants’ Carer’s allowance to be increased by 3%.

(3)   That the recommendations of the IRP set out in recommendations (a)-(c), (e)-(g) and (i) in the agenda, be not supported and set aside for a period of 12 months pending further consideration which may be informed by the next review by the IRP.

(4)   That, subject to 2(i) above, levels of basic, special responsibility, and travel and subsistence allowances for the period 1 April 2009 – 31 March 2010 be maintained at current levels.

All Members of Council declared a personal interest in this item on the grounds that a decision in relation to Members’ Allowances might reasonably be regarded as affecting their financial position to a greater extent than the majority of other council tax payers, ratepayers and inhabitants of the district. Under paragraph 10(2) of the Code of Conduct, these interests were not prejudicial, therefore all Members remained in the meeting and took part in the discussions and voting.

Council considered the report and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) in respect of Members’ Allowances levels for the period 1 April 2009 – 31 March 2010. Council had regard to the recommendations of the panel that basic and special responsibility allowances be increased by 3%, the allowances paid to the Chairman and Members of the Standards Committee be increased and new allowances be introduced for the Convenor of the Minor Opposition Group and Chairman of the Northstowe Joint Development Control Committee. Members considered that the reasons for the recommended changes were sound however felt that, on balance, given the unfavourable economic conditions which were causing significant pay freezes and redundancies affecting residents and businesses, the Council should set an example by freezing its basic allowance, and the vast majority of its special responsibility allowances, for 2009-2010, consequently Councillor RMA Manning moved, Councillor AG Orgee seconded and Council RESOLVED:

(1)   That the report and recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) be noted and that the Panel be thanked for its work in preparing the report;

(2)   That the following recommendations of the IRP be approved:

(i)     Having taken into account the reduction in the number of meetings held in the municipal year, the SRA for the Chairman of the Licensing Committee be gradually phased out; therefore, for 2009/10, the allowance to be reduced by 50% of the 2008/09 allowance.

(ii)    That the Dependants’ Carer’s allowance to be increased by 3%.

(3)   That the recommendations of the IRP set out in recommendations (a)-(c), (e)-(g) and (i) in the agenda, be not supported and set aside for a period of 12 months pending further consideration to be informed by the next review by the IRP.

(4)   That, subject to 2(i) above, levels of basic, special responsibility, and travel and subsistence allowances for the period 1 April 2009 – 31 March 2010 be maintained at current levels.

Report attached.

Council is RECOMMENDED to affirm its support for the following values:

·         Customer Service

·         Commitment to improving services

·         Mutual respect

·         Trust

and to request that work to embed these values in the work of the Council be undertaken as expeditiously as possible.

 Council RESOLVED to affirm its support for the following values:

·         Customer Service

·         Commitment to improving services

·         Mutual respect

·         Trust

and to request that work to embed these values in the work of the Council be undertaken as expeditiously as possible.

Councillor RMA Manning moved, Councillor TJ Wotherspoon seconded and Council RESOLVED to affirm its support for the following values:

·         Customer Service

·         Commitment to improving services

·         Mutual respect

·         Trust

and to request that work to embed these values in the work of the Council be undertaken as expeditiously as possible.

Following the resignation of Councillor Mrs SA Hatton, Council is recommended to approve the appointment of Councillor Dr SA Harangozo as replacement.  

Council RESOLVED that Councillor Dr SA Harangozo be appointed to the South Cambridgeshire Village Homes Shadow Board in place of Councillor Mrs SA Hatton. 

Council RESOLVED that Councillor Dr SA Harangozo be appointed to the South Cambridgeshire Village Homes Shadow Board in place of Councillor Mrs SA Hatton. 

At a training event in Autumn 2008, members of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee attended a training event at which a vision for scrutiny at the Council was discussed. As part of this exercise, the Committee reviewed its Mission Statement set out in Article 6.02 of the Constitution. The current Mission Statement reads as follows: 

“To enable the Council to achieve its corporate objectives and annual priorities through constructive challenge and the promotion of best practice, innovation and democratic accountability”

Members and the Leader of the Council suggested changes to the Mission Statement and requested additional wording to explain the Committee’s role in plainer language. The proposed changes were subsequently endorsed by the Committee at its meeting in December 2008. Given that this information is set out in Article 6 of the Constitution, Council approval is required for the change, consequently it is RECOMMENDED that the Scrutiny and Overview Mission Statement be amended as follows:

(amendments marked in bold italics):

“To support the work of the Council in achieving its corporate objectives and annual priorities through constructive challenge and the promotion of best practice, innovation and democratic accountability.

The Committee will add value to the work of the Council by -

• Challenging policies, performance and decisions in a constructive way
• Making recommendations for improvement, based on best practice
• Looking for new ways of doing things
• Making sure that the Council remains responsible to local people.”

Council RESOLVED that the Scrutiny and Overview Mission Statement be amended as follows:

(amendments marked in bold italics):

“To support the work of the Council in achieving its corporate objectives and annual priorities through constructive challenge and the promotion of best practice, innovation and democratic accountability.

The Committee will add value to the work of the Council by -

• Challenging policies, performance and decisions in a constructive way
• Making recommendations for improvement, based on best practice
• Looking for new ways of doing things
• Making sure that the Council remains responsible to local people.”

Councillor JD Batchelor proposed, Councillor R Hall seconded and Council RESOLVED that the Scrutiny and Overview Mission Statement be amended as follows:

(amendments marked in bold italics):

“To support the work of the Council in achieving its corporate objectives and annual priorities through constructive challenge and the promotion of best practice, innovation and democratic accountability.

The Committee will add value to the work of the Council by -

• Challenging policies, performance and decisions in a constructive way
• Making recommendations for improvement, based on best practice
• Looking for new ways of doing things
• Making sure that the Council remains responsible to local people.”

Councillor NJ Scarr requested to be recorded as voting against the proposal.

The Chairman advised that Councillor Mrs SJO Doggett had wished to make a statement updating Council on the work of Crossroads for Carers, however Councillor Doggett had had to leave the meeting. Council was advised that Councillor Doggett would circulate a written report electronically.

Councillor MJ Mason provided an update on the last two meetings of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Liaison Group, advising that further delays to the opening of the project had been caused by a requirement to undertake water main works on the section of the busway between the B1050 and Milton Road. Councillor Mason advised also that he would be attending a meeting on 30 January to agree an appropriately-designed noise barrier to reduce noise for Histon and Impington residents.

In response to a request from the floor, the Chairman requested that in future such reports should be submitted in writing to Democratic Services for inclusion on the published Agenda.

This Council notes the Government’s plans to introduce ID cards. This scheme will impact all South Cambridgeshire residents’ lives.
 

This Council believes:
1) That the disadvantages of such a scheme will outweigh any likely benefits to the people of South Cambridgeshire.
2) That the scheme will do little, if anything, to prevent terrorism, crime or fraud.
3) That the national database that underpins the identity card scheme may facilitate criminal fraud, terrorism and potential state abuses of human rights.
4) That the ID card and database proposals are likely to alter fundamentally the relationship between the state and the individual.

According to Government estimates, the cost of such a scheme could reach £7.5 billion, with independent commentators predicting substantially higher costs. As the current plan stands South Cambridgeshire residents will be required to pay £93 for a passport and ID card together.

This Council resolves to:
1) affiliate to the 'No2ID' campaign, which already includes MPs and several political parties
2) make representations at every possible stage, reiterating this Council's opposition to ID cards
3) take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation to the introduction of the national identity cards
4) make it a policy of the council to ensure that national identity cards would not be required to access council services or benefits unless specifically required to do so by law
5) only co-operate with the national identity card scheme where to do otherwise would be unlawful. 

Council RESOLVED:

(1) To note the Government’s plans to introduce ID cards. This scheme will impact all South Cambridgeshire residents’ lives.
 

(2) That, in its view:

(i)                  The disadvantages of such a scheme will outweigh any likely benefits to the people of South Cambridgeshire.
(ii)) The scheme will do little, if anything, to prevent terrorism, crime or fraud.
(iii) The national database that underpins the identity card scheme may facilitate criminal fraud, terrorism and potential state abuses of human rights.
(iv) The ID card and database proposals are likely to alter fundamentally the relationship between the state and the individual.

(3) To note that, according to Government estimates, the cost of such a scheme could reach £7.5 billion, with independent commentators predicting substantially higher costs. As the current plan stands South Cambridgeshire residents will be required to pay £93 for a passport and ID card together.

(4) To take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation to the introduction of the national identity cards

(5) To make it a policy of the council to ensure that national identity cards would not be required to access council services or benefits unless specifically required to do so by law

(6) Only to co-operate with the national identity card scheme where to do otherwise would be unlawful. 

Councillor SGM Kindersley moved and Councillor VG Ford seconded the Notice of Motion set out under Agenda item 13(a). In moving the Motion, Councillor Kindersley received the consent of the Council, required under Standing Order 14.7(a), to alter the Notice of Motion by the deletion of the following Resolutions:

(1)   (That Council) Affiliate to the 'No2ID' campaign, which already includes MPs and several political parties.

(2)   (That Council) make representations at every possible stage, reiterating its opposition to ID cards.

The Motion, as altered, on being put was declared carried.

Council RESOLVED:

(1) To note the Government’s plans to introduce ID cards. This scheme will impact all South Cambridgeshire residents’ lives.
 

(2) That, in its view:

(i)                  The disadvantages of such a scheme will outweigh any likely benefits to the people of South Cambridgeshire.
(ii)) The scheme will do little, if anything, to prevent terrorism, crime or fraud.
(iii) The national database that underpins the identity card scheme may facilitate criminal fraud, terrorism and potential state abuses of human rights.
(iv) The ID card and database proposals are likely to alter fundamentally the relationship between the state and the individual.

(3) To note that, according to Government estimates, the cost of such a scheme could reach £7.5 billion, with independent commentators predicting substantially higher costs. As the current plan stands South Cambridgeshire residents will be required to pay £93 for a passport and ID card together.

(4) To take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation to the introduction of the national identity cards

(5) To make it a policy of the council to ensure that national identity cards would not be required to access council services or benefits unless specifically required to do so by law

(6) Only to co-operate with the national identity card scheme where to do otherwise would be unlawful. 

Council takes note of the statements concerning the delivery of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway by the County Council, in its Cabinet Report of 16 December 2008, in its publication entitled Weathering the Storm dated January 2009 and in its Press Release dated 12 January 2009.

Council formally requests that our Joint Planning partners publish a report giving full and complete details of the delays to service commencement and the financial implications for Cambridgeshire Council Tax Payers, as a result of borrowing the money to complete the construction programme.

The Notice of Motion standing in the name of Councillor MJ Mason and set out at Agenda Item 13(b) on being put was declared lost.

Councillor MJ Mason moved and Councillor A Riley seconded a Motion in the following terms:

‘Council takes note of the statements concerning the delivery of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway by the County Council, in its Cabinet Report of 16 December 2008, in its publication entitled Weathering the Storm dated January 2009 and in its Press Release dated 12 January 2009.

Council formally requests that our Joint Planning partners publish a report giving full and complete details of the delays to service commencement and the financial implications for Cambridgeshire Council Tax Payers, as a result of borrowing the money to complete the construction programme.’

The Motion, on being put, was declared lost.

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

(2) To note the Vice-Chairman’s engagements since the last Council meeting:

Council noted the list of engagements attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman since the last meeting. Members were advised that the Chairman had also attended the Community Awards ceremony on 8 December 2008.

Councillor NJ Scarr passed on the thanks of staff and patients at Fulbourn Hospital following the receipt of generous Christmas gifts from Council staff.