Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive Apologies for Absence from Members.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Henry Batchelor, Corinne Garvie, Sunita Hansraj, Pippa Heylings, Dr James Hobro, Carla Hofman, William Jackson-Wood, Judith Rippeth, Dr Aidan Van de Weyer and Eileen Wilson.

None. 

To authorise the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on the 23 May 2023 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2024 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

·         The inclusion of Councillor Carla Hofman in the list of councillors present.

·         The insertion of the word “proposed” in the final sentence of minute 12: “… whose proposed amendments were agreed by Council on 5 October 2023.”

To receive any announcements from the Chair.

There were no announcements from the Chair.

To receive any announcements from the Leader and Cabinet.

The Leader, Councillor Bridget Smith, congratulated Councillor Pippa Heylings, former councillor Ian Sollom and East Cambridgeshire Councillor Charlotte Cane on being elected as MPs for the area. She thanked the elections team for their hard work and professionalism in running a smooth operation and successfully operating two counts concurrently. It was noted that Councillor Dr Aidan Van de Weyer had been elected as Chair of the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Later in the meeting, Councillor Heather Williams congratulated the three new MPs on their election and wished them well in their new roles. She thanked the former MPs Anthony Browne and Lucy Frazer for their service and expressed concern regarding the increase in threats to those working on election campaigns. She reiterated her support for the Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate campaign.

To receive any announcements from the Head of Paid Service.

There were no announcements from the Head of Paid Service.

If you would like to ask a question or make a statement, then please refer to the Document called Public Speaking Scheme (Physical Meetings)

and contact Democratic Services by no later than 11.59pm three clear working days before the meeting.

Noting that South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) governance is a leader-cabinet model.

That this model is used by around 90% of councils in England.

Under this model, the Cabinet is entirely composed of members of the majority group e.g. the Liberal Democrats in the case of SCDC.

That in Cambridge City Council, there is a proposal to change the governance to a leader-cabinet model.

What advice would the leader of SCDC offer to Cambridge City Council about how to operate the leader-cabinet model effectively and what advice would she offer to the leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Cambridge City Council who has described the potential change of governance as “replacing representative committees by a one-party cabal for making council decisions”?

Dr Tim Andrews asked the following question:

“Noting that South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) governance is a leader-cabinet model.

That this model is used by around 90% of councils in England.

Under this model, the Cabinet is entirely composed of members of the majority group e.g. the Liberal Democrats in the case of SCDC.

That in Cambridge City Council, there is a proposal to change the governance to a leader-cabinet model.

What advice would the leader of SCDC offer to Cambridge City Council about how to operate the leader-cabinet model effectively and what advice would she offer to the leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Cambridge City Council who has described the potential change of governance as ‘replacing representative committees by a one-party cabal for making council decisions’?”

The Leader replied that since 2011 there have been two governance models available to councils and the transition from one to another was a major exercise. Whilst the Leader considered the Leader and Cabinet model to be a good system for this Council, she did not consider it appropriate to advise another authority on what model of governance they should use.

As his supplementary question, Dr Andrews asked why the Leader of the Liberal Democrat group opposed the Leader and Cabinet model. The Leader replied that different systems worked for different authorities and she would not seek to influence the views of the Liberal Democrat group on the City Council.

Dr Andrews was thanked for his question.

Arshad Siddiqui explained that he was representing the organisation Cambourne Crescent and the wider Muslim community. He listed the charitable work being carried out by Cambourne Crescent but pointed out that the lack of community space restricted them. Since 2011 Cambourne Crescent had hired five separate venues. Friday congregation was attended by 150-200 people and they wanted to provide a place for youth engagement and social gatherings. He asked what measures could the Council undertake to support the growing Muslim community in identifying potential land or buildings suitable for use as a community centre and a place of worship.

The Leader replied that the Council shared Cambourne Crescent’s aim for the provision of a community centre and mosque. Land for faiths would become available with the building on Bourn Airfield and the Council’s Communities team and Planning would be in touch to discuss this matter further.

There was no supplementary question and Mr Siddiqui was thanked for his question.

Phillip Phan stated that on 9 July the Chancellor announced that the Government was taking swift action to unblock four stalled large housing developments, including Northstowe. On 10 July the Chancellor met with councillors to discuss the need for more facilities and as a former resident of Trumpington Meadows, Mr Phan was aware of the importance of these facilities. He asserted that Northstowe certainly seemed to have some challenges and he asked where the water supply for the acceleration of the undeveloped parts of Northstowe was coming from, and whether the Council will ask East West Rail Co. to reconsider its decision not to serve Northstowe.

Councillor Brian Milnes explained that in respect of East West Rail the Council was a statutory consultee but the decision with regard to the route would be taken by the Secretary of State. The Council was yet to see the preferred route.

Councillor Milnes explained that all phases of Northstowe had outline planning permission. The Council was committed to helping to deliver the necessary facilities to Northstowe. The recent King’s speech had indicated that delivering infrastructure was one of the new Government’s priorities and the Council looked forward to seeing this being put into practice.

As his supplementary question, Phillip Phan asked where Northstowe’s water supply would be coming from. Councillor Milnes stated that the issue of water shortages had been raised with the previous Government. The current plan was for a fen reservoir but this was not due for completion until the 2030s.

Mr Phan was thanked for his question.

None. 

Council

Agreed           to

A)       Note the analysis of the outcomes of the trial period January 2023 to March 2024.

B)       Note this information will be presented to Cambridge City Council.

Councillor John Williams presented this report on the results of the four-day week trial. He explained that the independent report carried out by Robinson Cooper had shown an improvement in the services provided by the Council. Savings had been made due to the reduction of the number of agency staff, as the Council had been more successful in its efforts to recruit permanent officers. The Robinson Cooper report had attributed this success to the four-day week. Councillor John Williams thanked GMB and UNISON for their co-operation in this process.

Councillor Sally Ann Hart summarised the statistics which showed that recruitment and retention had improved since the four-day week trial had been introduced.

Councillor Mark Howell expressed concern that change to a four-day week could have a detrimental impact on the physical health of waste operatives in the long term. He warned that it could be a decade or more before this became apparent. Councillor John Williams stated that this work was physically demanding but the research indicated that the reduction in working hours improved physical health. Other factors such as the rescheduling of rounds, which occurred before the four-day week was introduced, could also have a long term impact on physical health.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams expressed concern at the fact that 16% of officers stated that they were carrying out other unpaid work during their day off. He suggested that this undermined the argument that the four-day week was for staff wellbeing. Councillor John Williams replied that it was important that the second job did not detrimentally affect their work with the Council. The data from the report had been received last month and was still being analysed. It was possible that those carrying out a second job had been doing so for some time. This matter needed to be properly investigated.

It was suggested that if more local authorities adopted the four-day week, the Council could lose its competitiveness in the labour market due to this policy. Councillor Graham Cone suggested that the change of Government appeared to make the introduction of four-day weeks by other organisations more likely. Councillor Dr Richard Williams asked what initiatives the Council was considering to combat this possibility. Councillor Michael Atkins suggested that if more authorities copied this Council in adopting a four-day week it would clearly show the success of this policy. Councillor John Williams explained that the Council had already introduced other innovations. This included hybrid working that allowed officers to work from home and artificial intelligence was being used to reduce work in some areas. These initiatives complemented the introduction of the four-day week and would ensure that the Council remained competitive in the labour market.

Councillor John Batchelor acknowledged that the target for reletting houses had not improved during the period in question. He explained that this was due to other factors unrelated to the four-day week including new legislation requiring the Council to tackle damp and mould. He reported that the Council’s performance with regard to letting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

Please find attached a report from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, which includes decisions taken by their committees in May and June.

The Leader reported that a meeting of the Combined Authority Executive Board would take place on Wednesday 24 July where bus franchising would be discussed. The administration supported this initiative.

Council noted the report.

The GCP Board has not met since 7 March 2024, so there’s no decision summary to attach.

Councillor Brian Milnes explained that whilst progress had been made on the Sawston greenway, work on the Stapleford to the Shelford section had been delayed.

Council noted the report.

A period of 30 minutes will be allocated for this item to include those questions where notice has been provided (as set out on the agenda below) and questions which may be asked without notice.

Members wishing to ask a question without notice should indicate this intention to the Interim Democratic Services Team Manager prior to the commencement of the item.  Members’ names will be drawn at random by the Chairman until there are no further questions or until the expiration of the time period. 

In his 2022 book, ‘Why Governments Get It Wrong: And How They Can Get It Right’, Dennis C. Grube - Research lead in political decision-making at Cambridge University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy - emphasises that effective decision-making requires policymakers to pay attention to the fundamentals. Prof. Grube uses the metaphor of ‘getting our ducks in a row’ to highlight what governments must do to minimise failure and maximise the chances of success. 

Prof. Grube’s first little duck is an accurate definition of the policy problem. 

The second little duck is about ensuring that the story behind the problem is told compellingly and convincingly.  

The third little duck is about understanding patterns of facts and evidence within constantly shifting contexts and perspectives. 

The fourth little duck is about efficacy, making sure that the solution delivers what it promises on the tin. 

Does the Leader agree that, in hindsight, the Four Day Week ducks might have aligned better if there had been a wider, more inclusive debate held at South Cambs - one in which more appropriate models of 4in7 working for our district were considered alongside the radical 5 Days Pay for 4 Days Worked Rekjavic model chronicled in Prof. Grube’s book? And does she now understand that this debate should have occurred before and not after public money and resources were spent? 

In his 2022 book, ‘Why Governments Get It Wrong: And How They Can Get It Right’, Dennis C. Grube - Research lead in political decision-making at Cambridge University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy - emphasises that effective decision-making requires policymakers to pay attention to the fundamentals. Prof. Grube uses the metaphor of ‘getting our ducks in a row’ to highlight what governments must do to minimise failure and maximise the chances of success. 

Prof. Grube’s first little duck is an accurate definition of the policy problem. 

The second little duck is about ensuring that the story behind the problem is told compellingly and convincingly.  

The third little duck is about understanding patterns of facts and evidence within constantly shifting contexts and perspectives. 

The fourth little duck is about efficacy, making sure that the solution delivers what it promises on the tin. 

Does the Leader agree that, in hindsight, the Four Day Week ducks might have aligned better if there had been a wider, more inclusive debate held at South Cambs - one in which more appropriate models of 4in7 working for our district were considered alongside the radical 5 Days Pay for 4 Days Worked Reykjavik model chronicled in Prof. Grube’s book? And does she now understand that this debate should have occurred before and not after public money and resources were spent? 

The Leader replied that the report on the four-day week just discussed had addressed these points. She concluded that she was satisfied that the four-day week was a positive thing for the Council.

As his supplementary question, Councillor Daniel Lentell stated that 15% of officers were using their time off to work in second jobs and he suggested that this could have been avoided if an alternative four-day model had been introduced. He asked the Leader if she considered this to be a success. The Leader replied that it was not the policy of the administration to dictate how officers spent their free time. Many staff spent their non-working time doing voluntary work or caring for dependents, which had wider benefits for the whole community.

South Cambridgeshire District Council ran a stall at Cambridge Pride this year. Could the Leader or relevant cabinet member please provide an update on how that went and what plans we might already have in place for next year’s Pride? 

South Cambridgeshire District Council ran a stall at Cambridge Pride this year. Could the Leader or relevant cabinet member please provide an update on how that went and what plans we might already have in place for next year’s Pride? 

The Leader was pleased that the Council had run a stall at this year’s Cambridge Pride event and praised the officer who worked hard to make this happen. Many of those who visited the stall were now considering a career in local government. She expected that the Council would run a stall at next year’s event. There was no supplementary question.

Earlier this year, the Council endorsed the decision to seek accreditation with White Ribbon UK. How is progress towards achieving accreditation going? 

Earlier this year, the Council endorsed the decision to seek accreditation with White Ribbon UK. How is progress towards achieving accreditation going? 

Councillor Judith Rippeth had given her apologies to this meeting. It was agreed that she should be provided with a written response to her question.

This council has always been very supportive of community support schemes across the district. Unfortunately, there appears to be a significant reduction in the number of people who are willing to volunteer for the community car schemes to a point where even those who require transport for a health related appointment are being refused on occasion. Clearly health related appointments are important but for our elderly residents social isolation is also a key contributor to poor mental health. 

C?an the leader tell us what steps the council is taking to identify local need and improve all forms of local transport?

This council has always been very supportive of community support schemes across the district. Unfortunately, there appears to be a significant reduction in the number of people who are willing to volunteer for the community car schemes to a point where even those who require transport for a health related appointment are being refused on occasion. Clearly health related appointments are important but for our elderly residents social isolation is also a key contributor to poor mental health. 

Can the leader tell us what steps the council is taking to identify local need and improve all forms of local transport?

Councillor Peter McDonald expressed his support for community transport schemes. The Council provided three year grants to voluntary organisations and discussions were ongoing at the Combined Authority regarding funding from Section 106 agreements.

Councillor Sue Ellington stated that the majority of journeys were less than a mile, which current buses were unlikely to provide. As her supplementary question she asked if consideration would be given to setting up a task and finish group to identify the main issues to allow local government to identify possible solutions. Councillor Peter McDonald agreed to pass this suggestion on to Councillor Henry Batchelor, the Lead Cabinet Member for Communities.

Prior to the General Election, the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove came up with his Cambridge 2050 project and started the process towards imposing an unelected Development Corporation on the Greater Cambridge area. Will the Leader write to the new Secretary of State to invite them to discuss Michael Gove’s Cambridge 2050 project and the importance of local voices leading growth across our area? 

Prior to the General Election, the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove came up with his Cambridge 2050 project and started the process towards imposing an unelected Development Corporation on the Greater Cambridge area. Will the Leader write to the new Secretary of State to invite them to discuss Michael Gove’s Cambridge 2050 project and the importance of local voices leading growth across our area? 

The Leader recognised the challenges involved regarding development in the Greater Cambridge area. New homes and more infrastructure were required and the shortage of water remained a problem. The administration would be liaising with the new Government to ensure that local voices were heard. There was no supplementary question.

How many applications have been received for the Rural England Prosperity Fund Grant Scheme? When will decisions be made as to what projects shall receive support as part of this scheme? 

How many applications have been received for the Rural England Prosperity Fund Grant Scheme? When will decisions be made as to what projects shall receive support as part of this scheme? 

Councillor Peter McDonald was pleased to report that 20 applications for £867,000 was available from this grants scheme, which opened on 8 April and closed on 7 May. The Grants Advisory Committee were meeting on 29 July to consider these applications. £285,000 was likely to remain available for local groups. There was no supplementary question.

The outgoing Chief Executive of Cipfa (the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) said that the next government has a narrow “window of opportunity” to reform local government finance before the whole system falls over. Over the past few years, campaigners across the country have been asking for an urgent intervention from the Government to fix the £4 billion gap in local authority funding. Can the Leader confirm if, following the General Election, we have any clarity as to whether the new Government has any plans to solve this pressing issue? 

The outgoing Chief Executive of Cipfa (the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) said that the next government has a narrow “window of opportunity” to reform local government finance before the whole system falls over. Over the past few years, campaigners across the country have been asking for an urgent intervention from the Government to fix the £4 billion gap in local authority funding. Can the Leader confirm if, following the General Election, we have any clarity as to whether the new Government has any plans to solve this pressing issue? 

Councillor John Williams said that more section 114 notices should be expected and urgent intervention from the Government was required. The multi-year settlement from the Government, planned for 2026/27, would make it easier for local councils to plan their budgets. The Council had made preparations for the business rates review and fair funding review in 2026/27 in the event that funding to this authority was reduced. There was no supplementary question.

In March, following persistent lobbying by councillors and local campaigners over many years, the Government shared its plans for how they proposed to tackle the water scarcity crisis we’re dealing with across Greater Cambridge. Does the Leader think these plans are sufficient for addressing this problem or does the new Government need to make significant progress on this issue still? 

In March, following persistent lobbying by councillors and local campaigners over many years, the Government shared its plans for how they proposed to tackle the water scarcity crisis we’re dealing with across Greater Cambridge. Does the Leader think these plans are sufficient for addressing this problem or does the new Government need to make significant progress on this issue still? 

The Leader reported that the Government had announced funding to tackle the water shortage issue. The administration would continue to liaise with the Government on this matter. There was no supplementary question.

In other areas, councils are having real issues with high instances of sub-letting in council housing and people lying about their circumstances in order to ‘jump the queue’. How are we working to tackle these problems when they arise in South Cambridgeshire so that we’re able to get the people in the most desperate need housed as quickly as possible? 

In other areas, councils are having real issues with high instances of sub-letting in council housing and people lying about their circumstances in order to ‘jump the queue’. How are we working to tackle these problems when they arise in South Cambridgeshire so that we’re able to get the people in the most desperate need housed as quickly as possible? 

Councillor John Williams stated that the administration took the issue of subletting very seriously. The Housing department worked hard to deal with this issue and take appropriate action when necessary. This involved a key amnesty, fraud awareness and prosecutions. There was no supplementary question.

The Chair stated that there was sufficient time for an additional question.

Councillor Heather Williams asked what the Leader was doing to ensure that residents’ views were acted upon regarding the Kingsway Solar Farm at West Wratting. The Leader replied that a relaxing of planning laws had been announced in the King’s speech and the Council waited for the Government to clarify what this would mean in practice. Councillor Anna Bradnam believed that the County Council would determine this application.

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments. At the expiry of the 30 minute period, debate shall cease immediately, the mover of the original Motion, or if the original Motion has been amended, the mover of that amendment now forming part of the substantive motion, will have the right of reply before it is put to the vote.

The council notes: 

·         People with disabilities and their families commonly face both direct and indirect discrimination in their everyday lives. 

·         One area in which many disabled people are often disadvantaged is access to housing. 

·         Many properties are not suitable for people with certain disabilities and require significant adaptation to ensure they are safe and accessible. 

·         The Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), which is regulated by statute, is a useful tool local authorities can employ to adapt more homes to meet the requirements of disabled residents. Funding for DFG is provided via the Better Care Fund. 

·         The grant amount available through DFG in England has been capped at £30,000 since 2008. In 2021, the Conservative Government promised to increase the maximum amount that could be claimed but has since dropped this commitment. 

·         Locally, DFG is administered by Cambridge Home Improvement Agency (CHIA) on behalf of this Council, Cambridge City Council and Huntingdonshire District Council. In addition to the mandatory DFG funding, this Council provides for Discretionary Top-up Assistance of up to £15,000 to DFG recipients. 

The council recognises: 

·         In 2018, an independent review, ‘Disabled Facilities Grant and other adaptations: external review’, recommended that the current cap and means testing requirements should be amended to consider the impact of inflation and cost-of-living prices rises that have taken place since they were last amended in 2008. 

·         The District Council Network has advocated for the DFG cap to be raised to at least £70,000 and for it to become tied to inflation. 

The council believes: 

·         Supporting residents to live independently within their own homes is essential in building a free and fair society and that all layers of government should seek to enable this. 

·         Whilst the local authority has enabled many improvements to the safety of disabled people’s homes in the district, the current DFG regulations are also a significant barrier preventing disabled residents and their families from living comfortably, and – more importantly – safely, within their own homes and communities. 

The council resolves: 

·         To call for the Government to implement fully the recommendations of the 2018 review, in particular: 

·         The maximum grant limit of £30,000 needs to be uplifted to at least £70,000 for targeted high needs cases; and 

·         The means test needs to be reformed to recognise that disabled people are particularly vulnerable to utility costs and other inflationary pressures. 

·         To instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care outlining this council’s position and in support of the DCN’s stated position. 

·         To request the Cabinet look into how this Council can better support disabled people, carers, and their families access housing across the district, working alongside partners such as CHIA, including reviewing the maximum discretionary top up assistance offered. 

Council Agreed the following motion:

The Council notes: 

·         People with disabilities and their families commonly face both direct and indirect discrimination in their everyday lives. 

·         One area in which many disabled people are often disadvantaged is access to housing. 

·         Many properties are not suitable for people with certain disabilities and require significant adaptation to ensure they are safe and accessible. 

·         The Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), which is regulated by statute, is a useful tool local authorities can employ to adapt more homes to meet the requirements of disabled residents. Funding for DFG is provided via the Better Care Fund. 

·         The grant amount available through DFG in England has been capped at £30,000 since 2008. In 2021, the Conservative Government promised to increase the maximum amount that could be claimed but has since dropped this commitment. 

·         Locally, DFG is administered by Cambridge Home Improvement Agency (CHIA) on behalf of this Council, Cambridge City Council and Huntingdonshire District Council. In addition to the mandatory DFG funding, this Council provides for Discretionary Top-up Assistance of up to £15,000 to DFG recipients. 

The Council recognises: 

·         In 2018, an independent review, ‘Disabled Facilities Grant and other adaptations: external review’, recommended that the current cap and means testing requirements should be amended to consider the impact of inflation and cost-of-living prices rises that have taken place since they were last amended in 2008. 

·         The District Council Network has advocated for the DFG cap to be raised to at least £70,000 and for it to become tied to inflation. 

The Council believes: 

·         Supporting residents to live independently within their own homes is essential in building a free and fair society and that all layers of government should seek to enable this. 

·         Whilst the local authority has enabled many improvements to the safety of disabled people’s homes in the district, the current DFG regulations are also a significant barrier preventing disabled residents and their families from living comfortably, and – more importantly – safely, within their own homes and communities. 

The Council resolves: 

·         To call for the Government to implement fully the recommendations of the 2018 review, in particular: 

·         The maximum grant limit of £30,000 needs to be uplifted to at least £70,000 for targeted high needs cases; and 

·         The means test needs to be reformed to recognise that disabled people are particularly vulnerable to utility costs and other inflationary pressures. 

·         To instruct the Chief Executive or Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care outlining this council’s position and in support of the DCN’s stated position. 

·         To request the Cabinet look into how this Council can better support disabled people, carers, and their families access housing across the district, working alongside partners such as CHIA, including reviewing the maximum discretionary top up assistance offered. 

Councillor Helene Leeming explained that the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) had been capped by the Government at £30,000 since 2008 and had remained unchanged since. This was insufficient in most cases and with one in five people having a disability it affected a large number of people. She supported the District Council Network’s recommendation that the cap be lifted to £70,000.

Councillor Peter Sandford reported that Papworth, which was in his ward, had a number of disabled residents who could not move and lived in homes that could not be easily relet. Whilst he was impressed by the adaptations that were made on such a small budget, it was clearly unfair for the cap to have remained at £30,000 for the last 16 years, when the cost of materials had greatly increased.

Councillor Brian Milnes expressed his support for the motion and suggested that in future, the grant should be increased by inflation.

Councillor Heather Williams suggested that as this was a political matter, the letter resulting from any agreed motion should be sent by the Leader, not the Chief Executive. The Chair suggested that the motion should be amended to state that either the Chief Executive or the Leader should write to the Secretary of State. Councillor Helene Leeming and Councillor Peter Sandford agreed to this amendment, which was accepted without debate.

Councillor Heather Williams stated that disabled people suffer from discrimination every day and she supported this motion. Councillor Sue Ellington provided anecdotal evidence of the difference disabled adaptations could make to people’s lives and she expressed her support for the motion.

Councillor John Batchelor stated that as the Lead Cabinet Member for Housing he supported this motion. He explained that many adaptations could not be funded due to the cost and the Council had agreed to a county-wide policy in 2019 to put charges of up to £15,000 on the property, which would be claimed back when the home was sold.

Councillor Helene Leeming proposed and Councillor Peter Sandford seconded the following motion. A vote was taken and

Council unanimously Agreed the following motion:

The Council notes: 

·         People with disabilities and their families commonly face both direct and indirect discrimination in their everyday lives. 

·         One area in which many disabled people are often disadvantaged is access to housing. 

·         Many properties are not suitable for people with certain disabilities and require significant adaptation to ensure they are safe and accessible. 

·         The Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), which is regulated by statute, is a useful tool local authorities can employ to adapt more homes to meet the requirements of disabled residents. Funding for DFG is provided via the Better Care Fund. 

·         The grant amount available through DFG in England has been capped at £30,000 since 2008. In 2021, the Conservative Government promised to increase the maximum amount that could be claimed but has since dropped this commitment. 

·         Locally, DFG is administered by Cambridge Home Improvement Agency (CHIA) on behalf of this Council, Cambridge City Council and Huntingdonshire District Council. In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

The Council notes: 

·         In 2017, the Conservative Government introduced a limit on benefit payments, preventing families from claiming Child Tax Credit or Universal Credit for more than two children per household (this is commonly referred to as the ‘Two-Child Benefit Cap’). 

·         The recent research conducted by the End Child Poverty Coalition[1] which has found that: 

·         1.5 million children in the UK live in households subject to the two-child benefit cap. This represents roughly one-in-ten children in the UK. 

·         In 2023/24 the two-child benefit cap cost families up to £3,235 per child each year. 

·         There is a strong correlation between families affected by the two-child benefit cap and those who are living in poverty. 

·         Scrapping the two-child benefit cap would lift 250,000 children out of poverty overnight, and significantly reduce the level of poverty that a further 850,000 children live in. 

·         Scrapping the two-child benefit cap would cost £1.3 billion, however it is estimated that child poverty costs the economy £39 billion each year. 

·         In South Cambridgeshire, approximately 2,200 (6%) children are currently affected by the two-child benefit cap. At the same time 5,171 children (14.1%) are living in poverty across South Cambridgeshire. 

The Council strongly believes that the two-child benefit cap is a cruel and harmful policy that should be scrapped. Research from the University of York[2] has shown its introduction has had no positive impacts on employment and earnings; rather, it has dragged thousands of local families into poverty. 

The Council further notes that the Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the two-child benefit cap since it was introduced – calling for it to be axed in their 2017, 2019 and 2024 manifestos. 

The Council notes with concern the Conservative Party’s stated policy, to continue with the cap, and the indication by the Labour Party Leader that they would ‘keep the two-child benefit cap’. 

The Council resolves to: 

·         Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister to indicate the Council’s strong belief that the two-child benefit cap should be scrapped – which would help the 2,200 children living in South Cambridgeshire who are affected by the cap. 

·         Further instruct the Chief Executive to write to all MPs covering South Cambridgeshire, asking them to commit their public support to the campaign to end the cruel two-child limit to benefit payments. 

·         Encourage other local authorities to agree similar resolutions, with the aim of bringing an end to this cruel policy. 

Council Agreed the following motion:

The Council notes: 

·         In 2017, the Conservative Government introduced a limit on benefit payments, preventing families from claiming Child Tax Credit or Universal Credit for more than two children per household (this is commonly referred to as the ‘Two-Child Benefit Cap’). 

·         The recent research conducted by the End Child Poverty Coalition[1] which has found that: 

·         1.5 million children in the UK live in households subject to the two-child benefit cap. This represents roughly one-in-ten children in the UK. 

·         In 2023/24 the two-child benefit cap cost families up to £3,235 per child each year. 

·         There is a strong correlation between families affected by the two-child benefit cap and those who are living in poverty. 

·         Scrapping the two-child benefit cap would lift 250,000 children out of poverty overnight, and significantly reduce the level of poverty that a further 850,000 children live in. 

·         Scrapping the two-child benefit cap would cost £1.3 billion, however it is estimated that child poverty costs the economy £39 billion each year. 

·         In South Cambridgeshire, approximately 2,200 (6%) children are currently affected by the two-child benefit cap. At the same time 5,171 children (14.1%) are living in poverty across South Cambridgeshire. 

The Council strongly believes that the two-child benefit cap is a cruel and harmful policy that should be scrapped. Research from the University of York[2] has shown its introduction has had no positive impacts on employment and earnings; rather, it has dragged thousands of local families into poverty. 

The Council further notes that the Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the two-child benefit cap since it was introduced – calling for it to be axed in their 2017, 2019 and 2024 manifestos. 

The Council notes with concern the Conservative Party’s stated policy, to continue with the cap, and the indication by the Labour Party Leader that they would ‘keep the two-child benefit cap’. 

The Council resolves to: 

·         Instruct the Leader to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister to indicate the Council’s strong belief that the two-child benefit cap should be scrapped – which would help the 2,200 children living in South Cambridgeshire who are affected by the cap. 

·         Further instruct the Chief Executive to write to all MPs covering South Cambridgeshire, asking them to commit their public support to the campaign to end the cruel two-child limit to benefit payments. 

·         Encourage other local authorities to agree similar resolutions, with the aim of bringing an end to this cruel policy. 

Councillor Annika Osborne presented her motion, which called for the two child benefit cap to be scrapped. She explained that approximately one in ten children were living in poverty in Britain. She asserted that the costs of tackling child poverty would be more than offset by the benefits to the economy of lifting families out poverty, as they would become more productive and less dependent on benefits.

Councillor Anna Bradnam explained that as Chair of the Corporate Parenting Sub Committee she was well aware of the challenges caused by child poverty and she expressed her support for the motion. She agreed with Councillor Osborne that tackling child poverty would save money for the Government in the long run.

Councillor Heather Williams agreed that the Government should tackle child poverty but was not going to support the motion as she calculated that nearly £500m of Child Tax Credit was already going to families who were not in poverty. She concluded that there were better ways to tackle child poverty than abolishing the two child benefit cap.

Both Councillor Tom Bygott and Councillor Dr Richard Williams left the meeting.

Councillor Stephen Drew suggested that historically the Conservative party had opposed spending on welfare. He asserted that the issue of child poverty shamed all of us. He was in favour of his taxes being spent on helping children out of poverty and he supported the motion.

Councillor Dr Martin Cahn stated that child poverty was a major issue in this country, along with a low birth rate, which had been exacerbated by Brexit. He supported the motion as action had to be taken to address the growing imbalance in society.

The Leader stated that child poverty was a nation scandal to which there was no single solution. She supported the motion as the abolition of the two child benefit cap would be a good use of taxes.

Councillor Peter McDonald reported that the number working families in poverty demonstrated the seriousness of this matter. He suggested that the recent election result indicated that voters had rejected the Conservative’s policy on this issue.

Councillor Natalie Warren-Green stated that the Council had supported families in poverty by proving food vouchers. She asserted that the abolition of the two child benefit cap was part of the solution to tackling child poverty and she supported the motion.

Councillor Annika Osborne proposed and Councillor Natalie Warren-Green seconded the motion as laid out in the report. A vote was taken and were cast as follows:

In favour (23):

Councillors Michael Atkins, John Batchelor, Paul Bearpark, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Helene Leeming, Daniel Lentell, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Natalie Warren-Green and John Williams

Against (3):

Councillors Graham Cone, Sue Ellington and Heather Williams.

Abstain (0)

Council Agreed the following motion:

The Council notes: 

·         In 2017, the Conservative Government introduced a limit on benefit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12b

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

The Chair reported that in addition to the engagements recorded in the agenda he had attended the unveiling of the first post box in the country to have the Charles III cypher at Cambourne on 12 July. He had been unable to attend the opening of the Cambridge Science Centre on the science park on 4 July and he was grateful to the Centre for inviting him back on 11 July. He urged all Members to consider a visit.