Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Paul Bearpark, Lina Nieto, Anika Osborne, Natalie Warren-Green, Susan Van de Ven, and James Hobro.

To receive declarations of interest from Members.

Councillor Cone, in relation to agenda item 14(b) ‘Notice of Motions – Standing in the name of Councillor Graham Cone’, declared that he had an honorary contract with the NHS, though this was not a pecuniary interest.

Councillor Heather Williams, in relation agenda item 10 ‘Greater Cambridge Partnership’, declared that she was a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly.

Councillor Stobart, in relation to agenda item 7(b) ‘General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy’, declared that he was a SCIP board member, though SCIP was not specifically referenced within the item.

The Chair advised that Members need not declare that they held seats as County Councillors.

To authorise the Chair to sign the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 18 July 2024 as a correct record.

The Council authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 18 July 2024, subject to the following amendment:

·         That, ‘… as other sectors, such as education, …’ be expanded to, ‘… as other sectors, such as education, the NHS, and the police force, …’

To receive any announcements from the Chair.

The Chair advised Members of the recent passing of Roberta Cannon, previous Member of South Cambridgeshire District Council, and Chair of Council from 1981 to 1983. The Chair further advised of the passing of former Member John Shepperton and invited Councillor Sue Ellington to say a few words.

Councillor Ellington advised that John Shepperton had served as a Councillor for 28 years, including as Chair of Council, and noted his pivotal work in bringing the Swavesey Bye-Ways Act before Parliament as an individual.

The Chair notified Members of the resignation of Councillor Pippa Heylings, with a byelection for the now-vacant Histon and Impington seat taking place on Thursday 24 October 2024.

Finally, the Chair informed Members of the recent Local Government Association motion on civility in public life and emphasised the expectation of behaviour from Members during debate.

To receive any announcements from the Leader and Cabinet.

The Leader advised Members that October was Black History Month, and the Council would be working with Cambridge City Council on a programme of events. It was noted that consultation on the Council’s Corporate Plan was now open, and that Cabinet recently met with all three of the new Members of Parliament for the district.

The Leader further highlighted the success of the Climate and Environment Advisory Committee workshop that took place at Comberton Village College, involving young people from schools across the district, and thanked officers for their work.

Finally, it was announced that the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service had won the ‘Best Service Team: Waste, Recycling and Streetscene’ award at the Association of Public Service Excellence awards.

The Council was also shortlisted for ‘Best Building and Housing Initiative’, ‘Best Efficiency and Transformation Initiative’ jointly with Cambridge City Council, ‘Best Public-Private Partnership Working Initiative’ with Cambridge City Council, and ‘Best Community and Neighbourhood Initiative’ for its mobile food hub initiative with Hope CIC. 

3C Building Control had won eight regional awards, with one highly commended award from the LABC Excellence Awards for East Anglia. South Cambridgeshire District Council had further been shortlisted for the Smarter Working Awards in the ‘Improving Spaces and Creating a Great Place to Work’ category and the ‘Putting People First’ category.

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 on 27 September 2024.

5(a).     From David Revell, Cambridge Approaches

A question had been received from David Revell, who asked:

“SCDC’s environmental strategy states: ‘We will influence the planning and delivery of new major transport routes such as the proposed East West rail line to ensure that they are planned to deliver net benefits to the environment.’

EWRCo’s own carbon assessment and transportation figures of the Bedford to Cambridge section of the line shows that any net savings during operation due to residents swapping from road to rail would be dwarfed by the carbon emissions during construction (approximately 5kTCO2e savings over 60 years due to modal shift compared to over 320kTCO2e emitted during construction).

If the associated housing that EWRCo depends on in an attempt to justify the project is included, the total carbon emissions during construction would be about 8,450kTCO2e.

Given that the project design has been ongoing for many years, please identify how SCDC has influenced the planning of EWR to ensure that there would be net benefits to the environment?”

In response, Councillor Bridget Smith advised that the Council’s responses to each stage of the EWR consultations so far had been published online, and it was expected that latest proposals by EWR would be published later this year. It was anticipated that a public consultation would be launched following the budget announcement. It was commented that the Council and other partners had been clear in its expectations from the development but hadn’t provided a conclusive stance ahead of the proposals. It was hoped that the development would include the highest level of environmental standards and electrification of the railway.

As a supplementary question, David Revell asked whether the Council had done anything to date to influence the design and planning of the project.

Councillor Smith responded that the Council had met with EWR representatives several times over the past few years and had robustly represented its views as to what would be acceptable and what would not. It was noted that the Council had no statutory powers in this area, but it was hoped forthcoming proposals would show evidence of robust lobbying by the Council.

5(b).    From Dr Bryan Cameron

A question had been received from Dr Bryan Cameron, who asked:

“28,538 pensioners in South Cambridgeshire will be affected by the government’s cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Does the leader of the council agree that this is a regressive measure, which unfairly targets some of the most vulnerable members of our society, including the aged and the infirm, and will the council take steps to limit the impacts of this cut on pensioners in South Cambridgeshire?”

In response, Councillor Henry Batchelor advised that a motion was to be debated later around this very important issue. It was suggested that the administration had been consistent in its opposition to the cut. It was further advised that the Council would be making use of its new LIFT tool, which could identify residents that were potentially eligible for pension credits but weren’t claiming  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

There were no petitions received since the last Council meeting.

It is recommended that Council agree to adopt the revised Statement of Licensing Policy under the Gambling Act 2005 for a period of up to three years from 31 January 2025. The draft Policy is attached as Appendix A to the report.

Council (unanimously) agreed to adopt the revised Statement of Licensing Policy under the Gambling Act 2005 for a period of up to three years from 31 January 2025. The draft Policy was attached as Appendix A to the report.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Council, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Smith noted that the policy required review every three years, though no significant changes had been proposed.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam, who advised that a lot of work had gone into the proposals, with constructive cross-party discussions taking place during the Licensing Committee debate.

The Council (unanimously) agreed to adopt the revised Statement of Licensing Policy under the Gambling Act 2005 for a period of up to three years from 31 January 2025. The draft Policy was attached as Appendix A to the report.

That Council is requested to consider the report and, if satisfied, to:

a)    Acknowledge the projected changes in service spending and the overall resources available to the Council over the medium term to 2029/2030.

b)    Approve the refreshed Medium Term Financial Strategy at Appendix A to the report and updated financial forecast at Appendix B to the report.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting):

a)     Acknowledged the projected changes in service spending and the overall resources available to the Council over the medium term to 2029/2030.

b)     Approved the refreshed Medium Term Financial Strategy at Appendix A to the report and updated financial forecast at Appendix B to the report.

Councillors In Favour: Michael Atkins, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Dr Lisa Redrup, Judith Rippeth, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Sue Ellington, Bunty Waters, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: Daniel Lentell

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Williams advised that there was no certainty around the local government settlement, though the possibility of a three-year settlement was welcomed, and that a fair funding review was still expected. To combat this, a reduction in business rates income and lower new homes bonus had been assumed, alongside a higher growth rate in line with current trends. It was, however, anticipated that Council Tax would increase, while still being set at one of the lowest levels in the county. Councillor Williams advised that diversification had enabled the Council to support its communities to a greater extent than other district councils and that improvements were always ongoing, including through transformation and other savings.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Bridget Smith, who reserved their right to speak until later in the debate.

During the course of debate, comment was made that the cost of the Materials Recycling Facility was around £1million and that this would place further pressure on the budget and increase the budget gap. Concern was raised that provision was not being made for surprise costs, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It was suggested that the Government may look to lift the cap on Council Tax increases. With further concerns raised in relation to savings being delayed, the question was raised as to whether the Council would go about the 2.99% Council Tax increase if the cap was lifted.

Comment was made that the new Government could not continue to reduce local authorities’ ability to pay for services, and that the proposals before the Council aimed to achieve a balanced budget.

In response to questions raised during debate, Councillor John Williams advised that the Council was in an uncertain period due to the new Government, but also the impact of the previous economic crash. It was noted that the Council could only make assumptions based on what it currently knew, but that it was felt that the MTFS was robust going forward. It was also noted that it was assumed that the Council Tax rise would be maintained at 2.99%.

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor Bridget Smith advised that the uncertainty of local government funding was raised every year and that authorities were always doing more with less. It was hoped that multi-year settlements could remove an element of that uncertainty. It was advised that the Local Government Association Peer Review had commented that the Council was in an enviable financial position, and it was felt that the Council was managing its money carefully.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting):

a)    Acknowledged the projected changes in service spending and the overall resources available to the Council over the medium term to 2029/2030.

b)    Approved the refreshed Medium Term Financial Strategy at Appendix A to the report and updated financial forecast at Appendix B to the report.

Councillors In Favour:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24a

That Council appoints Ms Ahmed as interim CFO and Section 151 Officer from 26 February 2025 for a period of up to one year.

The Council (unanimously) appointed Ms Ahmed as interim CFO and Section 151 Officer from 26 February 2025 for a period of up to one year.

The Council (unanimously) appointed Ms Ahmed as interim CFO and Section 151 Officer from 26 February 2025 for a period of up to one year.Councillor Hofman left the meeting at this point and rejoined virtually.

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Williams expressed his sadness at Peter Maddock’s retirement, however was delighted for Farzana Ahmed to step into the role, who had been working with the Council for many years and would be developing her career.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Peter McDonald.

Members were pleased with the choice of appointment and wished Peter Maddock good luck in his retirement.

The Council (unanimously) appointed Ms Ahmed as interim CFO and Section 151 Officer from 26 February 2025 for a period of up to one year.

There have been no reports received on decisions taken by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the last Council meeting.

The Chair advised that a report on the decision of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the last Council meeting was included in the supplementary pack.

In response to questions, Councillor Bridget Smith, as a member of the CPCA Board, made the following comments:

·         She was unsure of the pay levels for individual CPCA staff, however this was in the public domain.

·         It was felt that the Monitoring Officer worked extremely hard and contributed to the CPCA’s Best Value Notice being withdrawn.

The Chief Executive advised that the CPCA did not pay £297,000 for the permanent position of Monitoring Officer, however the interim position had been filled on a day-rate, which would be more expensive. It was noted that a permanent appointment had recently been made.

In response to questions, Councillor John Willams, made the following comments:

·         It was considered to be a disappointment that there was no orbital bus route around Cambridgeshire announced, nor any increase in services on park and ride routes, both of which had been asked for.

·         It was noted that no park and ride services had been introduced in the later evening, either.

·         While some bus route changes were being introduced, it was felt that most residents would not see any big improvements.

·         It was advised that discussions had been held about introducing a direct response vehicle where bus services did not reach.

·         Commitment was made to raise once more with the CPCA that engagement with district councils around bus routes was vital.

The Council resolved to note the report.

There have been no reports received on decisions taken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership since the last Council meeting.

The Chair advised that no reports had been received on decisions taken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) since the last Council meeting.

Councillor Brian Milnes, as a member of the GCP Executive Board, reported that the Board had met on 2 October 2024 and had discussed the Cambridge South-East Transport Scheme, which had £7.2million allocated to it by Government in the previous budget, and would now be moving forward.

Members requested that reports be provided from the GCP Assembly also be provided to Council, in addition to those from the Executive Board.

In response to a question, Councillor Milnes advised that he would investigate with officers whether the GCP would be taking advice from the Royal National Institute of Blind People on the safety of ‘floating bus stops’ for blind and partially-sighted people.

To note any updates from the Oxford to Cambridge Pan Regional Partnership since the last Council meeting.

Councillor Bridget Smith, as a member of the Oxford to Cambridge Pan-Regional Partnership Board, introduced the report.

A request was made use fewer abbreviations and acronyms in the reports to Council.

In response to questions, Councillor Smith confirmed that the conference referenced in the report on 29 November 2024 was open for Members to attend. It was further advised that recent issues of flooding on the A421 were outside of the partnership’s remit but would be discussed in relation to its impact on the area.

The Council resolved to note the report.

Council is asked to:

(i)             Appoint Councillor Geoff Harvey as Chair of the Climate and Environment Advisory Committee

(ii)            Note any other changes in roles, membership or substitutes

(iii)           Note, and, where required, endorse any changes to Outside Bodies appointments; and

(iv)           Note any executive appointments.

The Council (unanimously):

(i)                  Appointed Councillor Geoff Harvey as Chair of the Climate and Environment Advisory Committee.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Cabinet Member moved the recommendations.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Martin Cahn.

The Council (unanimously):

                      i.        Appointed Councillor Geoff Harvey as Chair of the Climate and Environment Advisory Committee.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at this point for ten minutes.

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 Elections and Democratic Services Manager prior to the commencement of the item. Members’ names will be drawn at random by the Chair until there are no further questions or until the expiration of the time period.

“Does the Leader agree that words matter and that a word as significant as “bullying” should not be wantonly thrown out as a last resort or debate trick in public session?

Does the leader recognise that for those in well-remunerated positions of power to appropriate the language of those who do not enjoy such privilege in this council, or in wider society, is greatly to be regretted and that some truths are, of necessity, uncomfortable to hear especially in the context of robustly holding government and governance to account.”

Councillor Dan Lentell asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Bridget Smith advised that it was difficult to answer as there was no agreed understanding of ‘bullying’, which meant different things to different people. Councillor Smith went on to reference the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) definition of bullying, particularly as experienced in the workplace.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Lentell asked whether the Leader had reflected on historic news reports that she had engaged in bullying.

Councillor Smith responded that the question sounded like a personal attack and that it would be inappropriate to comment when the other party involved was not aware of the discussion.

“The Council recently received a return visit from the Local Government Association’s Corporate Peer Review team. Could the Leader update members as to the outcome of that review?”

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Bridget Smith advised that the response from the Local Government Association’s Corporate Peer Review team’s return visit had been overwhelmingly positive and was now published on the Council’s website. The team had commented on the Council’s stronger working relationships with parishes, transformation programme and people strategy. Feedback had also included how clear the Council’s values had been adopted throughout the organisation.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Van de Weyer asked whether the process had been of benefit.

Councillor Smith responded that it had been, though it hadn’t been easy and required a lot of work from colleagues.

“The Council has now received accreditation by White Ribbon UK – how can members better support this vital work?”

Councillor Judith Rippeth asked her question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor John Batchelor advised that the Council had received the White Ribbon Accreditation in July 2024, only 3 or 4 months after work had commenced. Councillor Batchelor thanked Beth Watson and Heather Wood for their work on this project. It was further advised that the central premise of the campaign was that there was never an excuse to remain silent around men’s violence, with men able to become ambassadors, and women and others able to become champions. It was noted that Parish Councils could also gain the tier below accreditation, aimed at smaller organisations.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Rippeth asked whether there were any plans for the Council to mark White Ribbon Day.

Councillor Batchelor responded that there were, and that information on this would be circulated to Members shortly.

“Will the Leader provide an update as to what the response if any was received, from the Secretary of State for Transport, to the Leader’s letter dated 29th July 2024, asking for the Government to set out its position on East West Rail?”

Councillor Stephen Drew asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Bridget Smith advised that a response was received from the Secretary of State for Transport, which was a holding response, and which had been sent to Parish Councils. It was still uncertain whether East West Rail would be referenced in the national budget, but the issue was continuing to be pushed.

“Could the Leader update Council as the outcome of the discussion between Local Leaders and the Minister for Housing? Was it constructive?”

Councillor Anna Bradnam asked her question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Bridget Smith advised that she had met with Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook MP with the City Council Leader and the County Council Leader, alongside Peter Freeman. It was felt that there seemed to be a focus on Greater Cambridge and that they were being listened to. A detailed delivery model would still be required. It was noted that the growth company board set up under the previous government was due to meet soon.

“Cabinet recently received an update on the progress of the Council’s Cost of Living Support. At a time when many people across the UK are struggling to make ends meet, can the Leader outline what support the Council is making available to people across South Cambridgeshire?”

Councillor Peter Sandford asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Henry Batchelor advised that he was proud of the discretionary work around cost of living that the Council had undertaken, including LIFT, Community Hubs, the distribution of electric blankets (with plans to do the same this year), and mobile food hubs. Work was now being carried out to provide support beyond 2025.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Sandford asked if it could be ensured that residents received information about how they could access these services.

Councillor Batchelor responded that it could, and that officers were doing everything they could to promote the services, including external advertisements and including in the South Cambs Magazine.

“Can the leader provide an update regarding the small business fund announced recently by the Council?”

Councillor Sunita Hansraj asked her question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Peter McDonald advised that the Council had allocated £100,000 to support people setting up businesses and to help existing small businesses. This fund could provide up to £5,000 to businesses for tools and equipment. Applications were due to close on 31 October 2024, though if any of the fund remained, this would be extended. It was noted that 8 applications had been received so far.

“Analysts stated in the results of the four-day week trial report that “There are not sufficient end-of-year data points available to conduct a robust statistical analysis”. How are residents and councillors meant to trust the findings of this report, when its own analysts admit the report is not robust?”

Councillor Heather Williams asked her question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor John Williams advised that he had spoken to the university about the question, who had advised that it referred to the analysis of business rates and council tax KPIs specifically. Robust analysis required a minimum of 30 data points, which had been achievable for most KPIs. For the two in question, however, the only data points available were end-of-year data, and only 8 years’ worth, and so it was not possible to draw robust conclusions from these two KPIs specifically.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Heather Williams asked whether process changes had been provided to analysers, so that they could determine whether changes were due to process changes or the four-day week.

Councillor John Williams responded that he would have to go back to the analysis and would provide a written response.

“Can the Leader explain why no changes have been made to the KPIs to include monitoring email response times to residents’ queries during the four-day week?”

Councillor Graham Cone asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor John Williams advised that there was no straightforward way to measure response time and that many emails received by officers did not require a response. As part of the Council’s transformation programme, work was ongoing to try to reduce unnecessary emails and to expand the range of e-forms offered.

“Can the Leader or the Cabinet explain how the results of the four-day week trial can be relied upon as a valid assessment when 37% of staff are working more than four days a week to prop up the council’s performance?”

Councillor Tom Bygott asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor John Williams advised that when the four-day week trial began a decision was taken to reduce working hours by 20%, to 30 hours. In July, this was realigned to 32 hours and as such, the number of people working above their hours is less. It was noted that employees have always worked over their hours when needed.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Bygott asked whether additional staff had been required to cover non-working days.

Councillor Williams responded that the whole trial had been based on the premise that no additional employees would be required.

The Chair advised that the 30 minutes time limit for this item had been reached and that the remaining questions would be responded to in writing.

“What steps will the leader and administration be taking to support the building of the (already consented) Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital, which the new Government has put in doubt?”

“In 2007 this Council undertook a review of the development of Cambourne and published a report entitled "Lessons Learned". This report was followed in 2014 by a member task and finish chaired by Cllr Lynda Harford, as Chair of Planning Committee, which reviewed the Orchard Park development. These reports provided useful guidance and highlighted pitfalls South Cambs District Council should not repeat. In view of the Government's pressure on South Cambs to speed up the building programme, does the Leader have plans to set up a member led task and finish group to learn the lessons of Northstowe?”

“The 2023 staff survey showed 1% of staff were using their four-day week day off to do other paid work. In 2024, this figure has increased to 16%. Can the Leader or the Cabinet explain how the four-day week improves wellbeing and productivity, when council staff are using their day off to undertake paid work away from this council?”

“The Q1 KPIs show that the % of successful homeless preventions is now significantly above the target and intervention levels set, and significantly up compared to 2023 figures. What would the leader say are some of the factors that have contributed to this success?”

“3C Building Control has received a number of nationally significant awards recently for its work. Would the Cabinet be able to outline this work as well as other projects which have been nominated for or won awards?”

“Does the Council collect information on the amount of energy generated by the solar panels in the Council’s carpark as part of the greening of South Cambs Hall? How else is the Council encouraging sustainable electricity generation across the district?”

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.

“This Council notes:

• The recent announcement by the Labour Government to end universal Winter Fuel Payments and restrict eligibility to only those in receipt of Pension Credit and other benefits.
• Though many agree that universal Winter Fuel Payments are not necessary, Council is deeply concerned that many pensioners on lower and middle incomes will now not receive the payments.
• Across England and Wales, the number of people eligible for Winter Fuel Payments will fall by 10 million (from 11.4 million to only 1.5 million). Age UK research suggests 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
• While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many across South Cambridgeshire sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.

This Council further notes:

• In South Cambridgeshire the number of pensioners affected by the change in eligibility criteria is 28,538. That means 94.1% of pensioners currently eligible for Winter Fuel Payments will no longer be able to claim the payment from this winter onwards, many of whom will face a ‘heat or eat’ dilemma and significant risks to their health as a result of this decision.
• The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures will negatively affect the health and well-being of some of our poorest older residents. Further, the government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.
• The Labour Government has set the threshold at which pensioners do not qualify for Winter Fuel Payments far too low. Only those receiving a pension of less than £218.15 a week (or £332.95 a week for couples) are eligible for pension credits. This is significantly lower than the Living Wage.
• The low take up of Pension Credit with only 63% of those eligible nationwide receiving it – and over 880,000 pensioners not doing so. Council recognises the role we as a local authority have to play to increase awareness of benefits such as Pension Credit to ensure people get access to the support they are entitled to.
• The Energy Price Cap is due to rise by 10% in October, which combined with the removal of Winter Fuel Payments will push thousands of local pensioners into fuel poverty.

This Council resolves to:

• Request Cabinet to urgently commence a significant awareness campaign to maximise uptake of pension credits, including when available using the Low-Income Families Tracker (LIFT) to identify those who are eligible.
• Request that all Group Leaders sign a joint letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty, as well as considering what support can be given to help people reduce their energy bills and consumption.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 46a

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“This Council notes:

• The recent announcement by the Labour Government to end universal Winter Fuel Payments and restrict eligibility to only those in receipt of Pension Credit and other benefits.
• Though many agree that universal Winter Fuel Payments are not necessary, Council is deeply concerned that many pensioners on lower and middle incomes will now not receive the payments.
• Across England and Wales, the number of people eligible for Winter Fuel Payments will fall by 10 million (from 11.4 million to only 1.5 million). Age UK research suggests 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it.
• While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many across South Cambridgeshire sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit and will now lose their allowance.

This Council further notes:

• In South Cambridgeshire the number of pensioners affected by the change in eligibility criteria is 28,538. That means 94.1% of pensioners currently eligible for Winter Fuel Payments will no longer be able to claim the payment from this winter onwards, many of whom will face a ‘heat or eat’ dilemma and significant risks to their health as a result of this decision.
• The decision to means-test Winter Fuel Payments with such short notice and without adequate compensatory measures will negatively affect the health and well-being of some of our poorest older residents. Further, the government’s approach fails to consider the administrative barriers and stigma that prevent eligible pensioners from claiming Pension Credit, leaving many without the support they desperately need.
• The Labour Government has set the threshold at which pensioners do not qualify for Winter Fuel Payments far too low. Only those receiving a pension of less than £218.15 a week (or £332.95 a week for couples) are eligible for pension credits. This is significantly lower than the Living Wage.
• The low take up of Pension Credit with only 63% of those eligible nationwide receiving it – and over 880,000 pensioners not doing so. Council recognises the role we as a local authority have to play to increase awareness of benefits such as Pension Credit to ensure people get access to the support they are entitled to.
• The Energy Price Cap is due to rise by 10% in October, which combined with the removal of Winter Fuel Payments will push thousands of local pensioners into fuel poverty.

This Council resolves to:

• Request Cabinet to urgently commence a significant awareness campaign to maximise uptake of pension credits, including when available using the Low-Income Families Tracker (LIFT) to identify those who are eligible.
• Request that all Group Leaders sign a joint letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging a review of the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and asking the government to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty, as well as considering what support can be given to help  ...  view the full decision text for item 46a

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following moCouncillor Richard Williams, moved his motion and, in so doing advised that a similar motion had also been submitted by Councillor Lisa Redrup, with the pair working together on the proposed wording. It was hoped that this would give a clear message to Government that their decision should be reversed. Councillor Williams went on to advise that the Government’s proposal would mean that pensioners with income of £11,000 or over per year would no longer receive winter fuel payments.  It was noted that, according to the Department of Work and Pensions, payments were being withdrawn from 10million people, with 1.6million of those living in poverty, and 900,000 living just above the poverty line. In South Cambridgeshire it was believed that 28,000 would lose their payments. It was felt that even with the positive steps the Council was taking, the speed of the changes would not give people sufficient time to make any necessary arrangements.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Lisa Redrup, who reserved her right to speak until later in the debate.

During the course of debate, it was suggested that the motion should be recorded in the names of both Councillor Richard Williams and Councillor Lisa Redrup and that emphasis should be made in the letters that go out to the joint support across political groups.

It was suggested that the motion was inconsistent with previous Government decisions to not look into Windfall Tax and reference was made to historic benefit caps and reduced spending on benefits by Government.

The Chair reminded Members that the debate should focus on what the Council could do and that showing compassion in one area did not mean a lack of compassion in others.

It was noted that some elderly people were having to decide between heating and eating, particularly with heating bills due to rise this Winter.

As seconder of the motion, Councillor Lisa Redrup thanked Councillor Richard Williams for working on the motion with her. It was suggested that the motion focused on how choices were made, with concern raised that the current Government proposals could have a harmful impact. It was noted that applications for pension credit had increased, so the anticipated benefit may not even be realised.

As mover of the motion, Councillor Richard Williams, summed up the debate, and in so doing, suggested that it was sad the temptation to make partisan comments was not ignored during debate. It was noted that the House of Lords select committee on this topic had been unconvinced by the reasons for urgency and had raised concerns around the resulting lack of scrutiny.

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“This Council notes:

·         The recent announcement by the Labour Government to end universal Winter Fuel Payments and restrict eligibility to only those in receipt of Pension Credit and other benefits.

·         Though many agree that universal Winter Fuel Payments are not necessary, Council is deeply concerned that many pensioners on lower and middle incomes will now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46a

“This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council to express concern and dismay at how little has been spent on South Cambridgeshire’s roads compared to other areas in Cambridgeshire.”

The Council (19 voting in favour, 6 voting against, 2 abstaining from voting) agreed to accept an amendment submitted by Councillor Stephen Drew.

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Daniel Lentell, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie

The Council (19 voting in favour, 4 voting against, 3 abstaining from voting) agreed the following motion:

“This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council and the Chair of the Highways and Transport Committee at the County Council to express concern and dismay at how little has been spent on South Cambridgeshire’s roads compared to other areas in Cambridgeshire and applauding the administration’s programme of investment to address the historic neglect of South Cambridgeshire’s roads that they inherited from the previous Conservative administration.

In particular, this letter should set out the following points:

-       In the eight years preceding the joint administration’s leadership, the Conservative administration spent twice as much per kilometre on carriageway and footway resurfacing in Conservative-controlled Fenland compared to South Cambridgeshire.

-       Per capita, the Conservative administration spent only half as much in South Cambridgeshire on carriageway and footway resurfacing compared to Fenland, and 0.6 times as much compared to East Cambridgeshire.

-       That due to Conservative underinvestment and mismanagement of highways, the joint administration has been left with a £600m backlog of highway maintenance across the county.

-       The Conservatives ceased routine gulley cleaning for four years and failed to maintain accurate maps of gully locations, leading to increased flooding and degradation of roads.

-       The Joint Administration has nearly doubled the road maintenance budget for the next two years, adding over £40 million in new capital spending, marking the reversal of decades of managed decline under the Conservatives.

-       A new commercial team has been established, dedicated to ensuring the best quality and value from contractors. This team has already saved approximately £1.4 million this year.

-       In South Cambridgeshire, a number of significant highway improvements are being funded by the County Council, amounting to £5,019,000 of investment in South Cambridgeshire’s roads over this financial year.”

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Graham Cone, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Daniel Lentell

Councillor Peter McDonald left the meeting at this point.

Councillor Graham Cone, moved his motion and, in so doing, advised that, for every £1,000 spent on roads in the City, £360 was spent in South Cambridgeshire. There was a large disparity in the funding allocated to each Council, which was felt by residents. 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams, who reserved her right to speak until later in the debate.

At this point, the Chair adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes. Councillor Rippeth left the meeting.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Stephen Drew, who, following a question from the Chair, confirmed that he did not wish to change the wording of his amendment.

The Chair advised that he did not feel that the amendment negated the motion and would therefore permit it.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Brian Milnes, who reserved his right to speak until later in the debate.

During the course of debate on the amendment, comment was made that it was unfortunate for a simple motion to be changed into something political. Further comment was made that the original motion was too short and, therefore, ambiguous, and the amendment added in necessary context. It was also suggested that the amendment added detail in relation to a previous lack of clarity and road data.

It was suggested that the roads in the district were plainly in a state of disrepair and that there were inherent problems with the structure in place to fix them, and that this should have been the focus of the motion.

There was discussion around when spending was allocated to maintain roads by Cambridgeshire County Council, and it was clarified that this spending decreased between 2021 and 2023.

Final comment was made that residents were often confused as to who was responsible for road maintenance, and that the amendment made it clear.

Councillor Lisa Redrup left the meeting at this point.

As seconder of the amendment, Councillor Brian Milnes advised that this was an issue for Cambridgeshire roads, not South Cambridgeshire District Council, which allocated funding according to need and funding. It was felt that the amendment reflected this.

As mover of the original motion, Councillor Graham Cone, summed up the debate, and in so doing, advised that he would not be accepting the amendment to what he felt had originally been a simple and deliberately non-political motion, and which he believed could now be included within party political material.

Councillor Sue Ellington left the meeting at this point.

The Council (19 voting in favour, 6 voting against, 2 abstaining from voting) agreed to accept an amendment submitted by Councillor Stephen Drew.

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Daniel Lentell,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

“This Council requests Cabinet to strive to achieve, at a minimum, the Bronze tier accreditation in Prostate Cancer UK’s BOG STANDARD and to use existing council resources, business and public connections to raise awareness for this important issue.”

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“This Council requests Cabinet to strive to achieve, at a minimum, the Bronze tier accreditation in Prostate Cancer UK’s BOG STANDARD and to use existing council resources, business and public connections to raise awareness for this important issue.”

Councillor Bill Handley left the meeting at this point.

Councillor Heather Williams, moved her motion and, in so doing advised that BOG STANDARD was about trying to give those who had gone through prostate cancer dignity by having sanitary provision in public toilets and to promote men’s health through encouraging blood testing. It was noted that 78% of men who’d had prostate cancer felt anxious about sanitary provision when leaving home.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Graham Cone, who advised that the motion would help a large number of people.

During the course of debate, the importance of the issue raised by the motion was acknowledged, however the need for accreditation would require further consideration. Comment was made as to the importance of testing and that raising awareness of testing was vital.

It was queried whether accreditation would improve the work already being done and whether it would add value.

As mover of the motion, Councillor Heather Williams, summed up the debate and noted that, as a public body, the Council should be encouraging all action possible for people to feel confident leaving the house.

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“This Council requests Cabinet to strive to achieve, at a minimum, the Bronze tier accreditation in Prostate Cancer UK’s BOG STANDARD and to use existing council resources, business and public connections to raise awareness for this important issue.”

At this point, the Chair adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes. Councillor Shrobona Bhattacharya left the meeting.

“Council notes:

-        the dire state of public finances left by the outgoing Government.

-        the unfulfilled promise to build 40 new hospitals across the country.

-        the new Government’s announcement of a reset of the new hospitals scheme which could jeopardise progress on the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital at Addenbrooke’s and the redevelopment of Hinchingbrooke.

Council believes the new Hospitals are essential, recognising the deficit of health facilities across Greater Cambridge, the importance of Greater Cambridge as a regional centre for healthcare and the international importance of our area’s life sciences sector.

Council resolves:

-        to direct the leader to write to the Secretary of State underlining this Council’s view that the government should not abandon the commitment to developing these hospitals.

-        To direct the leader to write to the new MP for the area of the proposed Cancer Research Hospital, expressing our support for her recent efforts to secure the future funding for it and to request she work further with MPs across the area it would serve to secure funding for the Hospital and other local health facilities including the redevelopment of Hinchingbrooke.”

The Council voted (4 voting in favour, 18 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting) on an amendment submitted by Councillor Graham Cone, which was defeated.

Councillors In Favour: Graham Cone, Peter Fane, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Against: Henry Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Abstaining: Daniel Lentell

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“Council notes:

-       the dire state of public finances left by the outgoing Government.

-       the unfulfilled promise to build 40 new hospitals across the country.

-       the new Government’s announcement of a reset of the new hospitals scheme which could jeopardise progress on the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital at Addenbrooke’s.

Council believes the new Hospital is essential, recognising the deficit of health facilities across Greater Cambridge, the importance of Greater Cambridge as a regional centre for healthcare and the international importance of our area’s life sciences sector.

Council resolves:

-       to direct the leader to write to the Secretary of State underlining this Council’s view that the government should not abandon the commitment to developing the hospital.

-       To direct the leader to write to the new MP for the area of the proposed Cancer Research Hospital, expressing our support for her recent efforts to secure the future funding for it and to request she work further with MPs across the area it would serve to secure funding for the Hospital and other local health facilities.”

The Chair advised Members that Councillor Sally Ann Hart had submitted an alteration to her own motion following confirmation that Hinchingbrooke Hospital would not be included in the Government’s announced review.

Council accepted this alteration.

Councillor Sally Ann Hart, moved her altered motion and, in so doing, commented that the district was lucky to have a dedicated NHS staff, including those working in cancer treatment. It was felt to be vitally important to have healthcare facilities that matched the area’s growth. Planning permission for the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital at Addenbrooke’s had already been granted and shouldn’t be at risk.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Sunita Hansraj, who advised that there was an undeniable need for growth within the health service.

Discussion was had around the importance of health care provision and the benefits of a welcoming environment and early diagnosis. All of these attributes were being included in the Addenbrooke’s proposal, with the Joint Development Control Committee challenged and felt was effective.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Graham Cone, following confirmation from the Chair that he did not feel it negated the motion. Councillor Cone who, advised that he intended to remove the politics from the motion in order for the Council to be able to speak with one voice.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams, who reserved her right to speak until later in the debate.

Comment was made that it was impossible for Members, as politicians, to remove politics from a debate, and that the past could not be ignored.

As seconder of the amendment, Councillor Heather Williams advised that the intention of the amendment was to look forward and be positive, as cancer affected everyone equally.

During the course of debate on the amendment, it was suggested that the changes set out in the amendment were accurate, as well as representative.

Further comment was made that the NHS was an inherently political matter, that there would be different views across the political groups, and that the context of the original motion wording was key to understanding this.

As mover of the original motion, Councillor Sally Ann Hart, summed up the debate, and in so doing, advised that she felt it was important for the motion to remain as submitted, to allow for comment on the 40 hospitals that had not yet been delivered. 

During the course of the debate on the original motion, it was commented that support would still be provided, in spite of the amendment, as hospital provision was so important.

Comment was made that it would be useful to be able to extend the time limit on the motion debate.

As mover of the motion, Councillor Sally Ann Hart, summed up the debate, and in so doing, hoped that Members could come together to call for action.  

The Council voted (4 voting in favour, 18 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting) on an amendment submitted by Councillor Graham Cone, which was defeated.

Councillors In Favour: Graham  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

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

Councillor Brian Milnes proposed a motion that the meeting continue beyond four hours in duration. This was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams.

The Council (unanimously) agreed that the meeting continue beyond four hours in duration.

The Chair advised that the next Council meeting would take place on 28 November 2024.

The Council resolved to note the Chair’s recent engagements.