To receive apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bearpark, Bygott, Hart, Rippeth, Rixon, Martin Cahn.

It was noted that Councillor Ellington would be joining the meeting late.

Councillors Martin Cahn and Warren-Green were in attendance virtually.

To receive declarations of interest from Members.

Councillor Nieto declared, in relation to agenda item 7(e) ‘Housing Revenue Account Revenue and Capital Budget 2025/26’, that she had a non-registrable interest.

Councillor Heather Williams declared, in relation to agenda item 14 ‘Greater Cambridge Partnership’, that she was a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly.

Councillor Stobart declared, in relation to agenda item 7(d) ‘General Fund Revenue and Capital Budget 2025/26’, that he was a member of South Cambridgeshire Investment Partnership and South Cambridgeshire Investment Projects.

Councillor Howell declared that he was a Member of Cambridgeshire County Council.

To authorise the Chair to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2024 as a correct record.

The Council (unanimously) authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 28 November 2024. 

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 of the Council shared with Members her experience speaking at the recent demonstration event to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and expressed her hope that displaced individuals would soon be able to return home.

Further detail was shared in relation to LGBTQ+ month, which was taking place throughout February.

The Leader advised that she had given evidence to the Select Committee regarding plans around a devolution review.

Further updates were provided around the ongoing four-day week consultation, the update to the Council’s website, and the use of SAM AI within the Council’s Contact Centre.

Finally, it was advised that Nik Johnston was not standing for re-election as Combined Authority Mayor and the Leader shared her gratitude for the improvements made within the Combined Authority during his tenure.

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 19 February 2025.

There were no public questions.  

To note all petitions received since the last Council meeting.

There were no petitions received since the last Council meeting.

Councillor Hofman left the meeting at this point and rejoined virtually. 

It is recommended that Council:

a)    Approve and adopt the 2025-30 Corporate Plan (Appendix A) and 2025-26 Corporate Action Plan (Appendix B).

b)    Authorise the Chief Executive to make any minor wording changes required to final documents, in consultation with the Leader.

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

a)    Approved and adopted the 2025-30 Corporate Plan (Appendix A to the report) and 2025-26 Corporate Action Plan (Appendix B to the report).

b)    Authorised the Chief Executive to make any minor wording changes required to final documents, in consultation with the Leader.

Councillor Smith, Leader of the Council, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Smith thanked colleagues who had worked on the plan, which provided the Council with an opportunity to renew its purpose and reaffirm its commitment to its ambitions over the next few years. The Corporate Plan provided a blueprint for serving communities in the district and to be fair, kinder, and greener.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor John Williams, who reserved his right to speak until later in the debate.

During the course of debate it was commented that the new presentation and style of the Corporate Plan and Action Plan was improved and accessible. Members further thanked the Head of Finance, who would soon be retiring, for his work and who, without, the financial situation of the Council would be much less positive.

It was suggested that the Corporate Plan lacked sufficient consideration to the rural landscape of the district, which was felt to be more under threat than ever.

Clarity was sought as to whether the public consultation currently ongoing was in relation to the four-day week arrangements or not, as the Council’s messaging was felt to be unclear.

Members expressed their pleasure at inclusions such as the community safety partnership work, support for the Mobile Wardens Scheme, and work around the Low-income Family Tracker. Additionally, increases in the disability facilities grant and work undertaken with the Home Improvement Agency were welcomed.

Queries were raised in relation to East West Rail and how the Council was providing a voice for communities who did not support the proposals, as well as whether there were plans in place to ensure proposed developments in the district had the broadest possible support.

The Chair declared, in relation to this agenda item, that he was a Board Member of Shire Homes.

It was commented that the design, quality, and sustainability of new affordable housing developments was impressive, and Members were pleased to understand that further affordable housing was to be developed across the district.

A point was raised in relation to Woman’s Aid and police statistics, highlighting that a woman was killed every five days. It was noted that the Council’s work around its White Ribbon accreditation went towards tackling this issue.

At this point Councillor Ellington joined the meeting and Councillor Howell left the meeting.

It was noted that Council Tax increases, rent increases, and increased services changes were happening across the district, and suggestion was made that an analysis be carried out on the impact of this on young people. 

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor John Williams advised that the plan related to what the Council would be doing in the future, including the introduction of a Parish Council Liaison Officer to address a number of concerns that had been raised. It was advised that 37 colleagues in the Council were completing apprenticeships, which was something that would continue to be encouraged. It was further noted that communication and cooperation with partners and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86a

It is recommended that Council approve the updated Capital Strategy attached at Appendix A to the report which sets the policy framework for the development, management and monitoring of capital investment, including Capital Prudential Indicators.

The Council (27 voting in favour, 8 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the updated Capital Strategy attached at Appendix A to the report which set the policy framework for the development, management and monitoring of capital investment, including Capital Prudential Indicators.

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Williams advised that the report showed the Council was on top of its financial situation, with improved productivity and resources in place to deliver the Corporate Plan. It was noted that the spending power of the Council has not change significantly. Officers were congratulated on their work, which had meant that the Council’s total resource and expenditure had remained level with previous years against a backdrop of inflation and increase national insurance contributions.

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

During the course of debate concern was raised over the statement in the report that net external borrowing would not be exceeded, except on a short-term basis. The prospect of this being exceeded in the short-term left Members feeling uncertain.

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor Smith commented that the Council was in a good position due to wise financial management, which has been noted by the recent peer review. It was suggested that the upcoming Fairer Funding Review would have a significant impact, but the Council has worked hard to secure 25% of its income through investments.

The Council (27 voting in favour, 8 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the updated Capital Strategy attached at Appendix A to the report which set the policy framework for the development, management and monitoring of capital investment, including Capital Prudential Indicators.

Councillors In Favour: Michael Atkins, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Graham Cone, Sue Ellington, Daniel Lentell, Lina Nieto, Bunty Waters, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: None

It is recommended that Council approve the updated Treasury Management Strategy attached at Appendix A to the report which sets the policy framework for the Council’s treasury management activity, including (i) the Treasury Management Policy Statement, (ii) Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and (ii) Treasury Indicators.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 1 abstained from voting) approved the updated Treasury Management Strategy attached at Appendix A to the report which set the policy framework for the Council’s treasury management activity, including (i) the Treasury Management Policy Statement, (ii) Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and (ii) Treasury Indicators.

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Williams apologised that he had mistakenly introduced the General Fund report in the previous item.

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

During the course of debate concern was raised in relation to borrowing through short-term loans.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 1 abstained from voting) approved the updated Treasury Management Strategy attached at Appendix A to the report which set the policy framework for the Council’s treasury management activity, including (i) the Treasury Management Policy Statement, (ii) Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and (ii) Treasury Indicators.

Councillors In Favour: Michael Atkins, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

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

Councillors Abstaining: Ariel Cahn

It is recommended that Council consider and review the report and appendices as presented, and if satisfied:

General Fund (GF): Revenue

(a)   Approve the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy forecasts as shown in Appendix A.

(b)   Approve the proposed General Fund revenue budget for 2025/26, as shown in the GF summary budget at Appendix C and summarised at Appendix B, considering the statement by the Chief Finance Officer on the risks and robustness of the estimates as required under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, reproduced at Appendix G.

(c)   Acknowledge the key factors which have led to the proposed 2025/26 General Fund Revenue Budget, with service budget proposals and savings summarised at Appendix D and efficiency savings and income generation (outcome of budget star chamber meetings) summarised at Appendix E.

(d)   Approve the setting of the Council Tax Requirement for 2025/26 at £12,255,340 and approve an increase in the district element of the Council Tax of £5.09 per annum, giving an average Band D Council Tax of £175.40, plus the relevant amounts required by the precepts of the Parish Councils, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridgeshire Police & Crime Commissioner, and the Cambridgeshire Fire Authority.

(e)   Approve the estimates of the amounts required to be made under the Non-domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013 as set out in paragraphs 47 - 58.

(f)    Approve the use of the additional income from the Business Rate Pool, estimated at £1,700,000 in 2025/26, for transfer to the established Renewables Reserve for priority projects.

GF: Review of Reserves

(g)   Approve the movement in Reserves in 2024/25 as set out in Appendix H, and note the estimated balance of Reserves of £31.390 million.

GF: Capital

(h)   Approve the General Fund Capital Programme as shown in Appendix I.

The Council voted (7 voting in favour, 27 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting) on an amendment submitted by Councillor Heather Williams, which was defeated.

The Council (27 voting in favour, 8 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) considered and reviewed the report and appendices as presented. and:

General Fund (GF): Revenue

(a)  Approved the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy forecasts as shown in Appendix A to the report.

(b)  Approved the proposed General Fund revenue budget for 2025/26, as shown in the GF summary budget at Appendix C to the report and summarised at Appendix B to the report, considering the statement by the Chief Finance Officer on the risks and robustness of the estimates as required under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, reproduced at Appendix G to the report.

(c)   Acknowledged the key factors which had led to the proposed 2025/26 General Fund Revenue Budget, with service budget proposals and savings summarised at Appendix D to the report and efficiency savings and income generation (outcome of budget star chamber meetings) summarised at Appendix E to the report.

(d)  Approved the setting of the Council Tax Requirement for 2025/26 at £12,255,340 and approve an increase in the district element of the Council Tax of £5.09 per annum, giving an average Band D Council Tax of £175.40, plus the relevant amounts required by the precepts of the Parish Councils, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridgeshire Police & Crime Commissioner, and the Cambridgeshire Fire Authority.

(e)  Approved the estimates of the amounts required to be made under the Non-domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013 as set out in paragraphs 47 - 58.

(f)    Approved the use of the additional income from the Business Rate Pool, estimated at £1,700,000 in 2025/26, for transfer to the established Renewables Reserve for priority projects.

GF: Review of Reserves

(g)  Approved the movement in Reserves in 2024/25 as set out in Appendix H to the report, and note the estimated balance of Reserves of £31.390 million.

GF: Capital

(h)  Approved the General Fund Capital Programme as shown in Appendix I to the report.

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations.

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

Councillor Heather Williams moved an amendment to the recommendations as set out at Appendix J to the report, which was not accepted by the mover of the original recommendations. In moving her amendment, Councillor Williams commented that she hoped the administration would fully reflect on the proposals. It was considered to be of utmost importance for residents to have a say in what happened at the Council and, as such, a referendum on the four-day week was included. This proposal had not been brought earlier as it had been believed that the consultation would cover the matter, however, it was not felt that this had been done.

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

            During the course of debate on the amendment, Members were assured that the executive had seriously considered the content of the amendment. It was suggested that some items within the original recommendations overlapped with those included in the amendment.

Attention was drawn to the inclusion within the amendment of a proposal to disband the Council’s Transformation team, which, it was advised, had delivered significant savings for the Council. It was noted that the budget saved from this dispersal was proposed to be spent on a referendum on the four-day week arrangements. Comment was made that, as the four-day week was about recruitment, retention and staff well-being, and was not an ideological matter, a consultation was more appropriate than a referendum.

As seconder of the amendment, Councillor Cone commented that a lot of residents were concerned about the level of money being spent on transformation within the Council.

The Council voted (7 voting in favour, 27 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting) on the amendment submitted by Councillor Heather Williams, which was defeated.

Councillors In Favour: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Graham Cone, Daniel Lentell, Lina Nieto, Bunty Waters, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Against: Michael Atkins, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Abstaining: Sue Ellington

During the course of debate on the recommendation as originally moved, concern was raised around the level of borrowing proposed and the amount the Council was paying in interest. It was suggested that the Council’s Transformation team had spent over £10 million in order to save £1.7 million.

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor Smith advised that the Council had £27 million in reserves, however it was possible that the government may start to penalise Council’s with high levels  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87a

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

Housing Revenue Account (HRA): Revenue

(a)   Approve the HRA revenue budget for 2025/2026 as shown in the HRA Budget Summary as presented at Appendix A.

HRA: Review of Rents and Charges

(b)   Approve that council dwelling rents for all social rented properties are increased by 2.7%, recognising that inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2024, plus 1% results in an increase of 2.7%.

(c)   Approve that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) are also increased by 2.7% in line with the increase for social rents.

(d)   Approve that rents for affordable shared ownership properties are increased by 4.0%, recognising that inflation measured by the Retail Price Index (RPI) at December 2024 plus 0.5% results in an increase of 4.0%.

(e)   Approve that garage rents are increased by 2.7% in line with the increase for social rents.

(f)    Approve that Council dwelling rents for properties with an EPC rating of A or B are increased to 105% of target rent on re-let.

(g)   Approve the proposed service charges for HRA services and facilities provided to both tenants and leaseholders, as shown in Appendix D.

HRA: Capital

(h)   Approve the required level of funding for new build investment between 2025/2026 and 2029/2030 to ensure that commitments can be met in respect of the investment of all right to buy receipts currently retained or anticipated to be received by the authority for this period. This expenditure will take the form of HRA new build, with the 60% top up met by other HRA resources.

(i)    Approve the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy forecasts as shown in Appendix B.

(j)    Approve the Housing Capital Programme as shown in Appendix C.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) considered the report and:

Housing Revenue Account (HRA): Revenue

(a)  Approved the HRA revenue budget for 2025/2026 as shown in the HRA Budget Summary as presented at Appendix A to the report.

HRA: Review of Rents and Charges

(b)  Approved that council dwelling rents for all social rented properties were increased by 2.7%, recognising that inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2024, plus 1% results in an increase of 2.7%.

(c)   Approved that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) were also increased by 2.7% in line with the increase for social rents.

(d)  Approved that rents for affordable shared ownership properties were increased by 4.0%, recognising that inflation measured by the Retail Price Index (RPI) at December 2024 plus 0.5% results in an increase of 4.0%.

(e)  Approved that garage rents were increased by 2.7% in line with the increase for social rents.

(f)    Approved that Council dwelling rents for properties with an EPC rating of A or B were increased to 105% of target rent on re-let.

(g)  Approved the proposed service charges for HRA services and facilities provided to both tenants and leaseholders, as shown in Appendix D to the report.

The Council (33 voting in favour, 0 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) further:

HRA: Capital

(a)  Approved the required level of funding for new build investment between 2025/2026 and 2029/2030 to ensure that commitments could be met in respect of the investment of all right to buy receipts currently retained or anticipated to be received by the authority for this period. This expenditure would take the form of HRA new build, with the 60% top up met by other HRA resources.

(b)    Approved the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy forecasts as shown in Appendix B to the report.

(c)    Approved the Housing Capital Programme as shown in Appendix C to the report.

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Williams advised that the Housing Revenue Account was ringfenced and so could not be subsidised through Council Tax; rent from tenants had to cover maintenance as well as capital to pay for additional council homes. It was noted, therefore, that rents would be increased in order to build more council houses.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor John Batchelor, who emphasised the scale of the business undertaken by the Housing Revenue Account, which was over £100 million. This, it was noted, required good management. It was further advised that the operation had attracted significant levels of government grants, including for the provision of 80 properties for refugees, which would then defer to the Council’s housing stock.

During the course of debate it was noted that the proposed rent increase for shared ownership properties was at 4%, which was the maximum, and comment was made that to increase it any further would cause such arrangements to become unaffordable.

It was questioned whether increasing the rent of Council dwellings with higher energy performance certificate ratings was sending the wrong message and would financially penalise those who were trying to become more sustainable.

In response, Councillor John Batchelor, as seconder of the recommendations, suggested that the Council had little flexibility on the 4% increase. It was advised that the Council had to cover its own costs within the account. In relation to energy efficiency, it was noted that the increase in rent for higher-rates houses was due to the higher level of cost to bring these homes up to standard.

As mover of the recommendations, Councillor John Williams summed up and advised that, in the past, the Council had taken out a loan to build housing and, as a result, the Housing Revenue Account had a debt to pay. It was suggested that the Council would like to have lower rent but needed to increase fees in order to deliver necessary new housing.

Following a question of clarification, it was confirmed that the Council did have a choice as to whether rents were increased or not.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) considered the report and:

Housing Revenue Account (HRA): Revenue

a)    Approved the HRA revenue budget for 2025/2026 as shown in the HRA Budget Summary as presented at Appendix A to the report.

HRA: Review of Rents and Charges

b)    Approved that council dwelling rents for all social rented properties were increased by 2.7%, recognising that inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2024, plus 1% results in an increase of 2.7%.

c)     Approved that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) were also increased by 2.7% in line with the increase for social rents.

d)    Approved that rents for affordable shared ownership properties were increased by 4.0%, recognising that inflation measured by the Retail Price Index (RPI) at December 2024 plus 0.5% results  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

That Council approve the continuation of the 2024/25 LCTS scheme originally implemented, in its current form, in 2023/24, including a reasonable uprating of 1.7% for the upcoming financial year 2025-26.

The Council (33 voting in favour, 0 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the continuation of the 2024/25 LCTS scheme originally implemented, in its current form, in 2023/24, including a reasonable uprating of 1.7% for the upcoming financial year 2025-26

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Williams advised that the Council had supported over 7,200 households with its support scheme. It was noted that the level of support provided would be increasing in line with inflation and the South Cambridgeshire District Council was one of only three councils to offer 100% relief on Council Tax bills.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Henry Batchelor, who reserved his right to speak until later in the debate.

At this point Councillor Waters left the meeting.

During the course of debate comment was made that Members were proud of the scheme offered and that it was right to increase the support provided. It was noted that other Councils that did not offer a similar scheme may have frozen their Council Tax, and so the burden on residents may not be so high.

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor Henry Batchelor advised that the scheme was in response to the national cost of living crisis and that the Council’s work around cost of living was always positively received.

The Council (33 voting in favour, 0 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the continuation of the 2024/25 LCTS scheme originally implemented, in its current form, in 2023/24, including a reasonable uprating of 1.7% for the upcoming financial year 2025-26.

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Graham Cone, Stephen Drew, Sue Ellington, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Daniel Lentell, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, Bunty Waters, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: None

Councillors Abstaining: None

It is recommended that the Council Tax Resolution, detailed at Appendix A, be approved.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the Council Tax Resolution, detailed at Appendix A to the report.

Councillor John Williams, Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced the report and moved the recommendations.

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

During the course of debate comment was raised that, without the agreement as part of the General Fund of a four-day week referendum, an increase in council tax could not be supported. Further comment was made that Members needed to explain why they were providing officers with 52 extra days off a year while simultaneously increasing council tax and potentially a pay rise for themselves.

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor Smith advised that the proposal around Council Tax would enable the Council to deliver on its business plan, offer best value, and provide improved service.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the Council Tax Resolution, detailed at Appendix A to the report.

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Graham Cone, Sue Ellington, Daniel Lentell, Lina Nieto, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: None

That Council approves the updated pay policy statement.

The Council (27 voting in favour, 6 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the updated pay policy statement.

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 significant difference in the scheme compared to previous years. It was noted that the ratio between highest and lowest salaries (7:1) was one of the lowest in local government, that the ratio of male and female employees was in favour of women, and that the Council did not pay below the real living wage.

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

During the course of debate the issue of the four-day week was raised and it was suggested that, should the four-day week become permanent, that the pay policy statement should return to Council for approval with updated terms and conditions referenced within.

Comment was made in relation to the gender pay gap and it was suggested that if the ratio had been weighted in favour of male employees, action would be taken, though this seemed not to be the case when weighted in favour of women.

A query was raised in relation to severance payments and what the threshold was for these agreements to come to Full Council. John Williams, as mover of the recommendations, advised that he would investigate and respond in writing.

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor Smith advised that the Council had a statutory requirement to report this information. It was believed that future report would also monitor disability and diversity pay gaps. Further comment was made it was uncertain whether the Pay Policy would be coming back to Council in relation to the four-day week, as Councillor Smith did not want to predetermine any outcome.

The Council (27 voting in favour, 6 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting) approved the updated pay policy statement.

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Stephen Drew, Sue Ellington, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Graham Cone, Daniel Lentell, Lina Nieto, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: None

At this point Councillor Ariel Cahn left the meeting.

It is recommended that Council:

a.     approves a revised Scheme of Members Allowances for 2024-25 (see Appendix B), including:

                                    i.     an increase in the Basic Allowance to £6,090 (equivalent to a 5% increase) back dated to 1 April 2024.

                                  ii.     an increase in all the Special Responsibility Allowances of 4.25%, back dated to 1 April 2024.

b.     authorises the Head of Transformation and People to implement and advertise the new scheme and make any consequential amendments required to the Scheme of Members Allowances in Part 6 of the Constitution.

c.     agrees to the Panel conducting a wide-ranging overhaul of the Members Allowance Scheme during 2025-26 to:

                                    i.     re-set “baseline” figures to a level more in line with those of authorities comparable with South Cambridgeshire District Council.

                                  ii.     establish a programme of such a review every four years with an automatic uplift in intervening years in line with the average annual pay award for officers.

                                 iii.     move to a position where increases are made in advance rather than, as at present, retrospectively.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 6 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting):

a.    Approved a revised Scheme of Members Allowances for 2024-25 (see Appendix B to the report), including:

              i.    an increase in the Basic Allowance to £6,090 (equivalent to a 5% increase) back dated to 1 April 2024.

             ii.    an increase in all the Special Responsibility Allowances of 4.25%, back dated to 1 April 2024.

b.    Authorised the Head of Transformation and People to implement and advertise the new scheme and make any consequential amendments required to the Scheme of Members Allowances in Part 6 of the Constitution.

c.     Agreed to the Panel conducting a wide-ranging overhaul of the Members Allowance Scheme during 2025-26 to:

              i.    re-set “baseline” figures to a level more in line with those of local authorities comparable with South Cambridgeshire District Council.

             ii.    establish a programme of such a review every four years with an automatic uplift in intervening years in line with the average annual pay award for officers.

            iii.    move to a position where increases are made in advance rather than, as at present, retrospectively.

The Elections and Democratic Services Manager introduced the report.

Councillor Milnes, Deputy Leader and Lead Cabinet Member for the Environment, moved the recommendations and commented that the issue was a contentious one. Discussions had been held regarding a deep dive into the whole process, including a comparison with other authorities. It was felt that the impending Local Government Reorganisation would put into context what might to be in place for a unitary authority,

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor John Williams, who reserved his right to speak until later in the debate.

During the course of debate Members expressed their reticence to take a decision on their own remuneration, with suggestions made that it should be determined by an independent body. It was felt that remuneration was an important issue in attracting a diverse range of Councillors, however, comment was made that some of the Special Responsibility Allowances were too high.

As seconder of the recommendations, Councillor John Williams advised that the process in place was to consider the recommendation of an independent panel, however, the Council could determine not to agree with the recommendation. It was suggested that if allowances did not at least keep up with inflation it would be more difficult to find individuals willing to give up their time for the position of Councillor.

Suggestion was made that the implementation of any agreed increases should be deferred until after the next round of local elections.

Attention was drawn to a typographical error in the proposed updates, and it was suggested to change ‘£6.090’ to ‘£6,090’.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 6 voting against, 0 abstaining from voting):

a.    Approved a revised Scheme of Members Allowances for 2024-25 (see Appendix B to the report), including:

                                      i.        an increase in the Basic Allowance to £6,090 (equivalent to a 5% increase) back dated to 1 April 2024.

                                     ii.        an increase in all the Special Responsibility Allowances of 4.25%, back dated to 1 April 2024.

b.    Authorised the Head of Transformation and People to implement and advertise the new scheme and make any consequential amendments required to the Scheme of Members Allowances in Part 6 of the Constitution.

c.     Agreed to the Panel conducting a wide-ranging overhaul of the Members Allowance Scheme during 2025-26 to:

                                      i.        re-set “baseline” figures to a level more in line with those of local authorities comparable with South Cambridgeshire District Council.

                                     ii.        establish a programme of such a review every four years with an automatic uplift in intervening years in line with the average annual pay award for officers.

                                   iii.        move to a position where increases are made in advance rather than, as at present, retrospectively.

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Stephen Drew, Sue Ellington, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan van  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

The Swavesey Bye-ways Advisory Committee Recommends to Council that

(a)   It retains the level of the Swavesey Bye-ways rate at £1.20 per hectare for land within the charge paying area for the financial period 2025/26 in order to fund the required level of maintenance.

The Council (unanimously) agreed to:

(a)  retain the level of the Swavesey Bye-ways rate at £1.20 per hectare for land within the charge paying area for the financial period 2025/26 in order to fund the required level of maintenance.

Councillor Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. In so doing, Councillor Hawkins advised that the bye-ways rate was considered annually and that the proposal before Council maintained the previous rate of £1.20 per hectare.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Ellington, who noted that bye-ways were becoming more quickly worn out now with housing developments on the adjacent land, but that it was important to maintain a balance between this and the rates charged.

The Council (unanimously) agreed to:

a)    retain the level of the Swavesey Bye-ways rate at £1.20 per hectare for land within the charge paying area for the financial period 2025/26 in order to fund the required level of maintenance.

It is recommended that Council approves the Calendar of Meetings 2025/2026, as set out in Appendix A to the report.

The Council (unanimously) approved the Calendar of Meetings 2025/2026, as set out in Appendix A to the report.

Councillor Fane, Chair of Council, moved the recommendations.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Sandford.

During the course of debate it was suggested that consideration be given to scheduling a provision date for a Full Council meeting in March for 2026, as one had typically been required in previous years.

The Council (unanimously) approved the Calendar of Meetings 2025/2026, as set out in Appendix A to the report.

At this point the Chair adjourned the meeting for ten minutes.

To note the decisions taken by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the last Council meeting.

In response to questions, Councillor Smith, as Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Board representative, made the following comments:

·       Councillor Smith had voted in support of bus franchising, considering it the only way to secure bus services in the district.

·       It was advised that a lot of work had been undertaken in order to make a well-informed decision, including consideration of a detailed business case.

To note the decisions taken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership since the last Council meeting.

In response to questions, Councillor Milnes, as member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board, made the following comments:

·       Councillor Milnes would pick up outside of the meeting whether a motion could be moved at the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly to adopt a policy similar to the ‘debate, not hate’ pledge, or whether there was another appropriate route for the matter to be discussed.

There have been no updates from the Oxford to Cambridge Pan Regional Partnership since the last Council meeting.

In response to questions Councillor Smith, as Ox Cam Pan-Regional Partnership representative, made the following comments:

·       There was not funding allocated in the 2025/2026 budget for the partnership. All funding had been used up and would run out at the end of this current financial year.

·       It was suggested that it was inaccurate to characterise the partnership as not having delivered anything.

The Chair suggested that it would be useful to have a report at a future meeting on the winding up of the partnership.

To note any updates from the Cambridge Delivery Company since the last Council meeting.

In response to questions Councillor Smith, as Cambridge Delivery Company representative, made the following comments:

·       It was noted that Greater Cambridge was the focus of the document, although Cambridgeshire may be referenced in some places as appropriate.

·       Following concerns raised about the make-up of the board, it was advised that the membership would not remain static and that wider membership was considered to be useful.

·       It was noted that the board was an advisory one and that Government would be the ultimate decision-maker.

·       Comment was made that verbal feedback would be provided to Members via Council at each meeting.

·       It was advised that there was currently no map of growth proposals available, but there would potentially be at future meetings.

Council is asked to:

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

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

(iii)                Note any executive appointments.

There were no changes to the membership of committees or outside bodies.

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.

“At the previous Full Meeting of this council, the Leader expressed her view that inter-authority partnerships have become the central focus of local government.

The GCP and OxCam, two of the partnerships on which The Leader has spent much of her time and energy, have turned out to be costly failures spending big but delivering small. So, has her thinking matured?

Does she now recognise that our residents are not, were never going to be, best served by an unaccountable, uncomprehendable, unrelatable, unsustainable, unelected patchwork of ad hoc partnerships with few governance mechanisms in place to ensure value for money?”

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

In response, Councillor Smith advised that she found the first paragraph to be impertinent and did not agree with the statement in the second paragraph.

“The combination of the A428 upgrades, East West Rail and development around Cambourne brings the potential for significant disruption along the A428 corridor. Will the Leader, in her future engagements with East West Rail push for the option of a bored tunnel near Caldecote as part of the EWR route, in order to reduce the impact of this project on people in Caldecote, Cambourne and others who use the A428?”

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

In response, Councillor Milnes advised that he shared the concerns of residents in relation to the considerable and accelerated rate of development. It was recognised that disruption during construction was the key issue, and attention was drawn to the dualling of the Black Cat roundabout route as an exemplar of how to keep traffic moving during construction. Conversations had moved forward with East West Rail, and it was felt that they were responding to the fears of residents. Residents were assured that the Council would do what it could to encourage East West Rail to take action as appropriate to address concerns.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Leeming sought clarification on whether Cabinet were considering ensuring the East West Rail continued to engaged with communities in Cambourne and Caldecott in relation to disruption.

“Will the Cabinet please outline what the expected impact of recent NPPF changes will be to the Council?”

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

In response, Councillor Hawkins advised that the updated National Planning Policy Framework had been published last year and included a requirement to meet the need for new employment sites and increased housing demand. The deadline for the submission of a Local Plan had been extended to December 2025. It was advised that here were no ‘golden rules’ for green belt areas and that the new concept of ‘grey belt’ had been introduced.

“Following the introduction of the four-day week, this council ranks among the lowest in the country for tenant satisfaction and housing complaint handling. Does the Leader believe the four-day week works for the housing department?”

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

In response, Councillor John Batchelor advised that the Council did not rank among the lowest in the country for tenant satisfaction and housing complaint handling. In reality, it was advised, the Council ranked among the best, with an overall satisfaction rate in the top percentile at 78%, and a complaints handling rate in the second percentile.

Councillor Cone advised that he was happy to share the document from which he’d taken his figures.

Councillor John Batchelor confirmed that the response to Councillor Cone’s initial question was ‘no’.

“Does the Cabinet think it is right that council homes are empty for over a year, when we could be reducing our waiting list for housing?”

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

In response, Councillor John Batchelor advised that the Council did everything possible to return properties to circulation. Reference was made to a specific empty property and it was advised that this particular property should be ready to let by April 2025.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Heather Williams asked whether the Lead Cabinet Member would agree to look at the contractor arrangements and ensure that older people with heating issues were appropriately considered to be an emergency situation.

Councillor John Batchelor responded that it was the Council’s job to provide for vulnerable people and he would check with Councillor Williams whether the individual in question was on the vulnerable register, though it was recognised that sometimes people did not wish to be classed as such.

“Can the Leader make any comment on the connecting roads to Cambourne Village College from West Cambourne (for both driving and walking)? Currently, West Cambourne is disconnected from the older parts of Cambourne, forcing residents to take longer routes to reach the college. What plans are in place to address this issue and on what timeline? What measures have been taken to tackle flooding situations on West Cambourne’s roads?”

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

In response, Councillor Henry Batchelor advised that the connecting roads were physically complete but not yet open for through traffic. It was advised that linkages, once completed, would give priority to encourage cycling, walking, and public transport. It was further noted that a new footway had been recently opening connect Cambourne West to the town and new opportunities were being explored with partners, including the Town Council, to improve safety and connectivity. Finally, regarding flooding, the Council was not aware of any specific design related issues.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Bhattacharya asked whether there was a timeline in place for the connecting roads between Cambourne Village College from West Cambourne.

Councillor Henry Batchelor responded that he would provide an answer in writing.

“What steps is the Leader taking to protect South Cambridgeshire’s residents from unrestrained development after losing the five-year land supply?”

Councillor Richard Williams asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Hawkins advised that the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework had brought an uplift to the housing target, which increased by over 3,000 across Greater Cambridge. It was advised, therefore, that an additional 1,000 properties would need to be delivered over what had already been allocated. An updated position on housing delivery would be available in April 2025.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Richard Williams asked whether it would be possible for Council to be provided with regular updates and whether there was a plan to seek additional planning officers to speed up S106 agreements.

Councillor Hawkins responded that she would be happy to provide updates and that the Government was being asked to help growth companies deliver housing requirements.

“How effective is the process of street sign replacement after an incident? Is the council managing their assets proactively?”

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

In response, Councillor Hawkins advised that 3C Building Control was responsible for replacing street signage, however not all signs were eligible for replacement by 3C. The process in place involved the reporting of signs requiring replacement via an online form and it was noted that there was no current backlog. Having checked with the team, it was advised that 3 requests had been received in Hardwick ward, which had all been dealt with.

At this point Councillor Garvie left the meeting.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Nieto suggested that residents had been reporting signage that needed replacing but were not receiving anything back. It was asked whether the website and process could be reviewed.

At this point Councillor Stobart left the meeting.

Councillor Hawkins responded that there was an appropriate process in place and that the issue could be picked up outside of the meeting.

“Recently there have been high profile news cases of modern-day slavery across Cambridgeshire. What work is the Council doing to help tackle this appalling practice?”

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

In response, Councillor John Batchelor advised that the Council took modern day slavery very seriously and providing safeguarding training, encouraging officers in front line services to be vigilant, and providing procurement training to prevent issues in the supply training. The Council was also active in the Community Safety Partnership and had an action plan as part of its existing modern slavery statement, which was to be renewed later this year.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Wilson asked what role Councillors could play in tackling modern day slavery.

Councillor John Batchelor responded that this could be done through understanding the policy and reporting any concerns.

“How successful has the take up of the Net Zero Villages Programme Grant Scheme been? Does the Leader feel this scheme has been successful?”

Councillor Martin Cahn asked his question, as set out in the agenda.

In response, Councillor Milnes advised that £362,000 was available within the grant pot to protect village amenities, with an oversubscription of 20 applications. Ten of these had been isolated and were moving ahead.

At this point Councillor Van de Weyer left the meeting.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Martin Cahn asked whether the Lead Cabinet Member would encourage the Combined Authority Mayor to continue the scheme in the future.

Councillor Milnes responded that he would.

The Chair advised that the time limit for questions had been reached. All remaining questions would be responded to in writing, unless questioners advised that they wished to roll the question over to the next appropriate meeting.

At this point the Chair adjourned the meeting for ten minutes.

“Recently the MP for St Neots Mid Cambridgeshire wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment to highlight both the impact of flooding and the costs being accrued by the Council as a result of the failure of the government to repair Brownshill Staunch. Could the Cabinet outline the impact this is having on Council finances?”

“How does the Cabinet anticipate the Government’s new announcements on the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor will affect the council and our communities?”

“In the council’s corporate action plan, we can see there are plans to introduce weekly food-waste collections. How can we make best use of this opportunity to encourage more recycling from our residents?”

“Recently, the CPCA board formally recommended to the mayor that he make a Franchising Scheme, which he subsequently agreed to. Will the Leader, as our representative on the board, set out how she voted on this proposal and why?”

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 with admiration and pride the extraordinary achievement of Caxton resident Zara Lachlan, who has become the first woman and the youngest person ever to row non-stop, solo, and unsupported from Europe to South America. Over the course of an awe-inspiring 3,600 nautical miles, she endured the vastness of the Atlantic for an incredible 97 days, 7 hours, and 21 minutes, crossing the official finishing line in a feat of extraordinary endurance, resilience, and determination. Zara came within 19 hours of breaking the outright speed record—an astonishing testament to her skill and perseverance. Her accomplishment stands as a singular achievement in the annals of oceanic exploration and an inspiration to our communities and beyond.

Accordingly, this Council:

1. Expresses its full support and admiration for Zara Lachlan’s achievement and commends her for her dedication and perseverance.
2. Requests and requires the Chair of the Council to formally write to Zara Lachlan and her family to:

o   Convey the Council’s congratulations on her historic feat,

o   Extend an invitation for Zara and her family to attend and address a suitable meeting of Full Council to share their experiences and reflections on this extraordinary achievement.

3. Invites the Chair to write to Cambridgeshire County Council to invite them to work with SCDC and Ms Lachlan to rename a thoroughfare, to be named “Atlantic” in recognition of this singular accomplishment by a most honoured citizen of Caxton.

Let it be proclaimed from every mountaintop and shoreline: Cantabrigia undas regit!”

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“This Council notes with admiration and pride the extraordinary achievement of Caxton resident Zara Lachlan, who has become the first woman and the youngest person ever to row non-stop, solo, and unsupported from Europe to South America. Over the course of an awe-inspiring 3,600 nautical miles, she endured the vastness of the Atlantic for an incredible 97 days, 7 hours, and 21 minutes, crossing the official finishing line in a feat of extraordinary endurance, resilience, and determination. Zara came within 19 hours of breaking the outright speed record—an astonishing testament to her skill and perseverance. Her accomplishment stands as a singular achievement in the annals of oceanic exploration and an inspiration to our communities and beyond.

Accordingly, this Council:

1. Expresses its full support and admiration for Zara Lachlan’s achievement and commends her for her dedication and perseverance.
2. Requests and requires the Chair of the Council to formally write to Zara Lachlan and her family to:

o    Convey the Council’s congratulations on her historic feat,

o    Extend an invitation for Zara and her family to attend and address a suitable meeting of Full Council to share their experiences and reflections on this extraordinary achievement.

3. Invites the Chair to write to Cambridgeshire County Council to invite them to work with SCDC and Ms Lachlan to rename a thoroughfare, to be named “Atlantic” in recognition of this singular accomplishment by a most honoured citizen of Caxton.

Let it be proclaimed from every mountaintop and shoreline: Cantabrigia undas regit!”

Councillor Milnes moved a proposal to extend the meeting, which was seconded by Councillor Bradnam. The Council (unanimously) agreed for the meeting to extend beyond four hours.

Councillor Lentell moved his motion and, in so doing, advised that Zara Lachlan had defied the odds and set a new record as the first woman and youngest person ever to cross the Atlantic Ocean. It was further noted that she missed out on the speed record by only 19 hours. It was felt to be important to recognise this achievement in some manner, with a suggestion set out in the motion to rename a road in South Cambridgeshire ‘The Atlantic’.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Sandford, who noted that the local councillor, Councillor Howell, also supported the proposal. It was advised that the Caxton Parish Council were happy with the suggestion and would also be carrying out its own preparations. Further suggestion was made that any renamed road should be in West Cambourne.

During the course of debate, it was suggested that naming conventions needed to be taken into account.

The Chair indicated that he would be happy to pen a letter as proposed in the motion, however, was not sure that Zara Lachlan would wish to attend a meeting of Council and suggested an event in her own locality may be more appropriate.

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“This Council notes with admiration and pride the extraordinary achievement of Caxton resident Zara Lachlan, who has become the first woman and the youngest person ever to row non-stop, solo, and unsupported from Europe to South America. Over the course of an awe-inspiring 3,600 nautical miles, she endured the vastness of the Atlantic for an incredible 97 days, 7 hours, and 21 minutes, crossing the official finishing line in a feat of extraordinary endurance, resilience, and determination. Zara came within 19 hours of breaking the outright speed record—an astonishing testament to her skill and perseverance. Her accomplishment stands as a singular achievement in the annals of oceanic exploration and an inspiration to our communities and beyond.

Accordingly, this Council:

1.     Expresses its full support and admiration for Zara Lachlan’s achievement and commends her for her dedication and perseverance.

2.     Requests and requires the Chair of the Council to formally write to Zara Lachlan and her family to: o Convey the Council’s congratulations on her historic feat, o Extend an invitation for Zara and her family to attend and address a suitable meeting of Full Council to share their experiences and reflections on this extraordinary achievement.

3.     Invites the Chair to write to Cambridgeshire County Council to invite them to work with SCDC and Ms Lachlan to rename a thoroughfare, to be named “Atlantic” in recognition of this singular accomplishment by a most honoured citizen of Caxton.

Let it be proclaimed from every mountaintop and shoreline: Cantabrigia undas regit!”

“Council notes:

-        That the Government, as part of the Autumn Budget 2024, announced changes to Employers National Insurance contributions (NICs), to be introduced in April 2025.

-        From April Employer’s NICs will increase by 1.2% and the threshold at which employers must contribute to National Insurance will be reduced to all employees earning £5000 or more.

-        This will have the effect of increasing the Council’s NICs by £376,000 (£332,000 on the General Fund and £44,000 on the HRA).

-        Principal Authorities will be compensated for revenue lost as a result of this, but the Local Government Financial Settlement has demonstrated that this compensation will not be sufficient to make up for the NICs increase. The total compensation for the Council will be £220,000.

Council notes with concern:

-        Despite the financial prudence of the Council, an additional £156,000 of South Cambridgeshire tax-payers money will have to be spent on employers’ NICs as a direct result of the Labour Governments decision not to fully compensate Principal Authorities for this change.

-        This figure represents only the impact of the NICs increase on staff directly employed by this Council and does not account for the impact of the change on those employed by contractors or by other precepting authorities, such as the County Council, the Combined Authority or Town and Parish Councils.

Council believes:

-        The Labour Government is jeopardising front-line public services across the country by not properly compensating local authorities for their tax increase.

-        The Local Government sector is already under significant financial strain due to years of Conservative Government underfunding and cuts, coupled with an increased demand for key services. The failure to fully compensate for these changes only exacerbates the existing funding crisis and further strains key local services.  

-        Public services, including those delivered by the local government sector and elsewhere, should be insulated from Labour’s tax rise.

Council therefore calls for:

-        The Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, outlining the deep concerns we have as a Council about these changes and to implore the Government to provide full compensation to local authorities.”

The Council voted (6 voting in favour, 17 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting) on an amendment submitted by Councillor Cone, which was defeated.

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“Council notes:

-       That the Government, as part of the Autumn Budget 2024, announced changes to Employers National Insurance contributions (NICs), to be introduced in April 2025.

-       From April Employer’s NICs will increase by 1.2% and the threshold at which employers must contribute to National Insurance will be reduced to all employees earning £5000 or more.

-       This will have the effect of increasing the Council’s NICs by £376,000 (£332,000 on the General Fund and £44,000 on the HRA).

-       Principal Authorities will be compensated for revenue lost as a result of this, but the Local Government Financial Settlement has demonstrated that this compensation will not be sufficient to make up for the NICs increase. The total compensation for the Council will be £220,000.

Council notes with concern:

-       Despite the financial prudence of the Council, an additional £156,000 of South Cambridgeshire tax-payers money will have to be spent on employers’ NICs as a direct result of the Labour Governments decision not to fully compensate Principal Authorities for this change.

-       This figure represents only the impact of the NICs increase on staff directly employed by this Council and does not account for the impact of the change on those employed by contractors or by other precepting authorities, such as the County Council, the Combined Authority or Town and Parish Councils.

Council believes:

-       The Labour Government is jeopardising front-line public services across the country by not properly compensating local authorities for their tax increase.

-       The Local Government sector is already under significant financial strain due to years of Conservative Government underfunding and cuts, coupled with an increased demand for key services. The failure to fully compensate for these changes only exacerbates the existing funding crisis and further strains key local services.  

-       Public services, including those delivered by the local government sector and elsewhere, should be insulated from Labour’s tax rise.

Council therefore calls for:

-       The Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, outlining the deep concerns we have as a Council about these changes and to implore the Government to provide full compensation to local authorities.”

At this point Councillor McDonald left the meeting.

Councillor Leeming moved her motion and, in so doing, advised that the Council was accountable to residents on how it spent its money. It was noted that in Autumn the Government had raised National Insurance, which would directly increase the cost to the Council by £376,000. The Government had provided the Council with £220,000 in compensation, leaving a £156,000 shortfall; a situation that had been replicated across the country. It was considered to be untenable to introduce further devolved power and local government reorganisation while forcing a tax increase on local councils.

At this point Councillor Henry Batchelor left the meeting.

The motion was seconded by Councillor John Williams, who reserved his right to speaking until later in the debate.

Councillor Cone moved an amendment to the motion to replace the phrase ‘Conservative Government’ with ‘successive governments’, which was not accepted by the mover of the original motion. In moving his amendment, Councillor Cone suggested that, while it was true that the Conservatives had cut funding while in government, it was also the case that funding was cut under the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition. It was felt that ‘successive’ would be a fairer and more truthful description.

The amendment to the recommendations was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams, who felt that the revised wording was fair without avoiding the Conservative Party’s role in the situation. Comment was made that public spending had been at its lowest during past Labour administrations, with cuts also being introduced during the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition.

            Councillor Sandford moved a proposal to move straight to the vote, which was seconded by Councillor Bradnam. The Council (unanimously) agreed to move straight to the vote.

As mover of the original motion, Councillor Leeming accepted that local government had been historically underfunded, however, highlighted that the coalition government had been ten years ago and the Conservative government seven months ago.

The Council voted (6 voting in favour, 17 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting) on the amendment submitted by Councillor Cone, which was defeated.

Councillors In Favour: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Graham Cone, Daniel Lentell, Lina Nieto, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Against: Anna Bradnam, Stephen Drew, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr James Hobro, William Jackson-Wood, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Dr Susan van de Ven, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Abstaining: Peter Fane

During the course of debate on the motion as originally moved, it was suggested that there may be high levels of hidden costs associated with the proposals. It was further suggested that the Council should instead be focusing on ways in which it could recoup its money, rather than writing letters to Government.

As seconder of the motion, Councillor John Williams advised that South Cambridgeshire had an abundance of entrepreneurs, who would be impacted by the Government’s proposals.

As mover of the motion, Councillor Leeming summed up by emphasising the focus of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

“Council notes:

• The spread of floating bus stops in the UK, with Transport for London (TfL) funding over 160 floating bus stops in London, and plans increase the number in Cambridgeshire.

Council further notes:

• That floating bus stops are causing significant fear and distress for people with vision impairments and other disabilities.
• That two-thirds of London’s floating bus stops have been found to have design issues, resulting in chaos and collisions between cyclists and vulnerable pedestrians.
• Calls from charities including Guide Dogs, the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) and CamSight to ban the dangerous design of floating bus stops, including in Cambridgeshire.

Council resolves to:

• Write a cross-party letter from Group Leaders to the Secretary of State for Transport to strongly discourage the adoption of floating bus stops in the UK.
• Write a cross-party letter from Group Leaders to Cambridgeshire County Council, expressing this Council’s fears that the transport and accessibility needs of the visually impaired are being ignored in Cambridgeshire, as found by charities like CamSight.”

With the consent of the meeting and the seconder, Councillor Heather Williams withdrew her motion.

Councillor Heather Williams moved her motion and, in so doing, advised that the motion resulted from a plea from sight loss charities, who were concerned about the introduction of floating bus stops. It was felt that in trying to support one group, another group may be disproportionately impacted.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Cone, who felt that the proposals should be reconsidered with the needs of the visually impaired taken into account.

During the course of debate it was commented that there was little evidence to support the proposals in the motion. Further comment was made that the Greater London Authority had commissioned an independent report to investigate the subject of floating bus stops, which may be able to provide further information on the issues raised.

It was suggested that consideration of the motion should be deferred until the publication of this independent report.

With the consent of the meeting and the seconder, Councillor Heather Williams withdrew her motion.

“Council notes:

-        South Cambridgeshire is one of the fastest growing Districts in England, with one of the most vibrant economies.

-        Successive governments have expressed the desire to accelerate the rate of growth of the local economy still further to underpin its continuing competitiveness on a global stage, particularly in the biotechnology and information technology sectors.

-        South Cambridgeshire also benefits from some of the most valuable arable farmland in England.

-        Our district’s rural setting has provided the historic backdrop to very significant scientific advancements and provides an intangible benefit to the aim of an accelerated future growth.

Council further notes:

-        With its origins in cross-party efforts under the previous Government, the current Government had pledged in its manifesto to release a Land Use Framework (LUF) for England to address the country's lack of a mechanism for managing diverse land demands.

-        The Government has launched an ongoing consultation on a LUF.

-        The Government has commissioned the National Energy System Operator (NESO) to produce a Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP), to be informed by the outputs of a Land Use Framework.

Council notes with concern:

-        Greater Cambridge, and South Cambridgeshire therein, is one of the most nature depleted rural landscapes in the UK with only 3.5% forested and only 3.1% protected landscape compared to the national averages of 13% and 11% respectively.

-        The recent announcement by the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, that future planning applications will not be required to be ‘nature positive’ conflicts with the previous national requirement to deliver a minimum Biodiversity Net Gain of 10% and our own emerging local plan’s intent to require 20% as a minimum.

-        The Chancellor’s assertion that and environmental damage will be mitigated by a new ‘Nature Recovery Fund’ lacks any commitment to BNG, but rather implies that the fund will be used to maintain natural assets as they were pre development. There is also a complete lack of information about where the fund will be used and no commitment to spending it in the region facing developments and loss of natural assets.

-        The themes outlined for consultation in the Land Use Framework lack clarity on the spatial scale (hyper-local, local, regional or national), at which land use comparisons, choices and trade-offs should apply.

-        Since both the Land Use Framework and the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan are spatially extensive in concept, and allow equivalent grade land and energy infrastructure assets to be traded and offset against each other on a regional or national level, there is a danger that unless the two frameworks are considered carefully as one, the cumulative local impacts, along with housing and economic growth pressure can unfairly and unnecessarily fall on the few to benefit the many, unless pre-existing nature, nature deficit, health and wellbeing are properly considered as further multifunctional land use pressures.

-        At the local level, the themes outlined for consultation fail to explicitly identify possible negative impacts on the existing health and wellbeing of the local  ...  view the full agenda text for item 117.

With the consent of the meeting, Councillor Harvey withdrew his motion.

With the consent of the meeting, Councillor Harvey withdrew his motion.

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

The Chair advised that the next meeting of Council would be an extraordinary meeting scheduled for 19 March 2025.

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