Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Council received a presentation from Neil Darwin, Acting Chief Executive of the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership, on the role of the Enterprise Partnership.

To receive Apologies for Absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Henry Batchelor, Nigel Cathcart, Pippa Corney, Simon Edwards, James Hockney, Peter Johnson, Mervyn Loynes, Robin Page and Alex Riley.

To receive any declarations of interest for items on this agenda.

No declarations of interest were made at this stage of proceedings. 

Members are requested to inform Democratic Services of any changes in their Register of Members’ Financial and Other Interests form.

The Chairman reminded Members that they needed to update their register of interests whenever their circumstances changed.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on the 25 September 2014 as a correct record.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 September 2014 were considered as a correct record.

Reference was made to minute number 14 regarding the response to Councillor Sebastian Kindersley’s supplementary question from the Planning Portfolio Holder in relation to planning appeal decisions at Waterbeach.  Councillor Kindersley felt that the use of the word ‘some’ in the following sentence did not adequately reflect the number of Members that voted against the Local Plan when it was considered in March 2014:

“In closing, he reminded Members that the Council voted through the Local Plan for submission to the Secretary of State in March 2014 and although some Members voted against it, he was of the opinion that the Council would be in a much more difficult position had the Plan not have been submitted at that stage”.

Councillor David Bard, Chairman, reminded Council that the minutes were a record of what was said at the meeting, to which Councillor Kindersley questioned why his interjection at the meeting had not been recorded in the minutes in response to Councillor Turner’s use of the word ‘some’.

No amendments to the minutes were proposed.  Voting on the accuracy of the minutes, with 25 votes in favour, 15 against, and 6 abstentions, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 September 2014 were CONFIRMED as a correct record.

Enough Members as prescribed in the Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

In favour

Councillors David Bard, Richard Barrett, Val Barrett, Francis Burkitt, Brian Burling, Kevin Cuffley, Alison Elcox, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Tony Orgee, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, Aidan Van de Weyer, David Whiteman-Downes, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

Against

Councillors Anna Bradnam, Jonathan Chatfield, Neil Davies, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Cicely Murfitt, Deborah Roberts, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Jim Stewart and John Williams.

Abstention

Councillors Tom Bygott, Caroline Hunt, Raymond Matthews, David Morgan, Neil Scarr and Edd Stonham.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader, the Executive or the Head of Paid Service.

Councillor David Bard, Chairman of the Council, made the following announcements:

-       County Councillor John Reynolds had recently passed away.  Members stood and observed a moment of silence in his memory;

-       the consultation process for the Boundary Commission’s electoral review of Cambridgeshire County Council had commenced and the closing date for responses was Monday 19 January 2015;

-       the Chairman’s Christmas Raffle would be taking place in the afternoon of Thursday 18 December 2014;

-       Elected Members and members of staff from the Council took part in  ‘#OurDay’ on Wednesday 26 November 2014, which was a Local Government Association initiative to raise awareness of the services provided by local government across the country via the social media platform, Twitter.

The following announcements were made by Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of the Council:

-       £10,000 had been made available to the Community Chest Grant following savings identified in the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder and he urged Members to submit applications for the Grant on behalf of the communities they represented;

-       there was no news to report regarding devolution of services to local government, other than that debate had commenced on this issue between the Leaders of the Councils in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough areas and that an application would be submitted to the Cabinet Office in due course.  At this stage the Leaders were still working on what that application could potentially include;

-       the first site for affordable housing in a rural exception site in South Cambridgeshire had been identified at Litlington and would comprise of 18 houses, subject to planning permission being granted.

To note that no questions from the public have been received. 

 No questions from the public had been received.

To note that no petitions for consideration by Full Council have been received since the last meeting.

 No petitions for consideration by Full Council had been received.

Cabinet RECOMMENDED that Full Council:

(a)          Approve the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board.

(b)          Approve the delegation of  the Council’s functions referred to in 4.3 of the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board

(c)          Appoint the Leader of the Council to represent the Council on the Executive Board.

(d)          Appoint a Member as the Council’s substitute representative on the Executive Board.

(e)          Approve the Terms of Reference for the Assembly.

(f)           Authorise the Leader of the Council to appoint the Council’s three representatives on the Assembly, in accordance with the proportionality principles set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this report.

Reports considered by Cabinet at its meetings on 16 October 2014 and 13 November 2014 can be accessed via the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/pb9ve2u

The proposed Terms of Reference and Standing Orders for the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board and Assembly are attached.

Council:

(a)        APPROVED the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board, subject to the deletion of the words ‘at the discretion of the Chairman’ at paragraph 11 of the Standing Orders set out in Annex A.

(b)        APPROVED the delegation of the Council’s functions referred to in 4.3 of the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board.

(c)        APPOINTED the Leader of the Council to represent the Council on the Executive Board.

(d)        APPOINTED Councillor Simon Edwards as the Council’s substitute representative on the Executive Board.

(e)        RECOMMENDED to Cambridgeshire County Council that it appoints Members to sit on the Joint Assembly from Divisions in the Greater Cambridge area only.

(f)        APPROVED the Terms of Reference for the Joint Assembly.

(g)        REQUESTED that officers from the three partner Councils investigate arrangements for the provision of alternate or substitute Members in respect of the Joint Assembly and report back in due course.

(h)        AUTHORISED the Leader of the Council to appoint the Council’s three representatives on the Joint Assembly, in accordance with the Council’s principles of proportionality.

Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of the Council, presented the draft Terms of Reference for the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board and Joint Assembly which were proposed to be established as part of the governance arrangements for delivery of the City Deal.  He proposed that Council:

(a)        approved the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board;

(b)        approved the delegation of the Council’s functions referred to in paragraph 4.3 of the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board;

(c)        appointed the Leader of the Council to represent the Council on the Executive Board;

(d)        appointed Councillor Simon Edwards as the Council’s substitute representative on the Executive Board;

(e)        approved the Terms of Reference for the Assembly;

(f)         authorised the Leader of the Council to appoint the Council’s three representatives on the Assembly, in accordance with the proportionality principles set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Cabinet report.

Councillor Nick Wright, Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, seconded the proposal.

The Chairman, having been informed that a number of amendments were likely to be proposed for each aspect of the proposition, agreed to debate and vote on (a) to (f) above separately.  Enough Members as prescribed in the Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote for all votes in relation to this item, other than those taken by affirmation or for appointments.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, despite the City Deal having buy-in from everyone involved in the Greater Cambridge area, had some concerns about the transparency of the governance structure proposed.  He moved an amendment to paragraph 11 of the Terms of Reference for the Executive Board to remove the words ‘at the discretion of the Chairman’ in relation to questions by the public and public speaking.  He was of the view that this wording could potentially restrict the public’s right to submit questions to the Executive Board if the Chairman chose to use his or her discretion to unreasonably refuse any such questions. 

Councillor Bridget Smith seconded the amendment.

Councillor Ray Manning referred Members to the last meeting of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Shadow Board which was held in public and involved questions from members of the public observing the meeting.  He did not understand the problem with the wording as it stood, which mirrored the Council’s own public questioning process for its meetings.

With 23 votes in favour, 21 votes against, 1 abstention and 1 not voting, the amendment was carried.  A recorded vote was held and votes were therefore cast as follows:

In favour

Councillors Richard Barrett, Anna Bradnam, Jonathan Chatfield, Neil Davies, Andrew Fraser, Jose Hales, Lynda Harford, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, David Morgan, Cicely Murfitt, Deborah Roberts, Neil Scarr, Tim Scott, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Jim Stewart, Edd Stonham, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

Against

Councillors Val Barrett, Francis Burkitt, Brian Burling, Tom Bygott, Kevin Cuffley, Alison Elcox, Sue Ellington, Roger Hall, Mark Howell, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Tony Orgee,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

The Planning Committee endorsed the revised planning scheme of delegation, as attached, and RECOMMENDED its approval by Full Council.

A copy of the report considered by the Planning Committee can be accessed via the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/p4l7lft

Council APPROVED the revised scheme of delegation for the Planning Committee.

Councillor Lynda Harford, Chairman of the Planning Committee, presented a revised scheme of delegation for the Planning Committee, which the Committee had considered at its meeting on 5 November 2014.  She explained that the scheme of delegation had become out of date due to the recent introduction of new planning application types and prior notifications by the Government.  She emphasised that these were predominately small scale and, usually, non-controversial types of planning applications and proposed that the revised scheme of delegation for the Planning Committee be approved. 

Councillor Brian Burling, Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, seconded the proposal.

Councillor Douglas de Lacey noted that lots of decisions were delegated to officers and he felt that local Members should have the right to request the consideration of applications by the Planning Committee if they believed that it was necessary.  He proposed an amendment to paragraph 1 (ii) of the scheme of delegation, to delete the words ‘and the Planning and New Communities Director, Head of New Communities or Development Control Manager has agreed’ so that the paragraph read:

‘An elected Member of the District Council has, within 21 days of the date of registration of an application, requested in writing that Committee determine the application with or without a site visit by Members’.

Councillor Neil Scarr seconded the amendment.

During debate on the amendment it was emphasised that there was no point in seeking submission of an application to the Planning Committee unless there were material planning considerations to be taken into account.  Councillor Harford stated that the revised scheme of delegation had no intention of changing how local Members could request for applications to be brought before the Planning Committee for consideration and reiterated the point about the need for there to be material planning reasons when making such a request.

(Councillor Neil Davies left the meeting at this stage of proceedings).

Voting on the amendment, with 9 votes in favour, 28 votes against and 3 abstentions, the amendment was lost.

Councillor de Lacey moved an amendment to add the words ‘and/or parent/child’ throughout the scheme of delegation whenever the term ‘spouse/partner’ was used.  The amendment was not seconded.

Voting on the original motion, Council APPROVED the revised scheme of delegation for the Planning Committee.

To note that no questions on joint meetings have been received.

No questions on joint meetings were received.

“With Fulbourn and Great Wilbraham being subject to chaos caused by road works associated with cabling for a solar farm authorised by the discharge of planning conditions by this authority, without notice to local members or the parish councils, does the Planning Portfolio Holder agree with me that, although officers are under no legal obligation to inform let alone consult with local members or parish councils in these circumstances, this example shows that it would be beneficial and good practice for the local members and the parish councils directly affected to be given the opportunity to comment when this authority is minded to discharge planning conditions and would he ensure that this is done in future?”

Councillor John Williams asked the following question:

“With Fulbourn and Great Wilbraham being subject to chaos caused by road works associated with cabling for a solar farm authorised by the discharge of planning conditions by this authority, without notice to local members or the parish councils, does the Planning Portfolio Holder agree with me that, although officers are under no legal obligation to inform let alone consult with local members or parish councils in these circumstances, this example shows that it would be beneficial and good practice for the local members and the parish councils directly affected to be given the opportunity to comment when this authority is minded to discharge planning conditions and would he ensure that this is done in future?”

Councillor Robert Turner, Portfolio Holder for Planning, thanked Councillor Williams for the question and for the work he undertook in the local area when these works were ongoing.  He fully supported the content of the question, but reminded Council that local Members could contact officers at any time regarding specific planning conditions to put in place or challenge.

Councillor Williams did not ask a supplementary question but raised the point that the views of the Parishes had been presented to the Planning Committee regarding conditions when the application was originally considered and that everyone present at the meeting thought that these would be taken on board by officers. 

“Could the Leader explain the process by which partner authorities were selected for shared services and in particular how each successful authority was judged to be appropriate as the lead authority?”

Councillor Bridget Smith asked the following question:

“Could the Leader explain the process by which partner authorities were selected for shared services and in particular how each successful authority was judged to be appropriate as the lead authority?”

Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of the Council, stated that the process of selecting lead authorities was more by logic than anything else.  He outlined that Cambridge City Council had a broader legal service than the other Councils, that Huntingdonshire District Council already provided support for the City Council’s CCTV system and that South Cambridgeshire District Council had already significantly contributed to joint working proposals for waste and recycling, so it made sense to allocate the lead authorities accordingly.  This had been considered in liaison with the Leaders, Chief Executives and senior officers of all three Councils.

Councillor Bridget Smith outlined her support for shared services but questioned the lack of transparency around recent proposals for shared services and the appointment of lead authorities.  She asked whether the Leader agreed with her that a more formal and recordable process for decision-making should be considered in relation to future shared services proposals.

Councillor Manning was of the view that the shared services proposals were operational in their character and that the Council should be guided by the recommendations of professional officers who had worked in partnership on a number of options for delivering services jointly.  He added that shared services were not easy to set up but the system as it stood was working very well, with a significant grant having recently been awarded to Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. 

“Could the Leader please outline all contact between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Persimmon Homes in the last 12 months and any proposed future contact?”

Councillor Jonathan Chatfield asked the following question:

“Could the Leader please outline all contact between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Persimmon Homes in the last 12 months and any proposed future contact?”

Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Housing, answered the question on behalf of the Leader and reported that until 17 November 2014 no contact had been made.  However, the Council was contacted by Persimmon Homes on 19 November 2014 regarding the proposed Waterbeach development, but no further meetings had been planned at this stage.

Councillor Chatfield clarified that his reason for asking the question was due to residents of Aster Way and Sweetpea Way in Orchard Park expressing concerns about the lack of maintenance in respect of road repairs and street lighting.  The Community Council had also tried to resolve these issues with Persimmon Homes but without success to date.

Councillor Robert Turner, Portfolio Holder for Planning, agreed that this was totally unacceptable and indicated that he would do whatever he could to seek a resolution.

Debate on Councillor John Williams’ motion regarding the merging of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council kerb side waste collection services was adjourned at the last meeting, to allow for Cabinet to consider a detailed business case on the proposals.  Cabinet considered the business case at its meeting on 16 October 2014 and Councillor Williams has subsequently asked for his original motion to be withdrawn.

Debate on Councillor John Williams’ motion regarding the merging of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council kerb side waste collection services was adjourned at the last meeting, to allow for Cabinet to consider a detailed business case on the proposals.  Cabinet considered the business case at its meeting on 16 October 2014 and Councillor Williams subsequently asked for his original motion to be withdrawn.

“That this Council no longer includes its two paragraphs ‘Our Long-Term Vision’ on any of its documents and agendas and removes the ‘Our Values’ item from the same documents.

The long term vision is quite clearly self-delusional and no longer appropriate in view of the development being imposed on South Cambridgeshire, whereas ‘Our Values’ clearly replaces individual responsibility and judgement with corporate hype.  This should have no part in the work of South Cambridgeshire District Council.”

This motion was DEFERRED to the next meeting.

"This Council agrees that all votes, except for those taken by affirmation and for appointments, be recorded in the manner described in Standing Order 16.5 (Recorded Vote) and that the Constitution be amended accordingly".

Council REFERRED consideration of this motion to the Civic Affairs Committee.

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer proposed the following motion:

"This Council agrees that all votes, except for those taken by affirmation and for appointments, be recorded in the manner described in Standing Order 16.5 (Recorded Vote) and that the Constitution be amended accordingly".

Councillor Van de Weyer said that the Council needed to be making efforts to ensure that its processes were open and understandable.  His proposal only related to decisions at Full Council meetings and he felt it essential that the electorate understood what their Councillors were doing and how they were voting on decisions made by the Council.  Transparency already existed with regard to Councillors’ attendance at meetings and Councillor Van de Weyer thought that recorded voting was simply a further step to being more open.  He reflected on how votes were usually recorded at Council meetings and stated that he had no way of showing which way he voted, and that no one else would be able to find out.  It was for this reason that Councillor Van de Weyer wanted votes recording automatically and not left to the mechanism provided by the existing Standing Orders.

Councillor John Williams seconded the motion.

Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of the Council, moved that the motion be referred to the Civic Affairs Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Kevin Cuffley.

With 27 votes in favour, 12 against and 1 not voting, Council REFERRED consideration of this motion to the Civic Affairs Committee.

Enough Members as prescribed by the Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

In favour

Councillors David Bard, Richard Barrett, Val Barrett, Anna Bradnam, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Kevin Cuffley, Alison Elcox, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Philippa Hart, Roger Hickford, Mark Howell, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, David Morgan, Charles Nightingale, Ben Shelton, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, David Whiteman-Downes, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

Against

Councillors Brian Burling, Jonathan Chatfield, Jose Hales, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Neil Scarr, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Edd Stonham, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

Not voting

Councillor Cicely Murfitt.

To approve the following meeting dates for the 2015/16 municipal year:

21 May 2015

23 July 2015

24 September 2015

26 November 2015

28 January 2016

25 February 2016

Council APPROVED the following meeting dates for the 2015/16 municipal year:

21 May 2015

23 July 2015

24 September 2015

26 November 2015

28 January 2016

25 February 2016

To note engagements attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman since the last Council meeting:

Council noted those engagements attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman since the last meeting.