Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies for absence were received by Councillors Nigel Cathcart, Pippa Corney, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, James Hockney, Mervyn Loynes, Robin Page, Deborah Roberts and David Whiteman-Downes.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members.

Councillors Lynda Harford, Roger Hickford, Sebastian Kindersley, Tony Orgee, Peter Topping and John Williams declared non-pecuniary interests in item 8(b) as Members of Cambridgeshire County Council. 

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 26 November 2015 and the extraordinary meeting held on 30 November 2015 as correct records.

The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 26 November 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to an amendment to reflect that Councillor Bunty Waters was present.

The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 30 November 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

Councillor Sue Ellington, Chairman of the Council, invited Members to reflect on the recent passing of former Councillor Tony Manning, father of the current Leader of the Council, Ray Manning.  Members took this opportunity to pay tribute to him and celebrated his contribution to South Cambridgeshire. 

Councillor Ray Manning reported that he had appointed Councillor Francis Burkitt as an additional Portfolio Holder onto his Cabinet, with responsibility for the Greater Cambridge City Deal, and that he had appointed Councillor Kevin Cuffley as Councillor Burkitt’s replacement on the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

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 Council have been received.

No petitions had been received.

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder RECOMMENDED to Council that it approves the Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2016/17.

The Council Tax Reduction Scheme (Prescribed Requirements) (England)

(Amendment) Regulations 2014 were laid before Parliament on 16 December 2015 and came into force on 14 January 2016.

These Regulations allow for annual uprating of calculation components for pensioner Council Tax support including uprated figures for non-dependant deductions, and abolish the family premium from 1 May 2016. Those in receipt of family premium at 30 April 2016 will be subject to a transitional protection arrangement. There has been some minor amendments to the regulation which enable the Council tax Support legislation to mirror Housing Benefit legislation.

A full version of the revised Localised Council Tax Support Scheme document and the Council Tax Reduction Scheme) have been published separately and can be viewed via the following link:

http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD2167&ID=2167&RPID=1001972564&sch=doc&cat=13066&path=13066

http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s93076/Council%20Tax%20Support%20Scheme.pdf

Council APPROVED the Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2016/17.

Councillor Simon Edwards, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, proposed that the Council approved its Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2016/17.  He reported that the Scheme was initially considered at his Portfolio Holder Meeting earlier in the year and made the point that the Scheme had not changed since its adoption the previous year.

Councillor Manning, Leader of the Council, seconded the proposal.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, reported that the electronic link to the Scheme on the agenda pack was not allowing access to view the document online.  Councillor Edwards referred Members to his Portfolio Holder Meeting where the same document was considered and emphasised that the document had not changed from that presented and adopted by Council the previous year.

Voting on the proposal, with 37 votes in favour and 10 abstentions, Council APPROVED the Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2016/17.

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

In favour

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Brian Burling, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Simon Crocker, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Roger Hickford, Mark Howell, Caroline Hunt, Janet Lockwood, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Des O’Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Edd Stonham, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, John Williams, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

Abstention

Councillors Henry Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Jose Hales, Peter Johnson, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Cicely Murfitt, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith and Aidan Van de Weyer.

NOTE – Councillor Francis Burkitt was not present at the meeting for this vote.

The Civic Affairs Committee RECOMMENDED to Council that the warding proposal as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, developed by the Member Champion in consultation with all Members, be submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as a Council response to the first phase of the review.

Council APPROVED the warding proposal as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, developed by the Member Champion in consultation with all Members, for submission to the to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as a Council response to the first phase of the review.

Councillor Alex Riley, Boundary Review Member Champion, presented a report which provided the Council with an opportunity to approve the submission of a Council response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s first phase of consultation on new warding patterns for South Cambridgeshire.  He put forward the proposed submission, as appended to the report, and reminded Members that the Boundary Commission had already decided upon a Council size of 45 for South Cambridgeshire District Council, a reduction in 20% of current Members.  He referred to the Civic Affairs Committee which had agreed the following two principles with regard to the Boundary Review:

-       electoral wards to be single-Member wards, where possible and practical;

-       small parishes not to form part of an electoral ward with large parishes, where possible and practical.

Councillor Riley reminded Council that extensive consultation with Members of all political groups had been undertaken over the best warding arrangements and, since circulating the proposed warding pattern in November 2015, confirmed that he had not received any alternative proposals. 

Councillor Douglas de Lacey seconded the proposal.

The following comments were made in debating the proposed warding pattern:

·         it was very difficult to produce a warding pattern that would work to the satisfaction of all parishes, based on a Council size of 45;

·         Members would be expected to be responsible for more parishes over a much wider geographical area than with the current Council size and warding pattern;

·         some areas, such as Waterbeach, were high growth areas which would make the proposed warding pattern unworkable in that Members would be unable to provide residents with the same service that they currently do;

·         5 of the ward proposals exceeded the Boundary Commission’s 10% variance in respect of electors per Member.

Councillor Riley responded and understood why some Members were unhappy with the proposed warding pattern, but emphasised the point that the reduction in Council size from 57 to 45 meant that, unfortunately, it would not be possible to put a warding pattern in place that satisfied everyone.  The review was based on the projected electorate for 2021, as per the Boundary Commission’s criteria, so they were the figures that had to be used.  Councillor Riley confirmed that it would not be possible to make every ward below the 10% variance, even if three Member wards were introduced, and the proposal that he had put forward was what he considered to be the best fit for the District.  He invited any Member to put forward an alternative proposal.

A number of Members thanked Councillor Riley for the work he had done in producing a warding proposal, acknowledging the complexity of the task and the time he had taken to develop it.  Councillor Van de Weyer was also thanked for his time and contributions in working with Councillor Riley on the proposal.

Voting on the proposal, with 37 votes in favour, 1 against and 9 abstentions, Council APPROVED the warding proposal as set out in Appendix 1 of the report,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8b

The Civic Affairs Committee RECOMMENDED to Council:

(a)        The amendments to Council Standing Orders as set out at paragraphs 12.4, 14.6 (g) to (i) and 24 of Appendix A to the report, subject to paragraph 24 excluding Portfolio Holder Meetings.

(b)        The trial introduction of a new format for questions by Members at meetings of Council to include the usual process for submitting written questions by notice followed by the ability to ask questions without notice, including questions in relation to the Greater Cambridge City Deal, within a total timeframe of 30 minutes.  This procedure would be reviewed again by the Committee in six months.

(c)        The amendment of the Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules to reflect the reduction of the quorum for both the Scrutiny and Overview Committee and Partnerships Review Committee to one quarter.

Council:

(a)        APPROVED the amendments to Council Standing Orders as set out in paragraphs 12.4, 14.6(g) to (i) and 24 of Appendix A to the report.

(b)        AGREED to the trial introduction of a new format for questions by Members at meetings of Council to include the usual process for submitting written questions by notice followed by the ability to ask questions without notice, including questions in relation to the Greater Cambridge City Deal, within a total timeframe of 30 minutes, and that this procedure be reviewed again by the Civic Affairs Committee in six months.

(c)        APPROVED the amendment of the Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules to reflect the reduction of the quorum for both the Scrutiny and Overview Committee and Partnerships Review Committee to one quarter.

Councillor Sue Ellington, Chairman of the Council and Chairman of the Civic Affairs Committee, proposed the recommendations contained within the report from the meeting of the Civic Affairs Committee held on 12 January 2015. 

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley seconded the proposal.

Council unanimously:

(a)        APPROVED the amendments to Council Standing Orders as set out in paragraphs 12.4, 14.6(g) to (i) and 24 of Appendix A to the report.

(b)        AGREED to the trial introduction of a new format for questions by Members at meetings of Council to include the usual process for submitting written questions by notice followed by the ability to ask questions without notice, including questions in relation to the Greater Cambridge City Deal, within a total timeframe of 30 minutes, and that this procedure be reviewed again by the Civic Affairs Committee in six months.

(c)        APPROVED the amendment of the Scrutiny and Overview Procedure Rules to reflect the reduction of the quorum for both the Scrutiny and Overview Committee and Partnerships Review Committee to one quarter.

The Employment Committee RECOMMENDED that Council appoints Shirley Tracey as the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

Council is also RECOMMENDED to:

(a)        Note that the individual who currently holds the role of Monitoring Officer has resigned.

(b)        Endorse the recommendation of the Electoral Registration Officer to appoint the Electoral Services Manager to act as Deputy Electoral Registration Officer.

Council:

(a)        APPOINTED Shirley Tracey as the Council’s interim Monitoring Officer, from 19 February 2016.

(b)        NOTED that the individual who currently holds the role of Monitoring Officer had resigned.

(c)        ENDORSED the recommendation of the Electoral Registration Officer to appoint the Electoral Services Manager to act as Deputy Electoral Registration Officer.

Councillor Alex Riley, Chairman of the Employment Committee, proposed the recommendations contained within the report.  He took the opportunity to thank Fiona McMillan, the Council’s Legal Manager and Monitoring Officer, for the work she had done in her time at the Council ahead of her leaving the authority for a new role.

Councillor Peter Topping, Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Customer Services, seconded the proposal and paid tribute to the service she had provided to the Council.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, congratulated Mrs McMillan on the new role, saying that she worked with enormous professionalism and good humour, and that she would be a very hard act to follow.

Voting on the appointment of the interim Monitoring Officer, with 39 votes in favour and 7 abstentions, Council APPOINTED Shirley Tracey as the Council’s Interim Monitoring Officer, from 19 February 2016.

NOTE – Councillor Francis Burkitt was not present at the meeting for this vote.

Council unanimously:

(a)        NOTED that the individual who currently holds the role of Monitoring Officer had resigned.

(b)        ENDORSED the recommendation of the Electoral Registration Officer to appoint the Electoral Services Manager to act as Deputy Electoral Registration Officer.

The Employment Committee RECOMMENDED that Council adopts the Annual Pay Policy Statement for 2016/17.

Council ADOPTED the Annual Pay Policy Statement for 2016/17.

NOTE – the Chief Executive and Executive Director (Corporate Services) left the meeting during consideration of this item.

Councillor Alex Riley, Chairman of the Employment Committee, proposed that the Annual Pay Policy Statement for 2016/17 be adopted. 

Councillor Simon Edwards, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, seconded the proposal.

Councillor Douglas de Lacey felt that the policy did nothing to address what he perceived as being a huge inequality between the Council’s lowest and highest paid employees.  He wanted to see annual pay increases spread amongst all employees at the same rate, rather than as a percentage.

Council unanimously ADOPTED the Annual Pay Policy Statement for 2016/17.

Council is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)        APPOINT Councillor Francis Burkitt as the Council’s representative on the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

(b)        APPOINT Councillor Ray Manning as the Council’s substitute on the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

(c)        APPOINT a Member from the Conservative Group onto the Corporate Governance Committee, in place of Councillor Francis Burkitt.

Council:

(a)        APPOINTED Councillor Francis Burtkitt as the Council’s representative on the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

(b)        APPOINTED Councillor Ray Manning as the Council’s substitute on the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

(c)        APPOINTED Councillor Christopher Cross onto the Corporate Governance Committee, in place of Councillor Francis Burkitt.

Councillor Simon Edwards, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, proposed the recommendations as set out on the agenda.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, seconded the proposal.

Council unanimously:

(a)        APPOINTED Councillor Francis Burtkitt as the Council’s representative on the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

(b)        APPOINTED Councillor Ray Manning as the Council’s substitute on the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

(c)        APPOINTED Councillor Christopher Cross onto the Corporate Governance Committee, in place of Councillor Francis Burkitt.

Council is RECOMMENDED to appoint two Members onto the Ermine Street Housing Board.

Council APPOINTED Councillors Andrew Fraser and Richard Turner onto the Ermine Street Housing Ltd Board.

Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of the Council, proposed Councillors Andrew Fraser and Richard Turner as the Council’s representatives on the Ermine Street Housing Ltd Board.  Councillor Simon Edwards, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, seconded the proposal.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, proposed Councillor Hazel Smith as a Council representative on the Ermine Street Housing Ltd Board.  Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer seconded this proposal.

Each Member was able to vote for two of the three Members proposed.  With 41 votes in favour of Councillor Andrew Fraser, 33 votes in favour of Councillor Richard Turner and 16 votes in favour of Councillor Hazel Smith, Council APPOINTED Councillors Andrew Fraser and Richard Turner onto the Ermine Street Housing Ltd Board.

NOTE – Councillor Francis Burkitt was not present at the meeting for this vote.

To receive any questions on joint meetings.

No questions on joint meetings were received. 

To receive any questions on the Greater Cambridge City Deal.

A copy of the workstream update report considered by the Greater Cambridge City

Deal Executive Board at its meeting on 15 January 2016 is attached, for

information.

Council received a briefing note which provided updates for each of the Greater Cambridge City Deal workstreams.

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer referred to the Motion passed at the meeting of Council on 26 November 2015 in respect of a protocol for considering Greater Cambridge City Deal transport infrastructure scheme consultations.  He asked whether this was considered urgent in order that the Council could engage with consultations currently ongoing.

Councillor Francis Burkitt, Portfolio Holder for the Greater Cambridge City Deal, said that he did think it was urgent and confirmed that this piece of work was underway, explaining, however, that it had to be done in collaboration with all three Councils.  He emphasised that officers were treating this as a matter of urgency.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley referred to the housing workstream and asked whether the aspiration to establish a Member Reference Group and produce a business plan for the Housing Development Agency for 2016/17, indicating the number of schemes that the Agency would deliver and its operational costs, by the end of March 2016 was realistic.  He asked the question in the context of the current position with Northstowe and this Council’s and the City Council’s Local Development Plans.

Councillor Ray Manning, Leader of the Council, said that this particular workstream was very complicated given changes that were currently going through Parliament via the Housing Bill.  He confirmed that the original intention was for South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council to finance the Agency, with land being provided by the County Council.  Changes to some rules imposed by Government had made it far more difficult for the District Council and City Council to do this.  Councillor Manning said that this was still an aspiration and meetings with Members of Parliament were ongoing in order to seek a resolution and a way forward.

Councillor Kindersley was of the view that the housing workstream was at the heart of the City Deal as a project and that the delivery of affordable housing would be a key consideration.  He said that the Government appeared to be making the situation worse and therefore felt that this aspect of the City Deal was failing.  He wanted City Deal partners to do what they could to ensure that the City Deal succeeded.

Councillor Burkitt said that Councillor Kindersley was right to say that City Deal partners should focus on this issue and emphasised that the City Deal was not solely a transport forum, a point he confirmed was raised at the last meeting of the City Deal Joint Assembly.  He also made the point that the term ‘City Deal’ did very little to promote the fact that the Deal was for the Greater Cambridge area and not just the City of Cambridge.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, referred to the initial suggestion upon establishing the City Deal Executive Board and Joint Assembly that the District Council would be a ‘super-consultee’.  Referring to Councillor Van de Weyer’s question about a protocol  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

“How many members have taken up the offer of purchasing iPads through the Council and what financial impact has this had on printing costs of papers for  Council, Committee and Portfolio Holder Meetings?”

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, asked how many Members had taken up the offer of purchasing iPads through the Council and what financial impact this had on printing costs with regard to papers for Council, Committee and Portfolio Holder meetings.

Councillor Peter Topping confirmed that 26 Members had purchased iPads through the Council’s procurement process and it had so far not impacted the printing costs of papers for meetings.

Councillor Smith, as a supplementary and in noting the initiative had made no impact on printing costs, pointed out that it may therefore have cost the Council money in terms of officer time incurred in procuring iPads and providing training.  She sought confirmation of the cost of the initiative from that perspective and asked the Portfolio Holder whether, in his view, the initiative was a good idea.

Councillor Topping reported that the printing and postage costs for Council meeting papers was quite modest, at approximately £4,000 per year, which was significantly lower than other Councils in the area.  He added that the main purpose of bringing in iPads was to reduce the cost of equipment previously provided to Members by the Council.  Councillor Topping said that he would be happy to discuss the points raised in the question at his Portfolio Holder Meeting.

“Will the Leader please clarify the authority’s position on affordable housing?  It is regarded that 40% affordable housing for developments in the district is current policy.  However, recent events have seen Northstowe and Wing developments coming forward with significantly less affordable housing schemes on site.  Why is that?”

Councillor Ben Shelton asked for clarification over the authority’s position on affordable housing saying that it was regarded that 40% affordable housing for developments in the District was current policy.  He added that recent events had seen Northstowe and Wing developments coming forward with significantly less affordable housing schemes on site and asked why that was.

Councillor Robert Turner, Portfolio Holder for Planning, confirmed that it was still the Council’s policy for 40% of affordable housing on new developments, but he emphasised that affordability would always be subject to viability which had to be demonstrated by developers in accordance with a very stringent and evidence-based criteria. 

Councillor Shelton, as a supplementary, sought an assurance in that context that the Portfolio Holder and officers would seek to achieve the best results possible for the residents of South Cambridgeshire in respect of the level of affordable housing allocated at new developments.

Councillor Turner reminded Members that all applications were judged on their merits and that it was the Council’s policy to always achieve the best possible level of affordable housing for residents.  He added that officers were working closely with developers through negotiation.

“Can the Leader assure members that in deciding the Section 106 Agreement for WING that they will follow the advice of their independent advisors that the inclusion of  a review mechanism ‘would be ESSENTIAL if the local authorities accept less that 40% affordable housing.’,  and that they will not succumb to veiled threats from the landowner that a less advantageous affordable housing allocation will result if they do so”

Councillor Bridget Smith asked the following question:

“Can the Leader assure members that in deciding the Section 106 Agreement for WING that they will follow the advice of their independent advisors that the inclusion of  a review mechanism ‘would be ESSENTIAL if the local authorities accept less that 40% affordable housing.’, and that they will not succumb to veiled threats from the landowner that a less advantageous affordable housing allocation will result if they do so?”

Councillor Robert Turner, Portfolio Holder for Planning, said that negotiations were still ongoing in respect of the Wing development.  He did not want to predetermine the Section 106 aspect of the application prior to its determination by the Joint Development Control Committee (Cambridge Fringes).

Councillor Smith, as a supplementary, made reference to the report considered by Cabinet on 14 January 2016 in respect of the Section 106 Agreement draft terms for the Wing development.  Quoting a paragraph in the report she referred to what she perceived as being a threat from the developers in respect of the affordable housing allocation they were prepared to offer and questioned why the Council did not stand up to them.

Councillor Turner reminded Members that the final decision would be made by the Joint Development Control Committee.  He reiterated the point that negotiations were ongoing but said that the Council obviously wanted as much affordable housing as possible out of any scheme.

“There is every possibility that Cambridgeshire County Council may forgo the Government's exceptional offer of permitting a 2% additional Council Tax increase to offset rising adult social care costs (take-up assumed by the Government in its revenue support grant settlement for Cambridgeshire for 2016/17).  Cuts to adult social care from not taking up the 2% offer would have adverse effects on the residents of South Cambridgeshire so this Council takes the opportunity before the County Council makes its decision on this to express its concern to the County Council and urges it to take up the offer.”

The motion was lost.

Councillor John Williams proposed the following Motion:

“There is every possibility that Cambridgeshire County Council may forgo the Government's exceptional offer of permitting a 2% additional Council Tax increase to offset rising adult social care costs (take-up assumed by the Government in its revenue support grant settlement for Cambridgeshire for 2016/17).  Cuts to adult social care from not taking up the 2% offer would have adverse effects on the residents of South Cambridgeshire so this Council takes the opportunity before the County Council makes its decision on this to express its concern to the County Council and urges it to take up the offer.”

In presenting the Motion, Councillor Williams explained that the County Council’s General Purposes Committee was scheduled to meet next week ahead of the County Council budget meeting in the middle of February and said that this was an opportunity for the District Council to provide an input on behalf of the people of South Cambridgeshire.  He was concerned that if the additional 2% Council Tax increase was not put in place the £5 million shortfall would have to be found from other County Council services.

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer seconded the Motion.

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, could not disagree with the impact of the cuts and felt that the District Council had no choice but to lobby the County Council on behalf of its residents.  She added that the County Council needed to take a robust approach.

Councillor Simon Edwards, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, said that any Council’s budget was very complex and that he, as well as the majority of other South Cambridgeshire District Councillors, was not a County Councillor and was not aware of the specific details relating to the County Council’s budget.  He said that to make an evidence-based decision Members needed to know all of the aspects of the budget and that Council Tax was only a small part of it.  In view of that, he felt it would be irresponsible for the District Council to agree to the Motion at this meeting.  He reminded Members that an extraordinary meeting of the Partnerships Review Committee would be held in February to scrutinise the County Council’s budget in much more detail. 

Councillor Ben Shelton agreed that it would be inappropriate for this Council to send a recommendation to the County Council on how it should manage its budget and made the point that Members of this Council would not appreciate any other local authority interfering with the way in which the District Council set its Council Tax.  Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Housing, also supported this view.

Councillor Anna Bradnam supported the Motion as, in her view, it simply urged the County Council to take the opportunity to take an additional 2% increase in Council Tax and made the point that as residents of Cambridgeshire this affected everyone in the District.  Councillor Janet Lockwood agreed with Councillor Bradnam’s comments and highlighted that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12a

“This Council writes a letter to the Minister of State urging him to scrutinise the arrangements for strategic planning of primary healthcare in development areas.

In my ward a development of 280 dwellings was awarded £200,000 S106 primary health provision. It is sitting in the Council and no effective plan has been put forward as to how it is to be spent.  The nearest surgery has premises too small to extend on site to meet future needs. The houses are now being built rapidly and a solution needs to be found urgently. I understand from our Chief Executive that this is a problem affecting several areas and she has tried many lines of communication. I think a letter to the Minister from this Council might help.”

Council AGREED the following Motion:

“This Council writes a letter to the Minister of State urging him to scrutinise the arrangements for strategic planning of primary healthcare in development areas.

In my ward a development of 280 dwellings was awarded £200,000 S106 primary health provision. It is sitting in the Council and no effective plan has been put forward as to how it is to be spent.  The nearest surgery has premises too small to extend on site to meet future needs. The houses are now being built rapidly and a solution needs to be found urgently. I understand from our Chief Executive that this is a problem affecting several areas and she has tried many lines of communication. I think a letter to the Minister from this Council might help.”

Councillor Janet Lockwood proposed the following Motion:

“This Council writes a letter to the Minister of State urging him to scrutinise the arrangements for strategic planning of primary healthcare in development areas”.

Councillor Lockwood said that in her ward a development of 280 dwellings had been awarded £200,000 Section 106 Agreement primary health provision, but that it was sitting in the Council and no effective plan had been put forward as to how it would be spent.  The nearest surgery had premises too small to extend on site to meet future needs and houses were now being built rapidly, so a solution needed to be found urgently.  She understood from the Council’s Chief Executive that that this was a problem affecting several areas and she had tried many lines of communication.  Councillor Lockwood therefore felt that a letter to the Minister from this Council may help.

Councillor Mick Martin, Portfolio for Environmental Services, seconded the Motion and said he would draft a letter in consultation with the Director of Health and Environmental Services.

Councillor Sue Ellington, Chairman of the Council, agreed that this was a very frustrating issue which was often raised at the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board and County Council’s Health Committee. 

Councillor Lynda Harford made the point that the NHS would reap the benefits of investing in health provision at the beginning of developments, which in itself would encourage healthy and cohesive communities.  

Councillor Tony Orgee, Chairman of the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Board, was very happy to support the Motion and reported that he had taken this issue up with the County Council’s Director of Public Health who had confirmed that it would feature as part of the New Communities Joint Strategic Needs Assessment.

A number of Members took this opportunity to pay tribute to James Fisher, the Council’s Section 106 Officer, for his very helpful, professional and dedicated approach to his role and the support he had provided to individual Members with regard to Section 106 Agreement funding.

Council unanimously AGREED the following Motion:

“This Council writes a letter to the Minister of State urging him to scrutinise the arrangements for strategic planning of primary healthcare in development areas”.

The Council is asked to endorse the provision of a beacon with which to celebrate national events.  This is particularly relevant this year to mark the Queens 90^th birthday.  The Council therefore asks officers to investigate the erection of a beacon at the Council offices, establish a budget, investigate grant opportunities and delegate any final decision to the Leader of the Council.

Council AGREED the following Motion:

“The Council is asked to endorse the provision of a beacon with which to celebrate national events.  This is particularly relevant this year to mark the Queens 90^th birthday.  The Council therefore asks officers to investigate the erection of a beacon at the Council offices, establish a budget, investigate grant opportunities and delegate any final decision to the Leader of the Council.”

Councillor Kevin Cuffley moved the following Motion:

“The Council is asked to endorse the provision of a beacon with which to celebrate national events.  This is particularly relevant this year to mark the Queen’s 90^th birthday.  The Council therefore asks officers to investigate the erection of a beacon at the Council offices, establish a budget, investigate grant opportunities and delegate any final decision to the Leader of the Council.”

Councillor David Bard seconded the Motion.

During discussion a number of Members supported the Motion, particularly in celebration of the Queen’s 90^th birthday, whereas some Members felt that in the current economic climate it was be unnecessary expenditure.

Voting on the Motion, with 32 votes in favour, 11 votes against, 2 abstention and 1 not voting, Council AGREED the following Motion:

“The Council is asked to endorse the provision of a beacon with which to celebrate national events.  This is particularly relevant this year to mark the Queens 90^th birthday.  The Council therefore asks officers to investigate the erection of a beacon at the Council offices, establish a budget, investigate grant opportunities and delegate any final decision to the Leader of the Council.”

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

In favour

Councillors David Bard, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Simon Crocker, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Roger Hickford, Mark Howell, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Des O’Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters, Tim Wotherspoon and Nick Wright.

Against

Councillors Val Barrett, Henry Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Brian Burling, Caroline Hunt, Peter Johnson, Janet Lockwood, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

Abstention

Councillors Jose Hales and Lynda Harford.

Not voting

Councillor Cicely Murfitt.

NOTE – Councillors Neil Davies and Edd Stonham were not present at the meeting for this vote.

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

Those engagements undertaken by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman since the last meeting, as set out on the agenda, were NOTED.