Agenda and minutes

To receive Apologies for Absence from Members.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Michael Atkins, Jose Hales, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Dr James Hobro, Mark Howell, Lina Nieto, Judith Rippeth, Dr Susan van de Ven, Dr Aidan Van de Weyer and Natalie Warren-Green.

No declarations of interest were declared. 

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

The Chair reminded Members that Democratic Services should be informed of any changes to their Register of Members’ Financial and Other Interests form.

Report to follow.

As per Council Standing Order 3.1 ‘Calling extraordinary meetings’, the Chair of the Council has called an extraordinary meeting of Council to consider the following business:

“This Extraordinary Council is to discuss the subject of the Best Value Notice received by South Cambridgeshire District Council on 3 November 2023.”

The Chair stated that he had called the meeting, at the request of opposition councillors, to discuss the Best Value Notice received from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on 3 November 2023 and the proposed response by the Council. It was noted that councillors had received a letter from the Government regarding their liability for the Council’s decisions. This letter had been addressed by the Monitoring Officer. This guidance was included in the agenda. It was understood that the letter from the Government to all members had not been received by all councillors. The Leader dismissed the letter as a scare tactic and directed members to the legal advice received from officers.

The Leader explained that the Council was debating a request from the Government to respond to 80 questions regarding the four-day week trial. This had resulted in 186 responses, which was costly to compile and put an additional burden on the authority. She stated that the purpose of the Government’s Best Value notice was to end the four-day week trial prematurely and she expressed her disappointment in the fact that the Government were opposing the initiative on ideological grounds. Nevertheless, she hoped to meet with the new minister to discuss this matter face-to-face. She concluded that that Government had asked local authorities to be innovative and the Council had responded by introducing a four-day week trial. This had saved hundreds of thousands of pounds in reduced agency fees and allowed the Council to appoint new employees to half of the difficult to recruit to posts. She recommended that the Council continue with the four-day week trial, where the benefits of the initiatives could be fully assessed.

Councillor Paul Bearpark asked if the Council could ignore the Government’s Best Value notice. The Leader replied that as it was non-statutory guidance the Council could have taken this action but on reflection it had been decided that the authority should share its evidence with the Government by complying with its request.

Councillor Heather Williams asked if the Leader had instructed the Chief Executive to intervene in response to the letter shown on page 21 of the agenda. The Leader replied that she was aware that the Chief Executive had been liaising with civil servants about the four-day week and so it was appropriate for her to respond to a letter written by civil servants to the Council.

Councillor Heather Williams asked why the Leader had refused to allow all councillors to have a vote on the four-day week trial. The Leader explained that Council would vote on this matter at the end of the trial.

Councillor Heather Williams asked if the Leader was prepared to accept the consequences of not fully agreeing the four-day week before going ahead with the initiative. The Leader supported the decision taken to initiate a four-day week trial in response to challenges the Council was having in recruitment.

Councillor Annika Osborne asked what the Best Value notice did and why it had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.