Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the 27 June and 14 July were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

APOLOGIES

 

Apologies were been received from Councillors Dryden, Ashton and McPherson.

 

MAYOR’S DAY OUT

 

The annual outing for senior citizens to Great Yarmouth in August was once again a huge success and the Mayor thanked those councillors who helped with stewarding.

 

REMEMBRANCE

 

The Mayor reminded Councillors that the Remembrance Sunday civic service would take place on Sunday 13 November at Great St. Marys Church at 10:55am. The Mayor asked that any members who wanted to attend let the Sergeant-at-Mace know that evening. 

 

The Mayor confirmed that he would be laying a wreath on behalf of the City at the War Memorial at 10.30am.

 

A two minutes silence would be observed in front of the Guildhall on Friday 11 November at 11am.

 

EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

The Mayor asked Councillors to note the different day and time for the extraordinary Council meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday 15^th November at 7pm.

 

 

STRATEGIC DIRECTOR - RAY WARD

 

The Mayor and Group Leaders thanked Ray Ward (Strategic Director) for his contributions to the City Council wished him well in his new role at Oldham Council.

 

CHEVYN SERVICE

 

The Mayor confirmed that the Chevyn Sermon would take place on Sunday 29 January 2017.  

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Smith	16/20/CNLc	Personal: Was a teacher and was on the Governing  Body at Parkside and Coleridge school.
Councillor Perry	16/20/CNLc	Personal: Teacher
Councillor T. Moore	16/20/CNLc	Personal: Governor at Netherhall School
Councillor Austin	16/20/CNLc	Personal: Independent Education Consultant and is a Governor at 2 schools in Cambridge.

 

See the foot of the agenda for details of the scheme

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below:

 

1.   Eleanor Lad raised the following points:

     i.        She had attended and spoken as a National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) representative at the 10 October 2016 Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee (S&R) meeting.

    ii.        She attended the Council meeting on behalf of her children and students.

   iii.        She had pushed for her family to have the right to moor.

  iv.        Expressed disappointment with the decision made at the S&R Scrutiny Committee meeting for the consultation to proceed.

   v.        Commented that rowers were the problem on the river.

  vi.        Commented that the move of moorings from Community Services Scrutiny Committee to Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee was motivated by a Council focus on income.

 vii.        The moorings should be allocated on a need basis.

viii.        Commented that some people rented out their boats on Council moorings.

  ix.        Was waiting for confirmation of a meeting with the Council and NBTA.

   x.        She was living one day at a time, unsure whether she was going to be made homeless.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded:

     i.        He confirmed that no decisions had been made on the moorings issue.

    ii.        The views of the riverboat community were being listened to.

   iii.        The moorings issue would be brought back to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in March 2017.

  iv.        There were some mooring areas that were not safe and some individuals may need to be moved, but he would ensure that those people were relocated.

 

Eleanor Lad made the following supplementary points:

     i.        She had received a letter from the Council which stated that if she moved onto Council land then she would be evicted from the river.

    ii.        Living on the river was a sustainable off grid solution which should be applauded.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded that he was unaware of the letter referred to, but it did not relate to the issues contained within the consultation.

 

2.   Anthony Carpen raised the following points:

    i.          He hoped that Councillors had had the chance to view the videos of the MPs Heidi Allen and Daniel Zeichner previously circulated to the Council on the issue of public questionshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNWMNIKgGA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQjHxYMeXKk&t=22m00s.

  ii.          The amount of time spent on public questions at meetings had become substantial, 2 hours was spent on public questions at the last City Deal meeting. He asked that councillors and the City Deal authorities considered why so many people were taking time out to ask so many questions, what changes to controls, systems and processes were being made to deal with the substance of the issues raised.

 iii.          He asked if the limitation of public questions to 300 words took into account appendices such as maps and illustrations.

iv.          He commented that the lack of deliberative/discussion space had been an issue for the City Deal from the very start. It had been demonstrated through Be the change - Cambridge that open discussion space as a concept worked. Reference was made to Ms Allen MP who had made remarks to the City Deal Board on 14 October that the people of greater Cambridge wanted to help.

  v.          Referred to the county council’s systems and processes that prevented individuals from getting involved.

vi.          He asked what efforts the City Council would make to persuade City Deal authorities to change their systems and processes as requested by Mr Zeichner MP so that individuals can all take part in what he called municipal problem solving.

vii.          He welcomed improvements that had been made in communications forums.

viii.          He called on the City Deal to clarify the rules on filming meetings, given that he had been unable to film a Planning Inspectors meeting at the Guildhall. 

 

The Leader responded:

    i.          3 ¼ hours had been spent on discussing the A428 issues, full opportunity had been given to consider the item at the last City Deal meeting.

  ii.          He had written to the MPs and confirmed that a discussion should be held about the flexibility of City Deal spend and governance.

 iii.          In terms of public speaking at City Deal meetings, there was no problem in attaching diagrams, some people already provided web links.

iv.          He was not aware of any problems with filming at City Deal meetings and would look into the issue raised about the Planning Inspector meeting.

 

As a supplementary point Anthony Carpen urged Councillors to consider open space sessions as there were lots of the public who wanted to get involved with issues and shared problem sorting actually worked.

 

3.   Andrew Osbourne raised the following points:

    i.          Asked if the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources was aware that many people who lived in houseboats moored on the riverside railings had become nervous and fearful about their housing situation, specifically that the proposition in the consultation document which had been published would deprive them of their continued residence within the city of Cambridge.

  ii.          Asked if the Executive Councillor agreed with him, and submissions from riverboat residents expressed at the 10 October Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee meeting that the consultation should be discontinued immediately. Discussions should be opened with the houseboat dwelling community regarding a new consultation that addressed their concerns and did not threaten the riverside boaters with eviction from their current moorings.

 iii.          He stated that the moorings policy was inconsistent with the stated aims of the Executive Councillor for Housing to defend the provision of housing for low income workers in the city.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded:

    i.          He confirmed that no decisions had been made, and no decisions would be made, until the outcome of the consultation.

  ii.          If people living on houseboats had to be relocated then they would be relocated within the City, if necessary the number of mooring spaces would be extended.

 

As a supplementary point Andrew Osbourne asked Councillors to stand up and fight for peoples’ rights.

 

4.   Rosie Tattersall said that boaters only became aware of the proposals being made in relation to mooring when they read about the proposals in the paper. She asked whether this was an acceptable way to treat residents.

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following:

    i.          A report was taken to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee for a discussion on whether the consultation should go ahead. This was agreed and the Council was following its usual consultation process.

  ii.          He would ensure that everyone would have the opportunity to respond and participate in the consultation.

Rosie Tattersall made the following supplementary points:

    i.          She resented the fact that the Executive Councillor talked to the newspaper about a sensitive issue before talking to those individuals who were directly affected by the proposals.

  ii.          She had also written a letter to the Executive Councillor and had received a generic response which she felt was not acceptable and did not address the issues raised in her letter.

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded:

    i.          Council procedures had been followed.

  ii.          Items on a Committee agenda were sometimes followed by a press release.

 iii.          Encouraged the public to play a part in the consultation.

 

5.   Nicola Terry raised the following points:

    i.          Transition Cambridge would be delighted to work with the Council to help achieve the Zero Carbon goal as soon as possible. There were many individuals, households and companies who had achieved carbon saving and they were keen to discuss further roll out to the wider public.

  ii.          Transition Cambridge applauded the work that had already been done, for example all the homes that had been insulated through the Green Deal Communities fund (close to 1000 homes in Cambridgeshire). There were also examples of carbon savings achieved through Cambridge Retrofit, MLEI and other projects.

 iii.          Cambridge City Council had switched to a 100% green electricity supplier which was great news.

iv.          The above examples could be used as a platform on which to build and engage more people however there was a need to reach more people, for example through the proposed Sustainability Festival.

  v.          The Committee for Climate Change said it was essential to build up the supply chain for making general efficiency savings in order to reduce emissions by 2050. Cambridge was in a good situation to lead the way on this and Transition Cambridge wanted to be a part of this.

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following:

    i.          He had enjoyed working with Carbon Footprint and Transition Cambridge and would like to continue to do so.

  ii.          A seminar would be held in the future to look at how the Council could move to more efficient use of energy.

 

6.   Mark Evans raised the following points:

    i.          He was a Riverside resident and thought that the mooring consultation was flawed. A lot of emotion had been stirred up and un-due stress had been caused by the consultation.

  ii.          As the issue of health and safety had been raised, he asked where the statistics were for accidents on the river.

 iii.          Asked if the Council would consider pulling the consultation as it was causing too much stress for residents.

iv.          Asked for a meeting to be organised with stakeholders as the consultation had caused mass hysteria.

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following:

    i.          There were boat access problems at Riverside and it was an accident waiting to happen.

  ii.          The Council had a duty of care and safety concerns could not be ignored, this was what the consultation was looking into.

 iii.          He was planning to meet with groups (Cam Boaters) and other individuals if they wanted to.

Mark Evans made the following supplementary points:

    i.          At the last consultation £75,000 had been put aside for Riverside.

  ii.          Asked what had happened to this funding.

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following:

i.             He confirmed as far as he was aware no funding had been set aside.

ii.            He wanted to improve amenities once financial issues had been resolved. For example mooring rings, pump stations and post boxes. 

 

7.   Anthony Carpen raised the following points:

          i.             Referred to p6 of the Community Safety Strategic Assessment https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/default/files/agenda_item_11_-_sa_asb_vulnerablegroups_201617_q2.pdf which stated that ‘Lessons learnt from the Anti-Social Behaviour concerns in the CB1 development were valuable and should be shared with planners within the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridgeshire County Council, so that the same situations might be avoided in similar future developments. It was recommended that information and progress was shared to these departments through presentations and briefing papers.

         ii.             He asked what lessons had been learnt and what changes to guidance, systems and processes have been made.

       iii.             He also asked if the Council would be writing to developers who had submitted major developments in and around Cambridge highlighting the lessons learnt.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport responded with the following:

          i.             The report referred to a strategic assessment carried out by the Cambridgeshire Research Group on behalf of the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership which contained a number of recommendations around issues of anti-social behaviour around the new flats developed on the CB1 site.

         ii.             It was not the Community Safety Partnership’s role to tackle crime (they were not an enforcement authority); they would consider the report and make recommendations to appropriate authorities. 

       iii.             As a sensible Planning Authority the points would be taken on board.

 

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

 

Council was recommended to approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets as set out on the agenda.

 

Councillor Avery proposed and Councillor O’Connell seconded the following amendment (additional text underlined):

 

ii.            Request the Executive Councillor for Housing to instruct officers to bring forward a scheme for the Anstey Way site for scrutiny at the next Housing Scrutiny Committee meeting and for incorporation in the budget plan

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 14 votes to 25.

 

Resolved (by 25 votes to 0) to:

 

Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H.

 

Council was recommended to approve the recommendations set out in the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee adoption minute for the Treasury Management Half Yearly Update report 2016/17 as set out on the agenda.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the following amendment (additional text underlined):

 

2.6    Request a report from officers on the implications (including asset allocation) of internal lending from the Council’s treasury funds for the purpose of the acquisition of physical property assets

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Resolved (by 34 votes to 0) to:

 

i.        Approve the Treasury Management Half Yearly Update Report, 2016/17 which included the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2016/17 to 2019/20.

 

ii.    Approve amendments to the Counterparty limits as follows:

 

Name	Recommended Limit (£)
Enhanced Cash Funds (Standard & Poor’s: AAAf/S1, Fitch AAA/V1)	10m (in each fund)
CCLA Local Authorities’ Property Fund	15m

 

iii.      Increase the upper limit on principal sums to be deposited for over 1 year to £50m.

 

iv.      Approve an amendment to the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy for 2016/17.

 

v.       Agree to remove Deutsche Bank from the CounterParty list.

 

vi.      Request a report from officers on the implications (including asset allocation) of internal lending from the Council’s treasury funds for the purpose of the acquisition of physical property assets.

 

Council was recommended to approve the recommendations set out in the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee adoption minute for the Mid Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) October 2016 as set out on the agenda.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the following amendments (additional text underlined, deleted text struck through):

 

Capital

 

     i.        Allocate £20m in the Capital Plan for investment in a new programme of commercial property acquisition with the emphasis on security of assets and their income stream andi. Allocate £20m in the Capital Plan for investment in residential property in Cambridge with the emphasis on delivering the council’s housing objectives in conjunction with the income stream from the assets and

 

  ii.          Delegate authority to the Head of Property Services to identify and invest  in  suitable commercial residential  property  up  to  £20m  (inclusive  of acquisition  costs)  in  consultation  with  the  Executive  Councillor  for Finance and Resources, the Chair and Opposition Spokesperson for Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee and the Head of Finance.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 13 votes to 24.

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0) to:

 

General Fund Revenue

 

i.   Agree the budget strategy and timetable as outlined in Section [pages 1 to 2 refer] of the MTFS document.

 

ii.   Agree incorporation of the budget savings, pressures, proposals and rephasings identified in Section 4 (pages 13 to 15 refer). This provided an indication of the net savings requirements, by year for the next 5 years, and revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections as shown in Section 5 (page 16 refers) of the MTFS document.

 

Capital

 

i.             Allocate £20m in the Capital Plan for investment in a new programme of commercial property acquisition with the emphasis on security of assets and their income stream and

 

ii.             Delegate authority to the Head of Property Services to identify and invest  in  suitable  commercial  property  up  to  £20m  (inclusive  of acquisition  costs)  in  consultation  with  the  Executive  Councillor  for Finance and Resources, the Chair and Opposition Spokesperson for Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee and the Head of Finance.

 

iii.             Note the changes to the Capital Plan as set out in Section 6 [pages 17 to 21 refer] of the MTFS document and agree the new proposals:

 

Ref.                                     Description                                         2016/17

£000

Proposals

 

SC631	Grand Arcade car park LED lights	194
SC622	Grafton East car park LED lights	137
SC629	Abbey Pools air plant upgrade	46
SC630	Abbey Pools solar thermal upgrade	49
SC625	Lammas Land kiosk improvements	20
SC623	Environment and cycling improvements in Water Street and Fen Road	50

 

Reserves

 

i.                Agree changes to General Fund Reserve levels, with the Prudent Minimum Balance being set at £5.31m and the target level at £6.37m as detailed in Section 7 [pages 22 to 25 refer].

 

Under 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Mayor ruled in this agenda item for consideration.

 

Resolved (by 23 votes to 0) to:

 

Endorse the proposed modified standing orders for the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly and Executive Board.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

Adopt Public Sector Audit Appointment Ltd (PSAA) as the appointing person for the Council, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory invitation to opt into the PSAA’s appointing person arrangements.

 

1) Councillor Todd-Jones to the Leader:

 

What was the outcome of the devolution meeting between council leaders and the Secretary of State Sajid Javid last Monday?

 

The Leader responded that Sajid Javid had made a commitment to devolution. All Councils were meeting in November to make a decision on devolution. £70 million of housing money would be under the control of the City Council. The only review mechanism would be whether the City Council had used the money well and it intended to make the £70 million stretch as far as possible.

 

2 Councillor Austin to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces:

 

When cars are being discouraged from driving through and parking in the City centre why are we encouraging public parking on our green spaces during events, such as Midsummer Fair?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the general rule was that parking was not permitted for people who attended events on open space; parking would be restricted to event organisers and occasionally participants. However there would be exceptions to the rule for example Midsummer Fair. The vast majority of parking was used by the Fairground owners but there were a small number of visitor parking spaces which allowed for accessible parking. Midsummer Fair was a traditional meeting point for visitors to the event, many of whom are from the travelling community.

 

Reference was also made to a report on Midsummer Fair which went to Community Services Scrutiny Committee in October 2016 which included a section on parking arrangements.

 

3. Councillor Gehring to the Leader:

 

How can we ensure democratic accountability of the City Deal Board when the Assembly and Local Liaison Forums are being ignored and the Board’s members, including the Executive Councillor himself, take to the press rather than the City Deal meeting to give reason for their opinion?

 

The Leader responded that at the last meeting of the City Deal Board at least four issues raised by the Local Liaison Forum had been agreed to by the City Deal Board.

 

When the Board made comments to the media it was to explain its position on issues.

 

 4 Councillor Cantrill to the Leader:

 

As the representative of the residents of Cambridge on the City Deal Board and one of three politicians taking City Deal decisions, how does he reflect the views of residents in the decisions the City Deal is taking?

 

The Leader responded that he had helped to organise a meeting with 65 residents in Newnham ward. He did not recall direct communication from Newnham Councillors but would respond to them. He had listened to the residents and specifically responded to them.

 

5 Councillor Gillespie to the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre:

 

Does the Executive Councillor know how much of the recycling and landfill coming from Cambridge is water bottles? How much does the executive councillor believe that water bottle waste could be reduced by providing water fountains around the city, and does he have any plans to do so?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that at the time of the last analysis of domestic waste (which was undertaken in 2012) the amount of plastic bottles that went into residual bins (i.e. going to landfill), was less than 1% by weight and for recycling bins, less than 6% by weight was plastic bottles. These bottles would not all be drinking water bottles, but would include milk cartons, juice bottles etc. The figures did not include street refuse collection which was collected in a different way.

 

The provision of water fountains did not fall within his portfolio however requests for bids and provision could be submitted by residents and “Friends of” Societies to the relevant Executive Councillor. 

 

6 Councillor Bick to the Leader:

 

Given the huge public outcry over the whole concept of road closures, is the Leader (as this Council's representative on the City Deal Board) willing to announce today that he is withdrawing his support for this approach to reducing congestion, and will seek public views on alternative approaches. 

 

The Leader tabled a written briefing note for oral questions 6 and 7 which was circulated round the Chamber and the public gallery during the meeting.

 

The Leader responded that a large number of responses had been received on the proposals. He was not convinced that the proposals were viable and he had made his views known to the City Deal Board. The decision was a City Deal Board decision but the City Council had a right to have a say. A proper analysis of the responses was required.

 

7 Councillor Baigent to the Leader:

 

What are the next steps for the City Deal in assessing and responding to consultation responses on proposals for tackling peak-time congestion?

 

The Leader responded that a significant number of responses to the survey had been received and that there were a whole range of issues arising out of the responses. He commented that there may be an initial report on the survey to the Board in November before any further work begins or future work undertaken. 

 

8 Councillor O’Connell to Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre:

 

An analysis of the City Deal's proposed Peak Time Congestion Control Points by Dr Mario Weick concluded that the scheme would cause air pollution levels to increase, particularly in less affluent areas of the city. This increase may cause pollution to exceed legal limits. Does the Executive Councillor agree with me that any acceptable package of proposals must reduce air pollution, and if so what steps are the city council taking to address this problem?

 

The Leader responded that modelling impacts would feed into any decision making. The City Council and the County Council had commissioned an air quality monitoring survey which did not reveal that any legal standards would be breached. The City Council wanted to take an active role and would pursue any action to improve air quality. 

 

The following oral questions were tabled but owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted, were not covered during the meeting. The Mayor asked Executive Councillors if a written response could be provided to those questions that had not been covered.

 

9 Councillor Bird to the Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

Question to the Executive Councillor for Housing: What plans are in place to spend the £70m devolution money?

 

10 Councillor Ratcliffe to the Executive Councillor for Communities:

 

Can the Executive Councillor update Council on plans for the Bonfire Night celebration on Midsummer Common?

 

11 Councillor Sinnott to the Executive Councillor for Communities:

 

What are the Council's plans to mark Living Wage week?

 

12 Councillor R Moore to the Leader:

 

What are the consequences of the Ministry of Defence agreeing to pay damages to two of the victims of violent attacks by unsupervised Libyan soldiers in central Cambridge in October 2014, during the Ministry of Defence training programme at Bassingbourn?

 

13 Councillor T Moore to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport:

 

Does the Executive Councillor share concerns about the draft Planning Bill 2016 giving developers the right to challenge pre-commencement planning conditions imposed to protect the archaeological record? 

 

14 Councillor Barnett to the Leader:

 

What progress is the council making in welcoming and settling refugees from Syria?

 

15 Councillor Smart to the Executive Councillor for Communities:

 

What activities will be provided for children and families from the Council during half-term week?

This Council believes a system which more fairly reflects the wishes of electors should be introduced for elections to Cambridge City Council.

 

Council notes that the Single Transferable Vote system has been successfully in use in both Northern Ireland, and Scotland for local council elections.

 

Council calls on the Government to allow this City to trial a ward based STV system for the next elections to the City Council in May 2018.

 

Councillor Adey proposed and Councillor Page-Croft seconded the following motion: 

 

This Council believes a system which more fairly reflects the wishes of electors should be introduced for elections to Cambridge City Council.

 

Council notes that the Single Transferable Vote system has been successfully in use in both Northern Ireland, and Scotland for local council elections.

 

Council calls on the Government to allow this City to trial a ward based STV system for the next elections to the City Council in May 2018.

 

Councillor Gillespie proposed and Councillor Adey seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined):

 

This Council believes a system which more fairly reflects the wishes of electors should be introduced for elections to Cambridge City Council. 

 

Council notes that the Single Transferable Vote proportional representative systems have been successfully used in both Northern Ireland, Scottish council elections and London Assembly elections.

 

Council calls on the Government to allow this City to trial a ward based STV proportional representative system for the next elections to the City Council in May 2018. 

 

Council will also make a proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act asking the Government to allow councils the choice of using an appropriate proportional electoral system for all local elections.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 15 votes to 0.

 

On a show of hands the motion was defeated by 14 votes in favour to 20 against.

 

This council notes:

·         The 2015 Paris Agreement was the symbolic beginning of a process of international agreement to drastically reduce carbon emissions with the aim of preventing the worst case scenario of climate change.

·         The world has now permanently passed 400ppm (parts per million) atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

·         August 2016 marked 16 consecutive months of record-breaking global heat.

·         Climate change and the carbon economy are already linked to 5 million deaths a year.

·         The “climate cushion”, the period where governments were able to leave the problem for future generations, has entirely disappeared. Responsibility lies with current national governments and current local authorities.

·         Cambridge City Council is clear in its ambition to arrest climate change: deciding in October 2015 to divest from fossil fuels, deciding in March 2016 to become zero carbon by 2050, and deciding in October 2016 to source approximately 18,000,000 kWh per year of its own energy from renewables.

·         That the British government is seriously proposing airport runway expansion, awarding tax rebates for North Sea oil and gas companies of around £5 billion more than it receives in revenues, and tying the hands of local authorities to make decisions that reduce their own emissions and protect their environment and natural resources.

 

This council requests the Executive :

·         To move swiftly to draw up a clear strategy for becoming zero carbon, and explore opportunities to reach this target before 2050, seeking partnership with appropriate expert groups such as the Global Sustainability Institute and the Cambridge Science and Policy centre, and community groups such as Transition Cambridge and Cambridge Carbon Footprint.

·         To set an explicit ambition of being the first UK zero carbon city.

·         To apply, in the year following Brexit, to become a European Green Capital, to mark Cambridge’s commitment to sustainability for the benefit of all citizens of the world.

·         To begin a city wide consultation and behaviour change exercise targeting personal carbon emission reductions, in partnership with appropriate expert groups.

·         To organise an annual sustainability festival, starting in 2017, in partnership with appropriate expert groups.

·         To begin in 2017 an annual carbon budget cycle alongside the financial budget cycle, following the example of Worcester and Aberdeenshire councils.

·         To implement a new tree-planting strategy that will add 250 trees to the city per year.

·         To bring a report to Strategy and Resources committee about setting up a local energy company based on the Robin Hood model from Nottingham.

·         To take the lead in bundling residents’ energy needs to get a good deal on 100% renewable electricity.

·         To investigate funding options for a carbon accounting project, including the Economic and Social Research Council.

·         To make budget provision in 2017/18 for  a full-time sustainability officer who will work on embedding sustainability into council decision making and envisioning a sustainable, Cambridge in a zero carbon lean economy.

 

This council resolves to write to the UK Government, asking them:

·         To recognise the crisis that the world climate is in, and declare a climate state of emergency.

·         To urgently reduce carbon emissions, investment in  ...  view the full agenda text for item 16/20/CNLb

This council notes that Cambridge has a strong and long-standing tradition of comprehensive education with powerful local community links.

 

Council notes the announcement by the Prime Minister of her intention to allow secondary schools to introduce academic selection.

 

Council calls upon the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary for State for Education to remind her of the compelling research evidence that selection at 11 does not raise academic standards for the majority of children, is counter-productive in terms of pupils' personal morale and well-being and is socially divisive.

 

In the absence of overarching local democratic co-ordination of state school organisation, Council resolves to seek informal engagement, on an all-party basis, with school governing bodies to encourage consensus that all secondary schools should continue to offer equal opportunity to pupils without entry by academic selection. It requests the Chief Executive to facilitate such a process.

 

Councillor Nethsingha proposed and Councillor T. Moore seconded the following motion: 

 

This council notes that Cambridge has a strong and long-standing tradition of comprehensive education with powerful local community links.

 

Council notes the announcement by the Prime Minister of her intention to allow secondary schools to introduce academic selection.

 

Council calls upon the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary for State for Education to remind her of the compelling research evidence that selection at 11 does not raise academic standards for the majority of children, is counter-productive in terms of pupils' personal morale and well-being and is socially divisive.

 

In the absence of overarching local democratic co-ordination of state school organisation, Council resolves to seek informal engagement, on an all-party basis, with school governing bodies to encourage consensus that all secondary schools should continue to offer equal opportunity to pupils without entry by academic selection. It requests the Chief Executive to facilitate such a process.

 

Councillor Smith proposed and Councillor Smart seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined):

 

This council notes that Cambridge has a strong and long-standing tradition of comprehensive schools education with powerful local community links.  

 

Council notes with concern the announcement by the Prime Minister of her intention to allow a significant increase in secondary schools to introduce academic selection at aged 11.

 

In the absence of overarching local democratic co-ordination of state school organisation, Council resolves to seek informal engagement, on an all-party basis, with school governing bodies to encourage consensus that all secondary schools should continue to offer equal opportunity to pupils without entry by academic selection. It requests the Chief Executive to facilitate such a process.  

 

Council calls upon the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary for State for Education the Leader of the Council to write to the Leader of the County Council and Dr Tim Coulson, Regional Schools Commissioner for the East of England to:

 

a)    remind her them of the compelling research evidence that selection at 11 does not raise academic standards for the majority of young people children, is counter-productive in terms of student pupils' personal morale and well-being and is socially divisive, and that there is also evidence that young people from less affluent backgrounds are particularly disadvantaged.

b)    ask them to seek formal and informal engagement, on an all-party basis, with school governing bodies and headteachers to encourage consensus that all secondary schools in Cambridgeshire should continue to offer equality of opportunity to all Year 7 pupils, without entry by academic selection.

c)     to write to the secretary of state for education, expressing these concerns.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 22 votes to 13.

 

Resolved (by 35 votes to 0) that:

 

This council notes that Cambridge has a strong and long-standing tradition of comprehensive schools with powerful local community links.  

 

Council notes with concern the announcement by the Prime Minister of her intention to allow a significant increase in academic selection at aged 11.

 

Council calls upon the Leader of the Council to write to the Leader of the County Council and Dr Tim Coulson, Regional Schools Commissioner for the East of England to:

 

a)    remind them of the compelling research evidence that selection at 11 does not raise academic standards for the majority of young people, is counter-productive in terms of student personal morale and well-being and is socially divisive, and that there is also evidence that young people from less affluent backgrounds are particularly disadvantaged.

b)    ask them to seek formal and informal engagement, on an all-party basis, with school governing bodies and head teachers to encourage consensus that all secondary schools in Cambridgeshire should continue to offer equality of opportunity to all Year 7 pupils, without entry by academic selection.

c)     to write to the secretary of state for education, expressing these concerns.

The Leader of the Council made changes to executive councillor portfolios which came into effect on 19 September 2016 and Members of the Council were advised.  Members were also advised that the Leader of the Council requested that the changes be reported to Council to answer any questions or for Member comment.

 

The Leader of the Council explained the changes to portfolios included on the agenda for information.

 

No written questions had been received.

Members were asked to note the urgent decision included on the agenda.