Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meetings held on 25 October 2012 and 9 January 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

1.      APOLOGIES

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Abbott, Hart and Kerr.

 

 

2.          AUDIO EQUIPMENT

 

The Mayor alerted members to a minor issue that had been identified with the linkages between the microphones in the Council Chamber. Members were asked to be mindful of this when using the microphones.

 

 

3.           PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF THANKS TO IAN NIMMO-SMITH

 

The Mayor presented former Councillor Ian Nimmo-Smith with a framed copy of the Council's ‘Resolution of Thanks’ for his year of mayoralty.

 

 

4.           FUND RAISING

 

The Mayor thanked Councillors who supported the fund raising event held on 4^th December for the Cambridge Women’s Resources Centre.  A total of £1,500 was raised.

 

The Mayors second charity – the Cambridge City Foodbank – had held a fund raising event on 6^th February. Again Councillors were thanked for their support and a total of £4,385.19 was raised.

 

It was noted that the Mayor had offered one of her free uses of the Halls to Great St. Mary’s Church in order that they could hold a concert on Friday, 8^th February. The City Council had a very long association with Great St. Mary’s and many of its civic services were held there. A development programme was being undertaken at Great St. Mary’s to enable it to continue its community work in the future and the concert had been held to raise money for its appeal fund.

 

5.          HONORARY FREEDOM TO THE CITY OF SZEGED

 

At an Extraordinary Meeting of the City Council held on Thursday, 20^th October 2011, it was agreed to award the honorary freedom to the City of Szeged.

 

The Mayor confirmed that the Mayor of Szeged would be visiting Cambridge during the period 22^nd to 24^th March and a civic reception would take place on Saturday, 23^rd March. At this reception the freedom scroll and casket would be presented.

 

Councillors had received invitations and the Mayor hoped that they would support this occasion.

 

6.          VISIT TO THE CITY BY THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE

 

The Mayor placed on record the enormous pleasure it gave her and the Deputy Mayor to host the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge during their visit to the Guildhall on 28^th November 2012. 

 

It was the Royal couple’s first official visit to the City and huge crowds welcomed them. The Mayor thanked those Councillors that were able to attend.

 

7.          DECLARATION OF INTEREST

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Rosenstiel	13/9b/CNL	Personal: Tenant of a Council owned garage
Smith	13/10b/CNL	Personal: Trustee of Cambridge Arts Theatre

A petition has been received containing over 500 valid signatures stating the following:

 

‘We, the undersigned residents of Cambridge support a City Bye-Law that bans the possession, sale and consumption of shark fins within our City.’

 

The petition organiser will be given 5 minutes to present the petition at the meeting and the petition will then be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes. The Council will then decided how to respond to the petition.  

A petition had been received containing over 500 valid signatures stating the following:

 

‘We, the undersigned residents of Cambridge support a City Bye-Law that bans the possession, sale and consumption of shark fins within our City.’

 

Louise Ruddell and Teale Phelps Bondaroff presented and spoke in support of the petition.

 

The following points were made:

 

        i.            3595 signatures had been collected in support of the petition.

      ii.            Sharks are an essential part of the eco-system and a third of all shark species are under threat of extinction

    iii.            The main threat to sharks include commercial fishing, sport fishing but most of all shark finning

   iv.            Shark finning is a multi-million pound industry that results in as many as 73 million sharks being killed each year. 

     v.            The main market for this industry is shark fin soup. Shark fin soup has no nutritional value or significant taste and is purchased and served purely as a ‘prestige’ dish.

   vi.            Shark fin has been proven to be harmful for human consumption.

 vii.             Despite being banned by the European Union, the UK ranks 19^th in the world for the export of shark fin.

viii.            Suggest a slight change to the Motion, making the resolution apply to both shark fins, sharks and other shark products.

   ix.             We are proud to have cross-party support of this petition.

     x.            If agreed, Cambridge will be the first City in the UK to pass such a Motion concerning shark fin.

   xi.            Thanked ‘Lush Cambridge’ for their support and assistance.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services thanked the petitioners for bringing this issue to the attention of the Council. It was acknowledged that shark finning was a cruel trade and that shark fin was harmful for human consumption.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor used her discretion to alter the order of the agenda to take item 10a next. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the published agenda.

 

 

None  

Resolved (by 19 votes to 0 to: 

 

Approve the revised Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators as set out in Appendix 4 of the officer’s report, incorporating changes as detailed in section 11 of the officer’s report.

HRA Budget Setting Report 2013/14 – attached separately

Resolved (by 19 votes to 0) to:

Housing Capital

 

        i.            Approve the capital bids, including resource to re-roof HRA commercial property in Campkin Road and funding to meet the relocation costs of existing residents in housing in Water Lane and Aylesborough Close (subject to approval that the schemes proceed, as shown in Appendix H of the HRA Budget Setting Report.)

 

      ii.            Approve re-phasing of both the expenditure, and external funding, in respect of the new build affordable housing programme, in line with scheme specific approvals and anticipated cash flows.

 

    iii.            Approve the virement of £40,000 of resource from the communal area uplift allocation, where work is still being done to produce full stock condition data, to the budget for work to HRA commercial property, to facilitate the conversion of ECCHO House to a two-bedroom dwelling for social housing purposes at a total cost of £95,000, as detailed in the project appraisal at Appendix P, and the Housing Capital Investment Plan at Appendix N of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

   iv.            Approve a reduction of £80,000 in each of the Disabled Facilities Grant and Private Sector Housing Grants and Loans budgets in 2012/13 due to a combination of reduced demand, coupled with a temporary reduction in activity by the new Shared Home Improvement Agency whilst the service was set up. Permission is sought to re-profile this resource to 2017/18, the end of the current funding period, from which point future funding for this area of investment is at risk. 

 

     v.            Approve the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix N of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

   vi.            Approve a provisional addition to the Housing Capital Allowance of £25,358,000 in respect of anticipated qualifying expenditure in 2013/14.

To follow 

The Executive Amendment was circulated around the Chamber.

The Executive presented its budget recommendations as set out in the Council Agenda and on the amendment sheet circulated around the Chamber. 

 

Councillor Herbert presented the Labour Group’s alternative budget as set out in the Council Agenda and on the amendment sheet circulated around the Chamber. 

 

Councillor Hipkin Budget Statement

 

Councillor Hipkin presented a short budget statement.

 

Labour Group Alternative Budget Amendment

 

Under the Council’s budget procedure, the Labour Group’s alternative budget was deemed to have been moved and seconded as an amendment.

 

On a show of hands the Labour Group’s alternative budget amendment was lost by 17 votes to 20.

 

In accordance with the Council’s budget procedure, Councillor Herbert moved separately the following proposals, which formed part of the Labour Group alternative budget:: 

 

Reference	Details
LR1	Create new ‘Reduce the Strength’ Licensing Officer – initial two year trial

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 17 votes to 20

 

 

Reference	Details
LR4	Set up a ‘Clean it up’ Campaign to cut dog mess incorporating making dog warden full time

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 17 votes to 20

 

 

Reference	Details
LR8	Enforce County Council obligations, plus fund work to fix other priority damaged pavements, paving and cycleway problems reported by public as ‘the worst in Cambridge’

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 17 votes to 20

 

 

Reference	Details
LR3	Restore a full time Cycling Officer

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 18 votes to 20

 

 

Reference	Details
LR5	Benefit training for a further 25%of frontline staff and key staff in Cambridge voluntary organisations

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 16 votes to 20

 

 

Reference	Details
LR2	‘Collective Power’ Energy Purchasing Co-operative – development costs

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 19 votes to 20

 

Unless otherwise stated, all references in the recommendations to sections, pages and appendices relate to Version 3 of the Budget Setting Report (BSR).

 

This can be found via:

 

http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1131&ID=1131&RPID=42092714&sch=doc&cat=13042&path=13020%2c13021%2c13042

 

 

RESOLVED (by 20 votes to 0) to agree the Executive’s budget proposals:

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets:

 

[Section 4, page 45 refers]

 

Budget 2012/13:

                                    

a)     Approved, with any amendments, the revised budget items shown in Appendix D.

 

b)     Approved, with any amendments, the Non Cash-Limit budget items for 2012/13 as shown in Appendix E.

 

c)      Approved, with any amendments, the overall revised budget for 2012/13 for the General Fund, as shown in Section 4 [page 45 refers] and Appendix G(a), with net spending at £22,536,390.

 

Budget 2013/14:

 

d)     Agreed any recommendations for submission to the Executive in respect of:

 

·        Bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds as shown in Appendix H.

 

·        Non Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix E.

 

·        Revenue Savings and Bids as shown in Appendix F. 

 

·        Priority Policy Fund (PPF) Bids as shown in Appendix I(b) – based on the position as outlined in Section 4 [page 45 refers].

 

·        New: approve the overall base budget for 2013/14, with net spending at £18,498,800, as shown in Appendix G (a) and funding as shown in Appendix G (b).

 

e)     Noted the Council Tax taxbase, as set out in Appendix C (a), as calculated and determined by the Director of Resources under delegated authority.

 

f)        Agreed the level of Council Tax for 2013/14 as set out in Section 3, page 44 refers.

 

Noted that the table in the Council Tax Setting Appendix C(b) has been updated for the 2013/14 precept notifications which have been received from the precepting bodies (Cambridgeshire County Council, the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Commissioner and Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority). 

 

Treasury Management:

 

g)     Approved: 

 

                                i.            the Prudential Indicators as set out in Appendix P(a) and to confirm that the Authorised Limit for external borrowing  determined for 2013/14 will be the statutory limit determined under section 3 of the Local Government Act 2003,

 

                              ii.            to delegate to the Director of Resources, within the borrowing totals for any financial year within (i) above, to effect movement between the separately agreed figures for ‘borrowing’ and ‘other long term liabilities’,

 

                            iii.            the Treasury Management Annual Borrowing and Investment Strategies set out in Appendices  P(b) and P(c) , and

 

                           iv.            the Council’s Counterparty List shown in Appendix P(c), Annex 3.

 

Other Revenue:

 

h)      Delegated to the Director of Resources authority to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

 

Capital: [Section 5, page 53 refers]

 

Capital & Revenue Projects Plan: [section 5, page 50]

 

i)        Approved project appraisals that have been referred by Executive Councillors and agree inclusion in the Capital & Revenue Projects Plan of any new items and to note any additional funding for revised schemes approved  by Executive Councillors (as amended at the Executive 24 January 2013): to include the following specific items for approval:

 

(i)                Project appraisals that have been referred by Executive Councillors:

                                                                         i.      Arts Sport & Public Places

1.    Corn Exchange Improvements – Exterior & Entrance Lobby (as separate agenda item 13)

2.    Corn Exchange - Improvements to heating management system as separate agenda item 14)

                                                                       ii.      Environmental & Waste Services

1.    Bins for New Developments

2.    In Cab Technology – Full Roll Out

3.    Vehicle Replacement Programme 2013/14

 

(ii)             The removal from the Revenue & Projects Capital Plan of the following capital schemes or programmes:

                                                                         i.      Arts, Sport & Public Places

1.    SC499 – Outdoor Fitness Equipment

2.    SC514 – Petersfield Play Area Equipment

                                                                       ii.      Planning & Climate Change

1.    PR019 – Car Parks Infrastructure & Equipment Replacement Programme

 

(iii)           To set up eight new capital programmes and associated remits within the following portfolios:

                                                                         i.      Arts, Sport & Public Places

1.    Replacement of Parks & Open Space Litter & Waste Bins

2.    City-wide Developer Contribution Funds

3.    Area Committee (East) Developer Contribution Funds

4.    Area Committee (North) Developer Contribution Funds

5.    Area Committee (South) Developer Contribution

6.    Area Committee (West/Central) Developer Contribution Funds

                                                                       ii.      Environmental & Waste Services

1.    Purchase of Bins for New Developments

2.    Litter Bin Replacement Programme

 

(iv)           To delete the following schemes from the Hold List within the Arts Sport & Public Places portfolio, being items that are now subsumed within the new Area Committee Programmes above:

                                                                         i.      Logan’s Meadow Local Nature Reserve extension

                                                                       ii.      Paradise Local Nature Reserve improvements

 

(v)             To amend the budgets in respect of the following projects within the Capital & Revenue Projects Plan:

                                                                         i.      Community Development & Health portfolio

1.    Capital bid C3176 - Clay Farm Community Centre - Phase 2 (Construction) from £6,750,000 to £7,711,000 to reflect the full estimated costs, the increase to be funded from external sources

                                                                       ii.      Planning & Climate Change portfolio

1.    existing scheme SC557 – Grand Arcade Annex Car Park – Drainage Gullies from £26,000 to £52,000 to reflect a known increase of costs, the increase to funded from Repairs & Renewals funds

 

j)        Agreed any recommendations to the Executive in respect of the bids outlined in Appendix L for approval to include in the Capital Plan, or put on the Hold List, including any additional use of reserves required.

k)      Agreed the revised Capital & Revenue Projects Plan as set out in Appendix J, the Hold list set out in Appendix M, and the Funding as set out in Appendix N for the General Fund.

 

Note that the Appendices will be updated in subsequent versions to incorporate approved rephasing, new bids and the above recommendations.

 

General Fund Reserves:

 

l)        Noted the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to:

 

                                                  i.            support the 2012/13 budget

                                                ii.            support the 2013/14 and future years budgets.

 

as set out in Appendix G(c).

 

Other:

 

m)               (as amended at the Executive 24 January 2013 and updated at Council 21 February 2013): to include the final Appendix T – Section 25 Report (2013/14 Budget Process) - Robustness of Estimates and Adequacy of Reserves, within the body of Budget Setting Report February 2013.

 

n)                  (as amended at the Executive 24 January 2013): to replace the existing table for Council Tax Earmarked for Growth in Appendix B (page 83) with the following version:

 

 

 

 

o)                 Authorised the Director of Resources to make necessary changes to the Budget Setting Report 2013/14 to reflect the Local Government Finance Settlement 2013/14 announcement made on 4 February 2013, additional grant determinations and their impact on the level of the General Fund Reserve.

Resolved (unanimously) that:

The current Members Allowances Scheme continue for the 2013/14 municipal year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resolved (by 20 votes to 0) to:

 

 Amend the Constitution as follows:

 

1.      Amend the first paragraph of Section 9.3.1 of Part 3 by the insertion of the words shown in bold italics:

 

Subject to Section 9.3.1A, in the case of new capital schemes, the following approvals (together with approval to the necessary budget provision) must be obtained before any scheme may proceed. 

 

2.  Add new section 9.3.1A to Part 3:

 

In the case of new capital schemes, responsibility for which has been delegated to Area Committees by the Executive, the following approvals (together with approval to the necessary budget provision) must be obtained before any scheme may proceed.

 

•        For schemes where the estimated cost is £15,000 and below: once included in the Area Committee’s programme, may proceed without further committee consideration, provided that relevant Ward Councillors provided that relevant Ward Councillors are always consulted.

 

•        For schemes where the estimated total cost is over £15,000 and up to £75,000: a capital project appraisal and procurement report proforma must be completed and referred to the relevant Area Committee Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokes for approval. The schemes may then proceed without Area Committee consideration, provided relevant Ward Councillors provided that relevant Ward Councillors are always consulted.

 

•        For schemes where the estimated total cost is over £75,000: a capital project appraisal and procurement report pro-forma must be completed for consideration and approval by the relevant Area Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note:

For ease of reference, the Pay Policy Statement at Appendix 1 of the attached committee report is a final version incorporating the proposals relating to the Living Wage as recommended by the Civic Affairs Committee.

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

        i.            Approve the Living Wage proposals as part of the Pay Policy Statement 2013/14.

 

      ii.            Approve the Pay Policy Statement 2013/14, with the inclusion of proposals relating to the Living Wage as recommended by the Civic Affairs Committee.

 

    iii.            Note the request for a briefing note on the options for extending the period between redundancy and re-engagement within the public sector, which would require repayment of redundancy payments.

 

   iv.            Note the request for a report on the scope for further measures to discourage tax avoidance arising from the employment of consultants through companies. 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

i.                    Agree the charges for 2013/14 listed in the appendix 1 of the committee report.

 

ii.                  Agree that no charge is levied for caravan site licence and campsites (appendix 2 of the committee report.)

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

        i.            Appoint Sean Brady as the Council’s Independent Person. 

 

      ii.            Appoint Robert Bennett as the Council’s Deputy Independent Person.

 

 

1.           Councillor Blackhurst to the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health  

 

What has been achieved by the Local Health Partnership for Cambridge since its formation?

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health responded that the new Local Health Partnership covering Cambridge allowed the Council and its partners, including representatives of the two local GP clusters covering Cambridge (CAM Health and CATCH), the voluntary sector, public health and adult social care to have a greater say in how local services would be planned and delivered. 

 

It was important that the voice of Cambridge be heard loud and clear in the new Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB), which would have a pivotal role in underpinning the development of local commissioning plans, particularly around integrated care and influencing the wider determinants of health. The main vehicle for this was the delivery of its Health and Wellbeing Strategy and the preparation of Joint Strategic Needs Assessments. This strategy sets out a number of priority areas for Cambridgeshire and officers were now preparing action plans to deliver better public health and social care outcomes through improved partnership working.

 

It was confirmed that so far the partnership had met three times. It had agreed terms of reference, setting out a vision for what it wanted to achieve for the citizens of Cambridge and responded to the HWB's consultation about the public health priorities for Cambridgeshire, clearly stating the local priorities for Cambridge, which included addressing the presence of health inequalities in the city, homelessness, alcohol related harm, preventing mental health deterioration, reducing smoking and promoting physical activity.

 

This response, and those of others, had meant that the strategy had been improved to recognise these needs more clearly.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the partnership had also been looking at how service users and the public can hold the bodies delivering health and social care services to account and was taking an overview of how the review of local mental health services and their commissioning was progressing. This represents local priorities, rather than County wide ones.

 

More excitingly the partnership had started to look at how it could work together to improve health outcomes. It had identified issues around housing and health where the City Council and GPs could work better together. The partnership provided GPs with a clear and simple single point of contact to which they can report health issues caused by housing without having to identify the nature of tenure. The Council could then act either in City Homes, or Environmental Health or otherwise. This would make it easier for GPs to deal with issues that can be the cause of multiple health problems, and directly addresses an issue they raised with us at the partnership. Whilst there was still work to be done, the benefits of partnership working were clear.

 

For a new body that had only recently started the Executive Councillor was pleased that it had managed to achieve something that would have real benefits.

 

2.          Councillor Johnson to the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport, and Public Places 

 

The most recent [2009] City Council Review of Allotment Provision detailed that the designation of an allotment site as Statutory or Temporary was very significant as only with a statutory designation must consent be sought from the Secretary of State for the sale of allotment land together with a requirement to show adequate alternative provision. However the review failed to establish the designation of most allotments sites in the City and this could lead to some being at risk of redevelopment. 

 

Will the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport, and Public Places undertake to ensure all allotments in Cambridge are given statutory status where, as suggested by the government and national allotment societies, they have been used as allotment land for over 30 years and are currently well used and not derelict?

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport, and Public Places responded that, especially in a time of increasing food prices, the City Council was commitment to the provision of allotments. Last years Capital Bid had resulted in 17 new plots being established at Kendal Way and increased capacity was being investigated at Empty Common.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that he would be happy to investigate with officers the designation of allotments on a statutory basis.  

 

3.          Councillor Saunders to the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places  

 

Following the petition tabled at the Community Services Scrutiny Committee by the Friends of Coldhams Common regarding grazing on the common could the Executive Councillor indicate what action has been taken following the meeting?  

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places responded that he had met with the Friends of Coldhams Common and officers to explore the issues and, as a result, a section of unsafe fencing had been removed.

 

It was noted that further proposals were being drawn up and would be consulted on after the Environmental Study in May/June.

 

4.          Councillor Owers to the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health

 

In your view, are community development resources, particularly in terms of Council community centres and the allocation of staff hours, justly distributed around the city in geographical terms? 

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health responded that the allocation of community development resources would be brought to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in March and there would be an opportunity to re-examine the strategy. Whilst it was appropriate to scrutinise how resources were allocated, it was more appropriate to do this via a committee rather than as an oral question slot.

 

However the Executive Councillor believed that community development officers did a good job of reflecting the strategy that the Council had set, and that the strategy reflected the needs of the city.

 

The strategy reflected the wider aims of the Council and in brief there were three main priorities: supporting the vulnerable, such as those in danger of economic or other exclusion; building community relationships, often project work with groups to help foster community; and supporting the creation of viable and lasting communities in growth areas.

 

The Executive Councillor hoped that everyone agreed that these were reasonable aims.

It was noted that the location of existing centres reflected the priorities when they were built.

 

Currently they were mostly located in the north of the City, or in the case of the Meadows just outside the north of the city. The centres were mostly located in Arbury, King’s Hedges and East Chesterton. There was also a pavilion in Trumpington and Ross Street in Romsey. The first three of these wards were three of the top four wards (1, 3 and 4) in the city in terms of the ranking by index of multiple deprivation. Trumpington and Romsey were fifth and sixth. This seemed a reasonable, if not perfect match to one of our aims of helping the vulnerable in terms of deprivation or economic exclusion.

 

However this did not reflect the location of all community facilities within the city, as the City Council was not the only provider. As an example the County provide the East Barnwell centre in Abbey, which was the missing ward from the top four, and the City Council provided the capital funding to provide community facilities on the Abbey Meadows school site back in the early 1980s.

 

There was a list of known facilities of varying sizes in Cambridge, and by ward this varied from three in Castle and 5 in Newnham, up to 27 in Petersfield. This information was taken from the 2012 list prepared by the Cambridge Council for Voluntary Service and the Executive Councillor appreciated that things would have changed since it was published.

 

As the questioner was from Coleridge the Executive Councillor confirmed that he had identified 11 facilities, one below the median of 12. A look at the allocation of community facility developer contributions showed a wider pattern over the city, and Councillor Owers was reminded that Coleridge had received £355,000 of allocations, committed or spent in the last three years, placing it top of the allocation by ward.

 

It was noted that this excluded the major growth site facilities. In comparison the Executive Councillors own ward had received, in round terms, nothing.  One of five such wards.

 

It was also noted that, obviously these facilities were not all suitable for all uses, and the list of facilities may not be exhaustive.

 

5.          Councillor Benstead to the Leader of the Council   

 

The English Defence League have again chosen Cambridge for a demonstration. What message would the Leader of the Council like to give to them, and to the thousands of Cambridge residents who, like me, will be taking to the streets to oppose them?

 

The Leader responded that among the greatest things about Cambridge was its diversity, its pride and respect for that diversity, its liberal and tolerant values and its love if freedom of speech. Long may all of these continue. It was noted that anyone who was out to overturn them should not expect any kind of welcome from the overwhelming majority of the people of the city. The Leader asked that all demonstrations were peaceful.

 

6.          Councillor Pitt to the Executive Councillor for Art, Sport and Public Places

 

What chance is there of a plaque or notice on the Snowy memorial?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that officers were currently exploring the location, size and shape of the proposed plaque. It was confirmed that the sign would include braille.

 

7.          Councillor Reiner to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change  

 

Could the Executive Councillor please update us on the progress that has been made on cycle parking in the city?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the project initiation report would be brought to the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 12 March.

There were two parts to the project, installing on-street bike parking spaces, and searching for a location for a third undercover bike park.

Detailed design work and consultation remains to be done but officers had so far found possible locations for 770 new parking spaces for bikes in the city centre. These may not all be deliverable for a variety of reasons, and during the consultation process other possible locations might be suggested.

On 12 March the Environment Scrutiny Committee would have a list of suggestions to be investigated, not yet a definitive list of sites.

It was noted that four possible sites for the third undercover bike park had been identified, and further feasibility work would be carried out before any recommendation is brought to committee.

The Executive Councillor confirmed that a full range of consultation exercises with the various stakeholders would take place. In particular, the project would be taken to the West/Central Area Committee, with the consent of the chair of course, so that local residents and stakeholders could discuss the project and provide input to ensure that the propose cycle racks and cycle park locations are where residents and cyclists would want them to be.

 

8.          Councillor Herbert to the Leader of the Council

 

On the £2.3 million budget error, what did he mean when he was reported by the BBC as saying that the blame appeared to lie entirely with the council's own officers?

 

The Leader responded that his comments had been made in response to Phase 1 of the audit findings, which had identified data input as the likely cause of the error.

 

Phase 2 had subsequently confirmed data input as the source of the error and the Leader confirmed that this part of the finance process was undertaken by officers, and not Councillors.

 

9.          Councillor Price to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources 

 

As a result of the recent changes to benefits, some London Councils are planning to move as many as 700 families each that are affected by the cuts to areas as far away as 200 miles. What is Cambridge City Council doing to avoid such a process happening here and assist people to remain in their ‘Cambridge’ homes? And, how will it stop ‘London’ also using Cambridge as a solution?

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded that in Cambridge, market rents were far out of line with local housing allowance rates.

 

The averages across all postcodes analysed were noted as: :

 

·        Shared: Local housing allowance rate short by approx £120.00 per month

 

·        1-beds: Local housing allowance rate short by approx £250.00 per month

 

·        2-beds: Local housing allowance rate short by approx £350.00 per month

 

·        3-beds: Local housing allowance rate short by approx £420.00 per month

 

·        4-beds: Local housing allowance rate short by approx £600.00-£700.00 per month

 

It was noted that the figures did, however, suggest that London authorities were unlikely to target Cambridge as an area to resettle those affected by the benefits cap, as it would be an extremely expensive option for them.

 

The benefits cap was due to be introduced from April 2013, but this had been delayed and was being piloted in four London boroughs, being rolled out to other Local Authorities including Cambridge, by September 2013.

 

It was noted that there would be a number of ways that claimants affected by the cap may react to having their Housing Benefit reduced by the benefit cap. The government intention is that the majority would move into work and so become exempt from the cap.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the Council had contacted those affected by the cap to explain the changes and to provide support. As a result the Council had seen at least 3 of the current 24 households either finding work or increasing their hours worked to avoid being affected by the cap.

 

Additional Discretionary Housing Payment had been made available to Local Authorities and this could be used to cover a variety of shortfalls in rent, including the benefits cap and other changes to benefits. Cambridge’s total 2013/14 DHP government contribution was £182,340 (2012/13 contribution was £64,580).

 

It was confirmed that officers would be carefully monitoring demand and capacity to meet shortfalls in rent as a result of the changes.

This Council notes that:

 

a)     there are allegations that shark fins are served in four restaurants in Cambridge,

b)    many species of shark are already at risk of extinction,

c)     the trade in shark fins is further threatening shark populations,

d)    in October 2009 the UK banned shark finning,

e)     The EU resolved on 23 November 2012 to outlaw shark finning on all EU fishing vessels, and

f)      earlier this year Cambridge MP Julian Huppert tabled an Early Day Motion calling for a ban in the trade of shark fins.

 

This Council:

 

-         is opposed to the practice of shark ‘finning', which leads to thousands of sharks being killed or left to die in pain, solely for their fins; and

 

-         notes that it has no realistic prospect of establishing a local by-law to bring full force to its opposition to the trade of shark fins.

 

To those ends, this Council resolves:

 

a)     to write to the MPs who represent Cambridge in Westminster, and the Eastern Region’s MEP’s  to call on them to strengthen the ban on the practice of shark finning, and to work towards a ban on trade in shark fins; and

b)    to urge businesses and individuals in Cambridge to end the sale of shark fins and shark fin products and confirms that it will not knowingly purchase shark fin products for Council-provided catering.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Gawthrope proposed and Councillor Reiner seconded the following motion:

 

This Council notes that:

 

a)     there are allegations that shark fins are served in four restaurants in Cambridge,

b)    many species of shark are already at risk of extinction,

c)     the trade in shark fins is further threatening shark populations,

d)    in October 2009 the UK banned shark finning,

e)     The EU resolved on 23 November 2012 to outlaw shark finning on all EU fishing vessels, and

f)      earlier this year Cambridge MP Julian Huppert tabled an Early Day Motion calling for a ban in the trade of shark fins.

 

This Council:

 

-         is opposed to the practice of shark ‘finning', which leads to thousands of sharks being killed or left to die in pain, solely for their fins; and

 

-         notes that it has no realistic prospect of establishing a local by-law to bring full force to its opposition to the trade of shark fins.

 

To those ends, this Council resolves:

 

a)     to write to the MPs who represent Cambridge in Westminster, and the Eastern Region’s MEP’s  to call on them to strengthen the ban on the practice of shark finning, and to work towards a ban on trade in shark fins; and

b)    to urge businesses and individuals in Cambridge to end the sale of shark fins and shark fin products and confirms that it will not knowingly purchase shark fin products for Council-provided catering.

 

 Resolved (by 38 votes to 0) that the motion be agreed as set out above.

No discussion will take place on this item. Members will be asked to note the written questions and answers document as circulated around the Chamber.

 

Members noted the written questions and answers circulated around the Chamber.