Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the 20 October and 22 November 2016 were confirmed as correct records and signed by the Mayor.

 

 

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Robertson	17/4/CNL	Personal: Is a member of Cam Conservators
Councillor Avery	17/5/CNLa	Personal: Rents a garage from the Council
Councillor O’Connell	17/5/CNLa	Personal: Rents a garage from the Council
Councillor Roberts	17/7/CNL	Personal: Employee of the six University of Cambridge colleges as 'undergraduate supervisor'. The six colleges may have contacted the council about elements of the Local Plan (or be impacted by it).   Did not participate in the debate or decision.
Councillor Sargeant	17/7/CNL	Personal: Language students stay with him. [Ref Local Plan Examination - Modifications for Student Accommodation].
Councillor Sarris	17/7/CNL	Personal: Employee of the University of Cambridge.   Left the meeting and did not participate in the debate or decision.
Councillor Cantrill	17/9/CNL	Personal: Candidate in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mayoral election.
Councillor Price	17/9/CNL	Personal: Candidate in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mayoral election.
Councillor Cantrill	17/9/CNL	Personal: Trustee of Winter Comfort.
Councillor Johnson	17/11/CNL	Personal: The two motions referred to his employer (Daniel Zeichner MP).
Councillor Roberts	17/11/CNL	Personal: The two motions referred to his employer (Daniel Zeichner MP).

 

Apologies received from Councillor Dryden, Gehring, Hipkin, Holland and Perry.

 

Mayor’s Quiz

The Mayor thanked all staff and councillors who attended the Mayor’s quiz on Thursday 2 February. He welcomed back Robert Osborne as Quiz Master and reported a great evening was had by all.  A total of £1,130 was raised for the two Mayor’s charities, of which, £300 was raised on the night through very generous donations.

 

Last week, Romsey Mill held its own charity night in the Guildhall and raised a further £2,000 – they had a great night and really appreciated the support and opportunity to use these facilities to host their night.

 

The Mayor would attend the Rotary Club’s quiz night on Thursday 2 March and invited two councillors to join his team.

 

YMCA Sleep Out Event

The Mayor would be attending the YMCA Sleep Out event Friday 3 March – the aim was to raise awareness of the growing problem of homelessness and to raise money which would go directly to local YMCA accommodation services to help homeless young people.  He invited councillors to contact Lucy Milazzo for further information if they would like to join the Mayor at this event.

 

Szeged 30^th Anniversary

This year, the Council marked the 30^th anniversary of twinning with Szeged.  The Mayor of Szeged and a small delegation would be invited to Cambridge on the weekend of 7-9 July.  Details were being firmed up but invitations would be sent to all Councillors to join the Mayors to mark this occasion. 

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.    Anthony Carpen raised the following points:

·       Raised concern regarding air quality in the city.

·       Poor air quality adversely affected statues.

·       Queried what legal powers the city council had, and what legal duties the city council had regarding poor air quality in Cambridge. In particular, under what circumstances the law gives the council the right to take action on air quality, and also under what circumstances the law *compels* the council to take action (to the extent that legal action could be taken against it if it did not act).

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre responded:

       i.          Under air quality legislation the City Council had a responsibility to take all necessary measures to improve air quality.

     ii.          The City Council declared an Air Quality Management Area in 2004 which was still in force.

   iii.          The City Council and neighbouring authorities put a joint plan into effect in 2007.

   iv.          New guidance on the Air Quality Local Management Plan came into effect in 2016.

    v.          The City Council has a duty to monitor and report on air quality to Central Government on an annual basis. Also to work with other organisations to improve air quality. Mechanisms to control air quality were the responsibility of other organisations.

   vi.          The County Council could use the Transport Act 2000 to control air quality.

 vii.          The Secretary of State has overall responsibility for air quality.

viii.          The City Council has met all responsibilities to monitor and report on air quality since 1999.

   ix.          Actions taken by the City Council to improve air quality:

·       Worked with the taxi trade to reduce emissions eg reviewing size of engines.

·       Working with Addenbrooke’s, City Deal, County Council and Stagecoach.

·       Working with neighbouring authorities on joint taxi policies.

·       Seeking European Union funding to get electric/hybrid fleet vehicles. The Council currently had 9.

    x.          City Council actions had been constrained as it had to work with other organisations who may have other objectives; and because it was not a unitary authority.

 

2.    Kelley Green raised the following points:

       i.          Raised concern about the possible closure of Chesterton Medical Centre and relocation of the service from the north of the city to Addenbrooke’s Hospital.

     ii.          Took issue with the consultation and possible closure of Chesterton Medical Centre. The impact on residents did not appear to have been taken into consideration.

   iii.          Asked the City Council to contact Health Watch and request the consultation be stopped.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities responded:

       i.          The City Council wished to help residents as a community leader.

     ii.          The relocation of the service appeared to have a negative impact on residents.

   iii.          Nationally Accident and Emergency Departments experienced difficulties due to pressure on services.

   iv.          Ward Councillors would continue to campaign to keep the service in Chesterton.

    v.          The Executive Councillor for Communities would be happy to raise Ms Green's concerns with Healthwatch and also formally write to the Chair of the County Council Health Committee. His letter would ask the Health Committee to consider requesting to the CCG they re-run the consultation if councillors were agreed that there were deficiencies with the consultation process. Cambridge City Council did not have the power to stop the consultation.

 

3.    Amy Tillson raised the following points:

       i.          Understood that an amendment has been tabled to the Council budget to restrict mooring fee increases to 2% per year (in line with other public fees that the Council charges). This amendment has the support of Camboaters Community Association.

     ii.          Stated residential boaters on the Cam already made a large net contribution to Council budgets over and above the cost of the very limited services and facilities that were provided to boaters. It was unreasonable to ask boaters to make an even larger net contribution. For many boaters significantly increased fees would cause real financial hardship, and it was extremely difficult to plan and budget for the future without certainty that future fee increases would be fair and moderate.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded:

       i.          Referred to discussions at the recent Strategy and Resources Committee.

     ii.          It was too early to make a decision as the consultation process was on-going.

Resolved (by 25 votes to 0) to:

 

Treasury Management

 

       i.          Request that, in 2017/18, officers conclude a review of the existing approach to treasury management, which requires 25% of the value of the housing debt to be set-aside by the point at which the loan portfolio matures. The review will consider the risks associated with a recommendation to fully re-finance the loan portfolio, against the potential financial benefit to the business plan in the shorter term of investing the resource in income generating assets. A separate report will be brought back to Housing Scrutiny Committee in 2017/18 following this review.

 

Housing Capital

     ii.          Approve capital bids, shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, to include balcony works at Kings Hedges and Arbury, additional investment in Disabled Facilities Grants, and replacement of the existing housing management information system, where the cost of the latter will be met from an existing repair and renewals fund for IT services.

   iii.          Approve the transfer of budgets for smoke detectors, fencing and third party professional fees from capital to revenue, recognising the work being carried out in these areas in the future.

   iv.          Approve the latest Decent Homes Programme, to include updated allocation of decent homes expenditure for new build dwellings, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

    v.          Approve the re-profiling of budget totalling £954,000 for the new build schemes at Water Lane, Hawkins Road and Fulbourn Road, where completion of dwellings is now anticipated in 2017/18, as detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

   vi.          Incorporate into the Housing Capital Investment Plan the anticipated grant of £14,000,000 per annum for 5 years, in respect of devolution funding to assist in the delivery of 500 new affordable homes in the city.

 vii.          Approve a £20,000,000 per annum, new build programme, for 5 years beginning in April 2017, recognising that devolution ha been approved, that the authority will receive a grant of £14,000,000 per annum towards the delivery of new affordable homes and will utilise retained right to buy receipts and HRA resources to meet the balance of funding required. This programme would replace the previous RTB New Build Programme and the assumption that the authority may need to provide grants to registered providers when sufficient resource were no longer available to top up retained right to buy receipts.

viii.          Approve to earmark additional resource of £1,740,000 towards the cost of the re-provision of the existing 23 socially rented homes at Anstey Way, allowing a revised scheme to be brought forward, with any additionality on the site being funded from the devolution programme, using devolution grant and retained right to buy receipts.

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

 

General

    x.          Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make the necessary detailed budgetary adjustments in the HRA, in respect of savings approved as part of the HRA Budget Setting Report, following the outcome of consultation with both tenants and staff about proposed service changes and resulting final savings.

   xi.          Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to approve an in year increase in the budget for disabled facilities grants, in direct relation to any increase in the capital grant funding for this purpose, as received from the County Council through the Better Care Fund.

 xii.          Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make the necessary detailed budgetary adjustments in the HRA, to reflect the impact of the triennial valuation of the Cambridgeshire Local Government Pension Scheme.

xiii.          Approve delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down resource from the ear-marked reserve for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the purpose of open market property acquisition or new build housing development, should the need arise, in order to meet quarterly deadlines for the use of retained right to buy receipts.

Resolved (unanimously) to approve:

       i.          The Annual Borrowing Statement at para 4, the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy at para 5 and the Council’s Annual Investment Strategy as contained in paras 8 and 9 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          An amendment to the counterparty list to include a Cambridge City Council Housing Working Capital Loan Facility classified type: non specified investment with a recommended limit of £200,000.

   iii.          Changes to the estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 16/17 to 19/20 inclusive as set out in appendix c of the Officer’s report.

The Executive presented its budget recommendations as set out in the Council agenda and information pack.

 

Councillor Bick and Liberal Democrat Group members presented the Liberal Democrat Group’s alternative budget as set out on the Council agenda.

 

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

 

On a show of hands the Liberal Democrat Group’s alternative budget amendment was lost by:

 

13 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gillespie, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 22 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

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

 

Reference	Details
B0001	Support To Refugees And Asylum Seekers In Cambridge (3 Years)

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

13 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gillespie, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 23 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Reference	Details
B0002	Peer Mentoring Support For Single Homeless People (3.5 Years)

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

13 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gillespie, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 23 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Reference	Details
B0004	Public Realm Tree Replacement

 

On a show of hands the proposal unanimously agreed.

 

Reference	Details
B0006	Parking Charges On Sundays In The Grand Arcade

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

12 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 24 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Reference	Details
B0007 II001 II002	Provision Of Free Parking At Cambridge Park And Ride Sites On Mondays And Tuesdays   Parking Charges On Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays And Fridays

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

12 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 24 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Reference	Details
B0008	Moorings Charges

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

13 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gillespie, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 23 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Reference	Details
C0001     RI001	Switch of Commercial Property Investment Strategy To Residential   Difference Between Residential Property Investment For Sub Market Rent And Commercial Property Investment

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

12 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 24 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Reference	Details
X0001	Market Square Renewal (2 years)

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

13 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gillespie, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 23 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Reference	Details
X0005	Childrens’ Tree Programme (5 Years)

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by:

 

13 votes in favour: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gillespie, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe.

 

To 23 votes against: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones.

 

Unless otherwise specified, all references in the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to this version of the Budget-Setting Report (Version 3 - Council) and the Information Pack. This can be found via the Council agenda page:

 

http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=3053&Ver=4

 

Before the vote to the Executive Budget was taken, Councillor Robertson referred to the unanimously agreed amendment regarding public realm tree replacement (B3997), which was circulated around the Chamber can be found on the City Council’s website via the following link:

 

http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=3053&Ver=4

 

It was resolved to agree the Executive’s budget proposals as amended by:

 

24 votes in favour: Councillors Abbott, Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Bird, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sinnott, Smart, Smith & Todd-Jones..

 

To 0 with 12 abstentions: Councillors Adey, Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gillespie, Holt, Moore, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas, & Tunnacliffe

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets: [Section 5, page 29 refers]

       i.          Agreed:

·       Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix C (a) and Savings shown in Appendix C (b) of the Officer’s report.

·       Bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds as shown in Appendix C (c).

·       Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix C (d).

     ii.          Delegated to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) as set out in Appendix B (b).

   iii.          Agreed the level of Council Tax for 2017/18 as set out in Section 4 [page 25 refers].

 

Other Revenue:

   iv.          Agreed delegation to the Head of Finance 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).

    v.          Agreed delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make the necessary detailed budgetary adjustments in the GF, to reflect the impact of the triennial valuation of the Cambridgeshire Local Government Pension Scheme.

   vi.          Agreed a temporary earmarked fund to be set up to accumulate surplus NHB contributions to meet the requirement for funding of projects to mitigate the impacts in Cambridge of the A14 upgrade – the “A14 Mitigation Fund” [page 25 refers].

 

Capital: [Section 7, page 34 refers]

 

Capital Plan:

 vii.          Agreed the proposals outlined in Appendix E (a) for inclusion in the Capital Plan, or put on the Projects Under Development List, including any additional use of revenue resources required.

viii.          Agreed the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix E (d), the Funding as set out in Section 7, page 37 and note the Projects Under Development list set out in Appendix E (e).

 

General Fund Reserves:

   ix.          Noted the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 8, page 39 refers].

 

Members unanimously resolved to continue the meeting after 10:30pm rather than adjourn to another day.

 

The ‘Cambridge Local Plan Examination - Further Proposed Modifications for Student Accommodation, Gypsies and Travellers, and Accessible Homes’ document is too large to attach to the agenda in hard copy format. The main report and appendices are published on the Council’s website:

 

http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1379&ID=1379&RPID=51279812&sch=doc&cat=13356&path=13020%2c13021%2c13042%2c13356

 

Resolved (by 34 votes to 0):

 

To approve:

       i.          The further proposed modifications (Appendix A) and the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix B) be approved for submission to the Inspectors examining the Local Plan.

     ii.          That the documents attached to this report as Appendices C, D and E are noted and submitted as part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan.

   iii.          That delegated authority be given to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair of and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee.

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

       i.          Approve the draft Pay Policy Statement 2017/18 P326 on the agenda.

     ii.          Delegate authority to the Head of Human Resources to implement the change of designation of the grade JNC 2 to Band 11.

In response to Members’ questions the Leader said:

       i.          He would prefer to co-locate or integrate the Local Economic Partnership and combined authority.

     ii.          The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the Combined Authority would have a dedicated officer like the Police and Crime Commissioner.

   iii.          He wanted to improve the way the City Deal Board worked.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to agree the appointments of Councillor Baigent and Councillor Bick to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the Combined Authority.

1) Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport:

 

Does the Executive Councillor consider the stalled delivery of 1593 new homes (40% of them affordable) in the city at Darwin Green, also necessary as precursors to a further 1000 new homes adjacent in South Cambridgeshire, to be a case of land banking? 

 

The situation on the Darwin Green site was more complex than on other strategic sites because it was in multiple land ownership and the development partner Barratt Homes was tied in to the development via a land promotion agreement, rather than owning any land outright. This was different to North West Cambridge where there was a single landowner; or the Southern Fringe developments where there are more normal single landowner / master developer / house builder delivery arrangements.

 

Brexit had an impact on Barratt Homes’ development programme nationally which resulted in a review of their overall development portfolio. Officers were advised several months ago, as an outcome of this national review, that Barratt Homes would not be progressing the residential phases of Darwin Green. However, since that time, our understanding was that discussions have been ongoing between Barratt Homes and the consortium of landowners and officers have now been advised by Barratt Homes that matters were progressing with solicitors and that the development was likely to come forward with Barratt Homes as lead developer, and that they would be delivering the first two residential phases for which they already have reserved matters approval later this year, as well as delivering the site wide infrastructure including roads, open spaces and drainage.

 

2) (As asked by Councillor Smith) Councillor Bird to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces:

 

Could the Executive Councillor update us on the progress of the proposed A-Boards policy?

 

The draft A-Board policy was approved unanimously by the Community Services Committee in January.

 

It followed extensive research and consultation, including an access survey, discussions with key stakeholders, and discussions with other authorities to see what would work best for Cambridge.

 

The proposals included the following:

o   Limiting ‘A’ boards or similar advertising signs to a maximum of one per business.

o   Ensuring signs are placed against buildings and are not causing obstructions, and that at least 1.5m of unobstructed footway is left clear.

o   Removing signs from public places when the business is closed.

o   Developing a more standard approach to the size, shape and design of advertising signage.

 

The intention was to start consulting very soon and work hard to engage fully with as many people and businesses as possible.

 

Officers tried to design a policy that makes the streets easier for everyone, but especially those with reduced mobility. People in wheelchairs, on crutches, or pushing buggies, find it especially hard to get around.

 

Officers were not anti-business. They also wanted to ensure that business could still advertise. So it was hoped that this was a policy which would work for everyone.

 

3) Councillor Abbott to the Executive Councillor for Communities:

 

Can the Executive Councillor inform Council about the role, if any, it will play with regards to the proposed NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP)? And his views on the STP and closer partnership working between health providers?

 

The Council recognised the severe pressure place on local NHS organisations and social care providers by the protracted squeeze on their finances by Central Government and the unprecedented demands arising from our aging population. The Council constantly heard of overcrowding in our local A&E service and protracted waits, which was probably just the tip of the iceberg.

 

The STP was an attempt by our local commissioners to try and reconcile their annual deficits and to create a system that - they say - would be sustainable in the future. One can also assume it was also a recognition that the current health system was unsustainable. 

 

The STP proposed to work closer with partners, to prevent rather than treat illness, and aspired to improve health outcomes for all residents. Whilst the diagnosis handed down by the NHS was the correct one, the treatment prescribed was the wrong one. The target to take half a billion pounds out of the health system would inevitably lead to worse outcomes for local people, especially at a time when adult social care services had been severely restricted and a large number of people are living with unmet care needs. The Executive Councillor’s concerns were all the more acute as Cambridge was a place where unacceptably large inequalities in health outcomes already exist between different communities – for instance people live up to 8 years longer in some areas than others. 

 

The Council wished to continue working in partnership with local health and social care providers where it felt this work can improve the health and wellbeing of local people.

 

A number of council services made a difference to the lives of local people and help promote good health and wellbeing, such as physical activity through recreation services, our role in helping people to age well in our work with older people (reducing isolation and loneliness) and promoting good mental health, particularly with young people through the CHyPS team – to mention just a few of the interventions. These helped to address local public health priorities and our contribution is acknowledged by the public health team.

 

Whilst the Executive Councillor did not support the cuts in services that are likely to come about through the implementation of the STP, he did want to develop closer working with local NHS organisations, building on existing arrangements where a positive contribution could be made and felt there were gains to be had that could improve the lives of residents.​ 

 

4) Councillor Smart to the Leader:

 

Is he concerned about plans by the Government for legislation to limit councils on ethical procurement, and end the potential for councils not buying from certain countries or companies?

 

The Executive Councillor expressed concern about a bad piece of legislation that may cause unnecessary process complexity. The Council would respond to the consultation to state that local government was in a better position to make a judgement about ethical procurement than civil servants.

 

5) Councillor Barnett to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces:

 

Could the Executive Councillor give us an update on the recent North Pole event on Parkers Piece?

 

1,000 responses had been received about the event. Many residents had enjoyed the experience but some had expressed concern. Responses would be made to these.

 

6) Councillor Radcliffe to the Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

Could the Executive Councillor update council on the progress of Cambridge Street Aid?

 

Since its launch late 2016 Cambridge Street Aid has raised over £6000 via Just Giving, text donations and other means of donating

There have been two applications into the fund. The Council was currently devising further literature aimed at raising awareness of the fund for those begging or rough sleeping. Details of Street Aid would be added to the Outreach cards given out to those on the street informing them about what help is available. Posters had also been circulated to all the hostels and support agencies aimed at service users. Colleagues within the support services have been given the details of the fund and are also aware of its availability in order to share with their clients.

 

A communications strategy has been produced which detailed how the Council intended to promote the scheme across different thematic areas – Night time economy, students, Mill Rd retailers, Grafton Area, Hills Rd retail area, etc. The aim was to ensure that the Cambridge Street Aid brand is recognised across the city and seen as the best way to help those on the streets.

 

7) Councillor Nethsingha to the Executive Councillor for Street and Open Spaces:

 

I am delighted to see that the bus stops which were in the EIP programme over 3 years ago have now been installed on Madingley Road, can the Exec Councillor tell me whether the current delay on projects remains 3 years, and if so what the administration plan to do about speeding up delivery of EIP projects?

 

The City Council is currently introducing new bus shelters at various locations across the city (including on Madingley Road).  These works do not form part of the Council’s Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP) but constitute a separate Capital Plan item (ref PV018 – 39070).  This has been a rolling programme spread across the city’s four areas over a number of years and split into various delivery phases, with local area priorities agreed through Area Committees during 2013-14. The previous new shelter implementation phase was a couple of years ago in 2014-15, with Barton Rd, Castle Hill, Milton Rd, Coldhams Lane, Mill Rd (Romsey), Birdwood Rd. and Teversham Drift included.  The programme is now nearing conclusion for this financial year. 

 

8) Councillor O’Reilly to the Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

What is the Council doing to cut begging by people who are not homeless?

 

Begging is illegal and those caught begging can be dealt with by the Police.  However the maximum penalty is a fine and individuals will often continue to beg.   Therefore the Safer Communities Team and Housing Advice work closely with the Street Outreach Team and Police to ensure we are able to identify  persistent beggars and in particular those that are aggressive, or cause nuisance. Anyone who is begging because they are genuinely homeless and need support is referred to agencies who can assist them. We have also produced information cards for individuals on the street which details where they can access services such as advice, support, accommodation or food.

 

Where individuals are known to be persistent beggars (or have a problematic street presence) and are refusing to engage with services, they are referred to the fortnightly multi agency streetlife working group (SWG). The SWG discusses support and enforcement options in complex or entrenched cases and develops individual plans to support the person.  

 

Additionally the Council had funded:

·       A new chronically excluded adults support worker specifically to work with the most entrenched individuals and to report back to the SWG on progress.

·       Housing Advice has been successful in obtaining substantial government funding to employ a dual diagnosis team who will work with the street outreach team to deliver  treatment directly to the street life community, and this team is expected to be in  place by April 2017. 

·       An additional public realm  enforcement officer post, who’s remit will be to go out and speak to beggars, give verbal warnings, direct them to support services and pass on any relevant information to the Police or ASB team when enforcement is required.

 

9) Councillor Moore to the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre (Answered by Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces):

 

Transparency: What determines the Distribution of City discretionary resources (Housing and Environmental Services) by Ward?

 

In September 2016, the Queen Edith’s Community Forum organised a Community Action Morning by the Wulfstan Way shops. In previous years, the local poorer residents had been active users of the rubbish skip.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental Services intervened when funding was withdrawn for this rubbish skip after an oral question resulting in a funded skip organised from the Housing budget.

 

The discretionary components of these budgets had been weighted to the more deprived Wards using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), squared. This index ranks areas in order of relative deprivation. The IMD is a nominal scale not an interval scale and so cannot legitimately be used in this manner.

 

Please explain how this formula ensures that those in most need (who are distributed across the whole City) receive a fair share of resources, including those in Queen Edith’s Ward, and how this formula will be amended to ensure fair distribution.   

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015

 

The Council allocated discretionary resources based on the need for the services.

 

The Council’s Anti-Poverty Strategy aimed to: “improve the standard of living and daily lives of those residents in Cambridge who are currently experiencing poverty, but also to alleviate issues that could lead households on low incomes to experience financial pressures.” The strategy aimed to support residents in poverty or on low incomes throughout the city. The strategy used a range of available evidence (including the IMD, housing benefit claimant data, council tax benefit claimant data, and child poverty data) to identify geographical concentrations of poverty within the city. It also used a range of other data sources to identify groups of people which are more likely to experience poverty, including older people, people with disabilities, women and some BAME communities.

 

The Council’s dedicated Sharing Prosperity Fund (SPF) was used to fund projects which help deliver the objectives of the Council’s Anti-poverty Strategy (APS), and as such it can fund projects which are targeted specifically at groups of more vulnerable people. Decisions on whether projects are funded through the SPF were currently made on the basis of the contribution that the proposed project will make to deliver the 7 objectives of the APS.  Funding decisions do not use the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) as a specific criterion.  Some of the projects funded to date through the SPF had been city-wide in focus, but others had focussed on the areas of the city which have the greatest concentrations of deprivation, based on the range of data sources outlined above. 

 

10) Councillor Todd-Jones to Executive Councillor for Communities:

 

Can the Executive Councillor explain to the Council how residents can get involved with the consultation for the Community Centre Strategy proposals?

 

Residents could get involved in a number of ways:

       i.          Online survey available on the council’s website

     ii.          Hard copy survey available from council managed centres and by contacting officers

   iii.          8 drop in sessions – 4 before each of the next area committee meetings and 4 at our community centres. People can attend any of these.

   iv.          Area committee meetings – public questions and area committee reports

    v.          Contacting the officers leading the work (Jackie Hanson / Allison Condor) community.review@cambridge.gov.uk or 01223 457862

 

11) Councillor Cantrill to the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre:

 

Can the Executive Councillor confirm that all measures have been put in place to ensure there is no disruption to residents of the city when the bin collection schedules are changed from WC 27^th February?

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that all measures had been put in place.

 

City residents had been informed of bin collection changes through verbal, web, household letter and poster details. Promotional work had been undertaken in South Cambridgeshire too. Ward Councillors had assisted in the promotional work.

 

Bin collection crews were formed from city and South Cambridgeshire personnel so they would have experience of the routes. Additional vehicles and crews were in place to cover new routes in place since the changes to bin collection days.

Further to the motion we passed in July 2016, this Council is even more determined in 2017 to support over 9,000 EU non-UK Cambridge residents and to defend their right to continue to live and work here. On behalf of our community, Cambridge City Council reiterates our demand that EU citizens already here in Cambridge be immediately granted the right to remain in the UK.

 

When a majority voted to leave the EU, their right to continue to live in Cambridge was thrown into jeopardy. Since then, Home Office Minister James Brokenshire has said that the government cannot commit to reassure European Union nationals that they will be able to remain in Britain in the coming years, despite the number of MPs voting for this amendment to the Brexit legislation.

 

In our multicultural city we are proud of our diverse local population. The EU nationals living in Cambridge have settled here, have made a home here, are wives, husband’s partners and Councillors, have children who attend local schools, and are our friends and neighbours.

 

The 9,000 living in Cambridge include thousands who are also employees in key jobs locally. At Addenbrookes 12% of staff are from other EU countries, as indeed are 27% of post-doctoral researchers at Cambridge University. The lack of clarity spells unacceptable uncertainty not just for them but for the Cambridge economy, and at a time when the Council wants to see Cambridge continue to welcome further EU citizens and students coming to our city.

 

This Council resolves to write to the two Cambridge MP’s; to Daniel Zeichner MP to support him in his resolve to champion this issue, to Heidi Allen MP to ask for her support, and to seek more than last year's one line response from the Prime Minister. Instead we demand a commitment to the clear right of our 9,000 plus EU non-UK Cambridge citizens to obtain permanent residence rights here in Cambridge.

Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Ratcliffe seconded the following motion: 

 

Further to the motion we passed in July 2016, this Council is even more determined in 2017 to support over 9,000 EU non-UK Cambridge residents and to defend their right to continue to live and work here. On behalf of our community, Cambridge City Council reiterates our demand that EU citizens already here in Cambridge be immediately granted the right to remain in the UK.

 

When a majority voted to leave the EU, their right to continue to live in Cambridge was thrown into jeopardy. Since then, Home Office Minister James Brokenshire has said that the government cannot commit to reassure European Union nationals that they will be able to remain in Britain in the coming years, despite the number of MPs voting for this amendment to the Brexit legislation.

 

In our multicultural city we are proud of our diverse local population. The EU nationals living in Cambridge have settled here, have made a home here, are wives, husband’s partners and Councillors, have children who attend local schools, and are our friends and neighbours.

 

The 9,000 living in Cambridge include thousands who are also employees in key jobs locally. At Addenbrookes 12% of staff are from other EU countries, as indeed are 27% of post-doctoral researchers at Cambridge University. The lack of clarity spells unacceptable uncertainty not just for them but for the Cambridge economy, and at a time when the Council wants to see Cambridge

continue to welcome further EU citizens and students coming to our city.

 

This Council resolves to write to the two Cambridge MP’s; to Daniel Zeichner MP to support him in his resolve to champion this issue, to Heidi Allen MP to ask for her support, and to seek more than last year's one line response from the Prime Minister. Instead we demand a commitment to the clear right of our 9,000 plus EU non-UK Cambridge citizens to obtain permanent residence rights here in Cambridge.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

As Cambridge works toward a target of welcoming 100 refugees from Syria, Council wishes to place on record....

 

Our thanks to all the local groups that have been working to aid refugees. Both those arriving in Cambridge, and those refugees further afield.  Many in this city are showing that compassion and understanding of this dreadful ongoing situation, which is indeed a core British value. Not only do they hold out their arms to these refugees, but they roll up their sleeves and work to assist them.

 

Council notes with disgust the change of tack by Government in respect of child refugees.  This commitment must be met, and continued.  Council feels that the people of this city would expect us to make this very plain to Govt.

 

Council asks the Mayor to organise a civic reception, for these local groups, so that we can very publicly support their work, and express our appreciation. Council notes that no such reception or welcome will be extended by this City to those, of whatever standing, who abandon basic human rights, and seek to build walls against refugees.

 

Council also asks our neighbouring local authorities to formally join in the Government scheme to accept Syrian refugees.

 

Council further asks the Government to review, and increase the numbers being accepted into the UK under the scheme.

Councillor Adey proposed and Councillor Gillespie seconded the following motion: 

 

As Cambridge works toward a target of welcoming 100 refugees from Syria, Council wishes to place on record....

 

Our thanks to all the local groups that have been working to aid refugees. Both those arriving in Cambridge, and those refugees further afield. Many in this city are showing that compassion and understanding of this dreadful ongoing situation, which is indeed a core British value. Not only do they hold out their arms to these refugees, but they roll up their sleeves and work to assist them.

 

Council notes with disgust the change of tack by Government in respect of child refugees. This commitment must be met, and continued. Council feels that the people of this city would expect us to make this very plain to Govt.

 

Council asks the Mayor to organise a civic reception, for these local groups, so that we can very publicly support their work, and express our appreciation. Council notes that no such reception or welcome will be extended by this City to those, of whatever standing, who abandon basic human rights, and seek to build walls against refugees.

 

Council also asks our neighbouring local authorities to formally join in the Government scheme to accept Syrian refugees.

 

Council further asks the Government to review, and increase the numbers being accepted into the UK under the scheme.

 

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

 

(deleted text struck through, additional wording underlined)

 

Further to the motion Council passed in October 2015, this Council is proud of the efforts of the people and groups of Cambridge to deliver practical help to refugees, and to campaign for their rights, and is committed to play its part too working closely also with our city’s two MPs.

As Cambridge City Council works towards its target of welcoming 100 refugees from Syria, under the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement (VPR) Scheme, the Council wishes to place on record our thanks to all the local groups that have been working to aid refugees. Both those arriving in Cambridge, and those refugees further afield. Many in this city are showing that compassion and understanding of this dreadful ongoing situation. Not only do they hold out their arms to these refugees, but they roll up their sleeves and work to assist them. 

 

The Council commits to investigate the organisation of a community event and fundraiser for all these local groups at the Guildhall, so that we can very publicly support their work, and express our appreciation. Council notes that no such reception or welcome will be extended by this City to those, of whatever standing, who abandon basic human rights, and seek to build walls against refugees. 

The Council and our Cambridge community believe that the Dubs Amendment to the Immigration Bill, agreed to by the Government last year, must be honoured, as it is effectively a Government promise to take up to 3000 unaccompanied child refugees. The people of Cambridge would expect us to make this very plain to Government given that there are an estimated 90,000 unaccompanied children refugees in Europe and up to 10,000 children not accounted for, potentially missing.

 

This Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister, copied to our two MPs, to ask that the Government promise to take unaccompanied child refugees is honoured.

 

The Council further asks the Government to review, and increase the numbers being accepted into the UK under the VPR scheme, and to extend this assistance where appropriate to refugees to other war-torn countries. Finally, the Council also asks our neighbouring local authorities to formally assist with Government schemes to accept Syrian and other refugees.

 

Council notes with disgust the change of tack by Government in respect of child refugees. This commitment must be met, and continued. Council feels that the people of this city would expect us to make this very plain to Govt.

 

Council asks the Mayor to organise a civic reception, for these local groups, so that we can very publicly support their work, and express our appreciation. Council notes that no such reception or welcome will be extended by this City to those, of whatever standing, who abandon basic human rights, and seek to build walls against refugees.

 

Council also asks our neighbouring local authorities to formally join in the Government scheme to accept Syrian refugees.

 

Council further asks the Government to review, and increase the numbers being accepted into the UK under the scheme.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 34 votes to 0.

 

Resolved (nem con) that:

 

Further to the motion Council passed in October 2015, this Council is proud of the efforts of the people and groups of Cambridge to deliver practical help to refugees, and to campaign for their rights, and is committed to play its part too working closely also with our city’s two MPs.

As Cambridge City Council works towards its target of welcoming 100 refugees from Syria, under the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement (VPR) Scheme, the Council wishes to place on record our thanks to all the local groups that have been working to aid refugees. Both those arriving in Cambridge, and those refugees further afield. Many in this city are showing that compassion and understanding of this dreadful ongoing situation. Not only do they hold out their arms to these refugees, but they roll up their sleeves and work to assist them. 

 

The Council commits to investigate the organisation of a community event and fundraiser for all these local groups at the Guildhall, so that we can very publicly support their work, and express our appreciation. Council notes that no such reception or welcome will be extended by this City to those, of whatever standing, who abandon basic human rights, and seek to build walls against refugees. 

The Council and our Cambridge community believe that the Dubs Amendment to the Immigration Bill, agreed to by the Government last year, must be honoured, as it is effectively a Government promise to take up to 3000 unaccompanied child refugees. The people of Cambridge would expect us to make this very plain to Government given that there are an estimated 90,000 unaccompanied children refugees in Europe and up to 10,000 children not accounted for, potentially missing.

 

This Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister, copied to our two MPs, to ask that the Government promise to take unaccompanied child refugees is honoured.

 

The Council further asks the Government to review, and increase the numbers being accepted into the UK under the VPR scheme, and to extend this assistance where appropriate to refugees to other war-torn countries. Finally, the Council also asks our neighbouring local authorities to formally assist with Government schemes to accept Syrian and other refugees.

The Mayor advised that no written questions had been received.

Part 4C section 6.1 of the Councils Constitution provides that individual members of the Executive ‘may take a decision which is contrary or not wholly in accordance with the budget approved by the full Council if the decision is a matter of urgency’. The decision is reported to Council for information purposes only.

 

The decision was noted.