Agenda and minutes

Apologies for the continuation of the adjourned meeting were received from Councillors S Baigent, Copley, Lee, Page-Croft, Payne and Sweeny.

 

Councillor Robertson and Thittala Varkey provided apologies for lateness.

 

Item	Councillor	Interest
All	D Baigent	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
23/16/CNL	Bird	Personal: Board Member of Cambridge Investment Partnership
23/16/CNL	Davey	Personal: Board Member of Cambridge Investment Partnership
23/12/CNL	Dryden	Personal: Is a Magistrate
23/12/CNL	Thittala Varkey	Personal: Occupation - Lawyer

 

A member of the public asked the following question:

 

      i.         Can you please confirm whether Labour Councillors will be whipped into voting for the congestion charge, proposed in the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections public consultation, or will they be allowed a free vote and will residents know if the Council will be in favour or against the charge?

 

The Leader of the Council responded with the following.

      i.         No decision had been made with regards to the Making Connections Survey in terms of the final scheme or if the scheme will go ahead.

    ii.         A total of 24,000 people had completed the survey and hundreds of stakeholder groups; would be disrespectful to comment and make assumptions while the responses were being analysed.

   iii.         There were negative connotations to the role of a party whip but the Labour group were a democratic socialist party and the whip was about the collective decision as a group.

  iv.         Decisions were discussed robustly, and it was up to the Group to determine what the collective position was.

    v.         There would not be a formal council vote on this issue as Cambridgeshire County Council as the Highways Authority would have the final vote.

  vi.         The City Council held a seat on the GCP Board through Councillor D.Baigent. Once the consultation results were published the Labour Group as the ruling group would instruct the GCP Board representative on how to vote once a group decision had been made.

 

Supplementary public question:

      i.         Members of the public were looking to the Council for their position on the matter of the congestion charge. It mattered to residents to know their Councillor’s opinions and if residents were being supported in their own decision making.

 

The following statement was read out by the Head of Legal Services on behalf of a member of the public:

 

      i.         We are seeing increasing numbers of privately owned e-scooters and illegally modified bicycles in the city.

    ii.         I see dangerous use of these vehicles daily, numerous near misses, and several accidents.

   iii.         It is illegal to ride an e-scooter anywhere on the road or in public spaces - apart from the Voi hire scooters. The privately owned ones often aren't speed limited, don't have two independent braking mechanisms, ability to indicate etc.

  iv.         The modified bikes are more scary - often travelling at 40+ mph on footpaths and on 20mph limited roads.

    v.         I'm not sure if the people buying and using these vehicles know that what they are doing could result in them getting 6+ points on their driving license and a fine (although those who obscure their faces when riding probably do). They are certainly becoming more socially acceptable, for example on the school run.

  vi.         Could the Council run an information campaign, spelling out that the use of privately owned e-scooters in public spaces/roads is still illegal, and that there are regulations around modifying bicycles for use on the road?

 vii.         There were plenty of examples of information leaflets from other councils online.

 

The Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety responded with the following:

      i.         Acknowledged there was a vast array of e-scooters being used around the city and was aware of several issues raised by residents concerning these vehicles.

    ii.         The matter was regularly discussed at Area Committee meetings with the relevant officers.

   iii.         Appreciated the comments made by the member of public concerning safety, particularly at night.

  iv.         The Council promoted safe, sustainable, and legal travel but it was clear that there were serious issues which needed to be addressed.

    v.         It was not just an issue for Cambridge but across the country.

  vi.         Welcomed the suggestion of a publicity campaign which the Council could commit to. For the campaign to be effective, the Council needed to work with external agencies such as the Cambridge Vision Zero Road Safety Partnership, the Combined Authority, Cambridgeshire County Council, and the Police.

 vii.         The Council had held an officer meeting in November 2022, with all relevant organisations which reviewed issues arising from e-scooters and mopeds and assigned actions to tackle these issues. Would go back to the group to suggest an engagement and information campaign.

viii.         Important to note that those drivers delivering food were paid on the number of deliveries which encouraged unsafe driving; needed to be careful when singling people out, needed to look at the businesses behind them and their terms and conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Resolved (unanimously) to approve:

 

      i.         the deletion of the following posts at Director level: Director of Communities and Neighbourhoods; and Director of Enterprise and Sustainable Development; and

    ii.         the creation of the following new posts at Director level: Director, Communities; Director, City Services; Chief Operating Officer.

   iii.         the deletion of the following posts at Head of Service level: - Head of Commercial Services, Head of Community Services, Head of Corporate Strategy / Assistant Chief Executive, Head of Environmental Services, Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets, Head of Housing Services, Head of Human Resources, Head of Property Services, Head of Transformation

  iv.         the creation of the following new posts at Assistant Director level, which will be composed of 2 levels: - Assets and Property (AD2) - Assistant Chief Executive (AD2) - Housing and Homelessness (AD1)

    v.         noted that the following posts will be subject to slotting-in arrangements with new post titles: - Head of Finance to Chief Finance Officer (AD1) - Head of Housing Development Agency to Assistant Director, Development (AD1)

  vi.         the creation of a new Head of People and a Head of Transformation on 2-year Fixed Term contracts at Band 11, while future leadership arrangements for ‘Transformation, Digital and HR’ are considered.

 vii.         the Chief Executive is given delegated powers to take all steps necessary to implement the new structure (other than those delegated to the ESOC) including final determination of the Council's staffing structure below Director level, and

viii.         where specific changes to the Constitution are required the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer should make such changes.

 

That the Council noted:

      i.         the Head of 3C Shared Legal Services (Head of Service) and Council’s Monitoring Officer becomes an Assistant Director grade (AD1) in the new grade structure.

    ii.         the Head of Building Control (Head of Service) post will be reviewed once the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service management restructure has been fully implemented.

   iii.         changes proposed to the senior officer Leadership Behaviours following feedback from the consultation (Annex B).

  iv.         that the transitional Group structure will provide staff with certainty about line management arrangements and are a starting point for each Group organisational redesign (Annex C).

 

Resolved (unanimously) to approve:

 

      i.         the draft Pay Policy Statement 2023/2024 attached to the officer’s report as Appendix 1.

    ii.         the pay proposals for Chief Executive, Director and Assistant Director level pay bands following the 2022 review of senior officer salaries and as they relate to the senior management review.

   iii.         to delegate authority to the Head of Human Resources to update the Pay Policy Statement 2023/24 following consideration and approval of the proposed changes to the pay bands for the roles of Chief Executive, Director and Assistant Director

Resolved (unanimously) to approve:

      i.         individual statutory and contractual termination costs over £100k (posts described in the officer’s report) arising from the SMR due to contractual severance.

    ii.         delegate authority to the Chief Executive to implement termination of employment by reason of redundancy, arising from the SMR, where individual statutory and contractual costs are greater than £100k.

 

Question 1: Councillor Copley (moved by Councillor Bennett) to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure.

 

      i.         The Government has announced “the environmental improvement plan” and in this that every household will be within a 15-minute walk of a green space or water.  What will Council do to assess if we are meeting this for existing and new communities, and to ensure we deliver this access to green space if there are any residents denied this?

 

Executive Councillor response:

 

      i.         Enhancing and developing Biodiversity and Green Spaces was one of the big themes for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan and set out in the First Proposals how policies would be developed seeking to increase and improve the network of habitats for wildlife, and green spaces for people, ensuring that development left the natural environment better than it was before.

    ii.         It was vital to measure how well the Council was doing In terms of assessing those areas which had been identified if the needs were being met.

   iii.         The First Proposals was accompanied by the Green Infrastructure Opportunities mapping project, which used information gathered to identify priority areas. The report was available on the Greater Cambridge Planning website.

  iv.         A further study had been commissioned to inform the draft Local Plan looking at open space standards and how new spaces should be delivered, including being informed by Natural England’s new Green Infrastructure Framework.

    v.         Officers were updating evidence looking at more formal open space types, such as updating the Council’s playing pitch and courts strategies. The Council should therefore have a comprehensive set of information available to help plan to meet the needs of our communities, ensuring that any gaps would be filled.

 

Question 2: Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety.

 

As national planning controls have been relaxed, and patterns of retail behaviour and demands for space change, what can the council do to ensure that those retail stores that continue to constitute important local amenity remain at the centre of local communities?

 

Executive Councillor response:

 

      i.         Our District, local, and neighbourhood centres are important to our communities, and help ensure services are available locally to where people live.

    ii.         The adopted Cambridge Local Plan includes a policy that seeks to maintain thriving centres by controlling changes of use. As referenced in the question, these controls have been impacted by the new national land use class E which provides greater flexibility for certain changes to take place without planning permission.

   iii.         Retail habits were changing, not just in the city centre, but across the city. The Council commissioned evidence to explore this and would be considering what new retail and centres policies were needed in the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan so the Council could continue to support our centres through the planning decisions that were made.

  iv.         Beyond planning, work was being undertaken to determine how to support local and small-scale businesses impacted by factors such as the cost-of-living crisis and the pandemic, with several grants available.

 

Question 3: Councillor Carling to Executive Councillor for Recovery, Employment and Community Safety.

 

With Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week earlier in the month, please can you update on work that’s going on to support and protect victims of sexual violence and abuse.

 

Executive Councillor response:

      i.         The Council’s work to support and protect victims of sexual violence and abuse was extremely important.

    ii.         Work takes place on a continuous basis through partnership working, such as Cambridge BID, various charities, students, and police, on several areas, such as working to eliminate the sexual violence in the city centre.  

   iii.         Cambridge night-time economy was of a purple flag standard, ensuring that the City was safe place at night. The Council was part of the purple flag group providing taxi marshals through grant funding, running vulnerability and welfare training to night-time staff such as bouncers, bar staff or porters in the colleges.

  iv.         The Council was also working to accredit licenced businesses and pubs to endorse establishments that had good practices.

    v.         The Council also run an annual domestic violence conference which members of the public were invited to attend.   

 

Question 4: Councillor McPherson to the Leader.

 

In the leader’s role as board member for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, can she comment on why it was necessary to have a mayoral precept?

 

The Executive Councillor’s response:

      i.         The mayoral precept allowed an additional charge to council tax.

    ii.         It was a huge responsibility to exercise the mayoral precept for the first time.

   iii.         Public transport for the east of England continued to be chronically underfunded, the Government was spending £16 per head, half of what similar areas were receiving. The precept would fill some of the gap.

  iv.         The addition of the mayoral precept would mean a further £1 a month on a band D home.

    v.         The additional £3.5 million would be spent on public bus services which would allow the Combined Authority to support for a year eighteen full and five partial routes that had been cut by Stagecoach. These routes covered the whole of the Combined Authority area and included routes in and out of the city. 

 

Question 5: Councillor Divkovic to Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development.

 

With the herbicide free trial in Arbury and Newnham approaching an end, can the Executive Councillor give an update on any findings from the trial and next steps?

 

The Executive Councillor response:

      i.         A report on the matter was due to be presented at the next Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee towards the end of the March.

    ii.         The report would provide an update on the work that had been undertaken since the trial had begun in January 2022. This included an evaluation of the two trial wards, an appraisal of the happy bee street scheme and recommendations on further reduction or a complete stop of the use herbicides in the city.

   iii.         There had been two ward walkabouts with local councillors highlighting areas of interest; remained concerned about accessibility issues that could arise (not yet occurred).

  iv.         Early indications showed the trial had been positive, learning from collaborations from residents, councillors, and community groups.

    v.         Looked forward to being able to go into further detail at the next Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee meeting.

 

Question 6: Councillor Flaubert to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development.

 

Could the Executive Councillor please confirm progress on installing electricity to Hobson's Square in Trumpington?

 

The Executive Councillor’s response:

      i.         Since Hobson Square had been transferred to the Council, the Council has supported the use of trading, managed by the streets and open spaces team using the application of hire process.

    ii.         There were a range of businesses operating in the permanent retail units around the Square. Now these businesses were paying rates and rent the original position that the square could be used for intermittent trading opportunities needed to be re-evaluated.

   iii.         Many of the units offered food which if trading was allowed from the Square itself could have an impact on those businesses and this currently was not permitted.

  iv.         The original design brief and the intended use was for community-based activities, and this should not be changed unless there was an impact to those permanent business units.

    v.         The post transfer of power issues to the lamp columns in the square had been resolved. This could allow the potential to explore further provision of electric supply points to support events. An update would be provided to Council in the very near future. 

 

Question 7:  Councillor Sweeny (asked by Councillor Dryden) to the Leader.

 

With reference to item 11a, what are the leader’s reflections on her first 3 months on the board and the value that the CPCA has for Cambridge city.

 

The Executive Councillor’s response:

      i.         The last three months had been a positive experience on underlining the work of the Combined Authority. Recent projects that they had supported were as follows:

·      The chalk stream project

·      Waterbeach solar farm

·      Cambridge south station

·      City Council’s retro fit programme

·      Money to support inclusive economy projects across the city

·      500 Cambridge City council homes across the city due the original devolution deal.

    ii.         The Combined Authority brought a collective voice on a range of issues.

   iii.         As acting Mayor, had been invited to attend Parliament to address ministers on the needs to the region (including Cambridge).

  iv.         Worked with other metro mayors to lobby on issues vital to communities across the country such as putting pressure on supermarkets to address the cost-of-living crisis.

    v.         Struck by the words of Councillor Herbert (former Leader of the Council) ‘Cambridge can’t go it alone’ when debating the introduction of a Combined Authority.

  vi.         Cambridge was a city that attracted a lot of investment, and that investment should be shared with residents, not just a privileged few.

 vii.         Huge benefit in working together better to address issues in Cambridge and the surrounding area. 

 

Question 8: Councillor Todd-Jones to the Executive Councillor for Environment, Climate Change and Biodiversity

 

How is the council using its leadership role in the city to achieve our ambition of Cambridge to become a net zero carbon city.

 

The Executive Councillor’s response:

      i.         The Council was providing leadership on tackling the climate crisis, not just in the City but through the county.

    ii.         In 2020/21 the Council launched Cambridge carbon training for council staff and councillors.

   iii.         The Council were in partnership with Cambridge Carbon Footprint working on a project to offer Cambridge carbon literacy training to residents.

  iv.         The retro fit guide had been launched in Autumn 2022.

    v.         In the summer the new Green Business Programme would be launched in partnership with South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council.

  vi.         The new trusted contract framework would help push retro fit to homeowners and landlords. 

 vii.         The district heat project was also running,

viii.         The Council was part of the Climate Leaders conference, the next conference would be hosted by Cambridge University. The target was to create solutions to address the barriers of decarbonisation.

  ix.         Funding had been obtained to explore the financial barriers of decarbonisation on several different work streams working with external partners.

    x.         There was also the Cambridge Climate Forum bringing together all the environmental groups in the city. 

 

Question 9: Councillor S Smith to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Infrastructure.

 

The Cambridge Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) is delayed.  How does this affect our emerging Local Plan schedule?

 

The Executive Councillor response:

 

      i.         The draft Cambridge Water WRMP was published on 24th February. This was considerably later than anticipated.

    ii.         Officers would now be looking into what it means for the plan, as discussed in the reports to the January Planning and Transport Scrutiny committee.

   iii.         In terms of the overall programme for the local plan work continued with the preparation of draft plan to be reported to members later this year.

 

 

Question 10:  Councillor Lee (moved by Councillor Bick) to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

 

Could the Leader of the Council advise us whether the Voi scooter scheme is going to be extended? While the scheme is not entirely without hiccups, it’s been a benefit to many across the city especially those who can’t drive and don’t know how to cycle and so some clarity on the future of the scheme would be wonderful for them

 

The Executive Councillor response:

      i.         The scheme had been extended until 31 May 2024 as managed by CPCA under new provisions from the Department of Transport.

    ii.         These provisions were introduced to allow more time to monitor and appraise the effectiveness of the existing national trials (including Cambridge).

   iii.         The extensions would allow time to bring forward new legislation of a new vehicle category covering the use of low speed zero admissions vehicles including e-scooters on public roads.

  iv.         This would be the third extension by the Department of Transport.

    v.         The extension would allow a valuable addition to the urban transport scene and encourage the move away from polluting alternatives and the scheme offers affordable transport for those without other transport choices.

  vi.         Currently there were 900 e scooters and 150 e bikes, Voi had asked for an increase to 1400, officers felt this would be too many but ultimately it would be the Combined Authority’s decision.    

The Council resolves to appoint His Honour Judge Mark Bishop to the post of Honorary Recorder of Cambridge for as long as they hold the position of Resident Judge at Cambridge Crown Count.

 

Councillor Ashton proposed and Councillor McPherson seconded the following motion:

 

      i.         To appoint His Honour Judge Mark Bishop to the post of Honorary Recorder of Cambridge for as long as they hold the position of Resident Judge at Cambridge Crown Court.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

 

The council acknowledges:

·       The vital work that trade unions play in workplaces in Cambridge and beyond;

·       That the right to strike is a fundamental human right;

·       That without unions, we would not enjoy many of the workplace rights we have today.

 

The council notes:

·       That unionised workplaces are more likely to have better terms and conditions, higher wages, improved maternity, paternity and carer leave policies, better job stability for staff, as well as stronger health and safety arrangements.

·       That the UK has the most restrictive anti-union laws and some of the tightest regulations on strikes in Europe.

·       That the Government intends to introduce the Minimum Service Levels Bill covering six service sectors, which the TUC has described as an ‘attack’ on the right to strike.

·       That the intention of this legislation would require Unions and employers to agree minimum levels of service during times of strike action, and in the event of no agreement Government Ministers could impose these limits, with Unions then liable to be sued and workers potentially dismissed if they don’t comply.

·       This legislation has raised many concerns with some legal experts noting that there are likely to be legal challenges raised.

 

The council believes:

·       That industrial disputes are best resolved through negotiation not measures designed to undermine and potentially outlaw industrial action.

 

The council resolves to:

·       Stand in solidarity with striking workers who are fighting for better pay and conditions.

·       Continue to work alongside the local Trades Council on relevant work such as the TUC’s ‘Stay Safe, Join a Union’ Campaign and ‘Heart Unions Week’.

·       Write a letter from the leader of the council to the Prime Minister and Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch, outlining this council’s concerns and opposition to the Minimum Service Levels Bill.

 

 

Councillor Gilderdale proposed, and Councillor Pounds seconded the following motion:

 

The council acknowledges:

      i.         The vital work that trade unions play in workplaces in Cambridge and beyond;

    ii.         That the right to strike is a fundamental human right;

   iii.         That without unions, we would not enjoy many of the workplace rights we have today.

The council notes:

      i.         That unionised workplaces are more likely to have better terms and conditions, higher wages, improved maternity, paternity and carer leave policies, better job stability for staff, as well as stronger health and safety arrangements.

    ii.          That the UK has the most restrictive anti-union laws and some of the tightest regulations on strikes in Europe.

   iii.         That the Government intends to introduce the Minimum Service Levels Bill covering six service sectors, which the TUC has described as an ‘attack’ on the right to strike.

  iv.         That the intention of this legislation would require Unions and employers to agree minimum levels of service during times of strike action, and in the event of no agreement Government Ministers could impose these limits, with Unions then liable to be sued and workers potentially dismissed if they don’t comply.

    v.         This legislation has raised many concerns with some legal experts noting that there are likely to be legal challenges raised.

The council believes:

      i.         That industrial disputes are best resolved through negotiation not measures designed to undermine and potentially outlaw industrial action.

The council resolves to:

      i.         Stand in solidarity with striking workers who are fighting for better pay and conditions.

    ii.          Continue to work alongside the local Trades Council on relevant work such as the TUC’s ‘Stay Safe, Join a Union’ Campaign and ‘Heart Unions Week’.

   iii.         Write a letter from the leader of the council to the Prime Minister and Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch, outlining this council’s concerns and opposition to the Minimum Service Levels Bill.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

This Council resolves to write to the CEO of the Greater Cambridge Partnership (“GCP”) and advise her that Cambridge City Council has declared a Cost of Living Emergency in Cambridge.

 

The Council requests that the GCP considers the Cost of Living Emergency when reviewing the Making Connections consultation and preparing proposals for review by the County Council at a later date.

 

The Council requests that the GCP gives particular consideration to the economic impact on city residents, city businesses and city commuters.

 

The council requests that the GCP gives particular consideration to the primary impact on small business and the secondary impact on residents’ cost of living.

 

The council requests that the GCP considers reliefs and exemptions for small businesses and other organisations in the city including but not limited to a corresponding discount or exemption for businesses and any other organisations in receipt of small business rates relief or any other business rates reduction in force at the start of the financial year in which any congestion charge is made.

 

The council notes that the current Making Connections consultation draft includes unspecified reliefs and exemptions for individuals on low incomes and requests that the GCP reviews these to ensure that exemptions and discounts are sufficient to avoid financial hardship. The council notes that a number of proposals for such exemptions have already been submitted to GCP during the public consultation and accordingly does not wish to put forward new proposals at this stage.

 

The council requests that the GCP publishes a formal socio-economic impact on the city of Cambridge of the effect of any “Making Connections” proposal before it is put before the County Council and that the workings and modelling behind that socio-economic impact be published and independently audited.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

 

1              The GCP “Making Connections” consultation which currently includes a congestion charge proposal closed on 23 December 2022

 

2              It is the intention of the GCP to place a proposal based on the responses to that consultation before the County Council in June 2023.

 

3              The GCP do not require the approval of the city council or any other district council for their proposals.

 

4              On Thursday 21 July 2022, the city council unanimously voted to declare a Cost of Living Emergency.

 

5              Among other provisions, this committed the council to:

a.    Ensure that council decisions are not disproportionately impacting on residents who are struggling the most,

b.    through introducing a socio-economic duty and separately considering socio-economic impacts in all our equality impact assessments.

 

6              There can be no doubt that the cost of living emergency continues and that Cambridge is not immune.

 

7              Cost of living pressure on residents is expected to continue for three years (at the date of this motion) and still be of concern to residents on the proposed congestion charge introduction date.

 

8              The full impact on cost of living from the national government Conservative mini budget maxi shambles last Autumn and subsequent interest rate rises has yet to be felt. This is  ...  view the full agenda text for item 23/14/CNL

This Council notes with horror the shocking scale of devastation and loss of life following the earthquake in southern Türkiye and northern Syria.

This Council expresses its profound support for and solidarity with all those suffering as a result of the earthquake, both those facing trauma and loss in the region, and those here in the UK who grieve for family and friends and the damage to communities.
We commit to work closely with the Turkish and Syrian communities here in Cambridge to understand how we can best support the relief

 and recovery effort.

This Council also calls upon the UK government, parliamentary representatives, and spokespeople to explore whether a scheme similar to the homes for Ukraine scheme could be set up to allow those who have been made homeless and who have family or friends in the UK to travel here and remain in safety while recovery in the region takes place.

Councillor Nethsingha proposed and Councillor Herbert seconded the following motion which had been altered under Council Rules no:26 (alteration of motion), additional text underlined:

 

      i.         This Council notes with horror the shocking scale of devastation and loss of life following the earthquake in southern Türkiye and northern Syria.

    ii.         This Council expresses its profound support for and solidarity with all those suffering as a result of the earthquake, both those facing trauma and loss in the region, and those here in the UK who grieve for family and friends and the damage to communities. We commit to work closely with the Turkish and Syrian communities here in Cambridge to understand how we can best support the relief and recovery effort.

   iii.         This Council also calls upon the UK government, parliamentary representatives, and spokespeople to explore whether a scheme similar to the Ukraine Family Scheme could be set up to allow those who have been made homeless and who have family in the UK to travel here and remain in safety while recovery in the region takes place.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

The Council welcomes the recent city council-funded acquisition of the former Murketts Garage site on Histon Road through the Cambridge Investment Partnership, the joint venture between the City Council and private developer Hill. It notes the intention to develop it for a mixture of market and social housing, similar to the Ironworks and Timberworks developments.

 

At the outset of this new scheme, Council calls for a clear commitment that, unlike Ironworks and Timberworks, overseas property investors will not be targeted for sales, which inflates the local housing market for all, and that marketing will focus on purchasers planning to live or work in Cambridge whether they be from the UK or elsewhere.       

Councillor Levien proposed (in Councillor Payne’s absence) and Councillor Bick seconded the following motion:

 

The Council welcomes the recent city council-funded acquisition of the former Murketts Garage site on Histon Road through the Cambridge Investment Partnership, the joint venture between the City Council and private developer Hill. It notes the intention to develop it for a mixture of market and social housing, similar to the Ironworks and Timberworks developments.

 

At the outset of this new scheme, Council calls for a clear commitment that, unlike Ironworks and Timberworks, overseas property investors will not be targeted for sales, which inflates the local housing market for all, and that marketing will focus on purchasers planning to live or work in Cambridge whether they be from the UK or elsewhere.

 

Councillor Davey seconded and Councillor Bird proposed the following amendment to the motion (deleted text struck through, additional text underlined):

 

The Council welcomes the recent city council-funded acquisition of the former Murketts Garage site on Histon Road through the Cambridge Investment Partnership, the joint venture between the City Council and private developer Hill. It notes the intention to develop it for a mixture of market and social housing, similar to the Ironworks and Timberworks developments.

 

At the outset of this new scheme, Council wishes to make clear calls for a clear commitment that, unlike Ironworks and Timberworks, overseas property investors will not be targeted for sales, which inflates the local housing market for all, and that marketing will continue to focus on purchasers planning to live or work in Greater Cambridge, whether they be from the UK or elsewhere. 

 

The amendment was carried by 27 votes to 5.

 

Resolved (by 27 votes to 5) that:   

 

      i.          The Council welcomes the recent city council-funded acquisition of the former Murketts Garage site on Histon Road through the Cambridge Investment Partnership, the joint venture between the City Council and private developer Hill. It notes the intention to develop it for a mixture of market and social housing, similar to the Ironworks and Timberworks developments.

    ii.         At the outset of this new scheme, Council wishes to make clear that marketing will continue to focus on purchasers planning to live or work in Greater Cambridge, whether they be from the UK or elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This council notes that:

·      The Government intends to implement mandatory photo voter ID at the local elections in May 2023.

·      Over 2 million voters are estimated to need the government-issued voter ID cards^[1].

·      Only 10,000 people have applied so far for these, representing just 0.5% of those who might need the new cards^[2].

·      Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights have said that the impact of the proposals may fall disproportionately on those with protected characteristics^[3].

·      The Electoral Reform Society has called the project ‘an expensive distraction’ which may disproportionately disadvantage already disadvantaged groups. They say that the Government’s own figures suggest that this project will cost £180,000,000 a decade.^[4]

·      The electoral commission have been given a budget of £5,650,000 to spend on advertising, resources and research for this project^[5].

·      The Local Government Association has expressed serious concerns about the implementation of this project for May 2023 and is calling for a delay^[6].

·      The Chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators has raised concerns about the safety of staff in polling stations.^[7]

·       

This Council believes that:

·      Any democratic deficit could be better addressed by reaching out to the estimated 9 million people who are currently not on the electoral roll at all, or by seeking to raise electoral turnout, rather than putting up barriers to voting.

·      The Government should abandon this costly project which will undermine, not enhance, democracy.

·      At the very least, the Government should delay implementation, to avoid the risk of significant disenfranchisement.

 

This council resolves to:

·      call upon the Government to:

o   delay the requirement for photo ID in the May 2023 elections

o   give serious consideration to scrapping the project entirely and focussing on other actions more likely to improve democratic engagement

o   undertake to cover fully the additional costs arising for councils due to the implementation of the Elections Act 2022

·      Ask the leader to write to our Cambridge MPs informing them of this motion and asking them to share our concerns with Central Government and ask the Leader to write to Michael Gove asking him to act.

·      Publicise this motion and do all it can locally to urge voters to make sure they have the necessary voter ID.

 

 

Councillor A. Smith proposed, and Councillor Nethsingha seconded the following motion which had been altered under Council Rules no:26 (alteration of motion), deleted text struckthrough, additional text underlined:

 

This Council notes that:

·      The Government intends to implement mandatory photo voter ID at the local elections in May 2023.

·      Over 2 million voters are estimated to need the government-issued voter ID cards^[1].

·      Only 10,000 people have applied so far for these, representing just 0.5% of those who might need the new cards^[2].

·      Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights have said that the impact of the proposals may fall disproportionately on those with protected characteristics^[3].

·      The Electoral Reform Society has called the project ‘an expensive distraction’ which may disproportionately disadvantage already disadvantaged groups. They say that the Government’s own figures suggest that this project will cost £180,000,000 a decade.^[4]

·      The electoral commission have been given a budget of £5,650,000 to spend on advertising, resources and research for this project^[5].

·      The Local Government Association has expressed serious concerns about the implementation of this project for May 2023 and is calling for a delay^[6].

·      The Chief Executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators has raised concerns about the safety of staff in polling stations.^[7]

 

 

This Council believes that:

·      Any democratic deficit could be better addressed by reaching out to the estimated 9 million people who are currently not on the electoral roll at all, or by seeking to raise electoral turnout, rather than putting up barriers to voting.

·      The Government should abandon this costly project which will undermine, not enhance, democracy.

·      At the very least, the Government should delay implementation, to avoid the risk of significant disenfranchisement.

 

This Council resolves to:

·      call upon the Government to:

o   delay the requirement for photo ID in the May 2023 elections

o   Review the entire project, with a view to scrapping it give serious consideration to scrapping the project entirely and focussing on other actions more likely to improve democratic engagement

o   undertake to cover fully the additional costs arising for councils due to the implementation of the Elections Act 2022

·      Ask the leader to write to our Cambridge MPs informing them of this motion and asking them to share our concerns with Central Government, and ask the leader to write to Michael Gove asking him to act.

·      Publicise this motion and do all it can locally to urge voters to make sure they have the necessary voter ID.

 

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members were asked to note the written questions and answers that had been placed in the information pack circulated around the Chamber.

The decision was noted.

The decision was noted

The officer report contains exempt information during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting subject to determination by Council following consideration of a public interest test.  This exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The decision was noted

The decision was noted.