Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Glenn Burgess Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To elect a Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/14 Minutes: Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded the nomination of Councillor Paul Saunders as Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014. Councillor Price proposed and Councillor Herbert seconded the nomination of Councillor Geri Bird as Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014. 21 votes were
cast for Councillor Saunders and 20 votes for Councillor Bird. Resolved that: i. Councillor Paul Saunders be elected Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014 (Councillor Saunders then made the statutory declaration of acceptance of the office of Mayor). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To elect a Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/14 Minutes: Councillor Swanson proposed and Councillor Brierley seconded the nomination of Councillor George Pippas as Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014. Councillor O’Reilly proposed and Councillor Marchant-Daisley seconded the nomination of Councillor Geri
Bird as Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014. 21 votes were
cast for Councillor Pippas and 21 Votes for
Councillor Bird. Resolved (on the Mayor’s casting vote) that:
i.
Councillor George Pippas be elected Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014
(Councillor Pippas then made the statutory
declaration of acceptance of the office of Deputy Mayor). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2013 To follow Minutes: The minutes of the 18 April 2013 meeting were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Mayor. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To note the Returning Officer's Report that the following have been elected to the office of Councillor Abbey Peter Roberts Minutes: It was
noted that the following had been elected to the office of Councillor: Abbey Ward: Peter Roberts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To note the appointment of the Mayor's Chaplain for the ensuing year Minutes: The Council noted the appointment of The Reverend,
Stewart Taylor as the Mayor’s Chaplain for the
Municipal Year 2013/2014. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To note the appointment of the Mayor's Cadet for the ensuing year Minutes: The Council noted
the appointment of Adam Brown of No. 104 (City of Cambridge) Squadron, Air
Training Corps, as the Mayor’s Cadet for the Municipal Year 2013/14. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To pass a Resolution of Thanks to the outgoing Mayor and Consort Minutes: Resolved
(unanimously),
on the proposal of Councillor Bick, seconded by Councillor Herbert that:
i.
This
Council expresses its appreciation of the manner in which the duties of Mayor
and Consort were discharged by Councillor Sheila Stuart and her husband Bruce
Stuart during their period of office and that the Common Seal be affixed to a
copy of this resolution for presentation to them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mayor's Announcements Minutes: 1. APOLOGIES No apologies were received. 2.
WELCOME The Mayor welcomed students from Ridgefield
School, representatives of Cambridge COPE and local residents from the Arbury area. A warm welcome was also extended to Honorary
Councillor Percy Reed who served as Mayor in 1981/82 and sat as a Councillor
for fifteen years. Mr Reed would be shortly celebrating his 100th
birthday and sincere congratulations were extended on behalf of the City
Council. 3. OUTGOING MAYOR’S DINNER –
Thursday, 13 June The Mayor reminded anyone planning to attend the dinner at Corpus Christi College
to mark the term in office of Councillor Sheila Stuart, to arrange to purchase
their tickets from the Civic and Twinning Officer. 4. CIVIC CHURCH SERVICE –
Sunday, 2 June The Mayor confirmed that the Mott Sermon would
be preached at Holy Trinity Church on Sunday, 2 June at 9.30am. 5. ARMED FORCES DAY - 29 June The Mayor confirmed that, in
support of national Armed Forces Day, the Armed Forces Flag would be flown from
the Guildhall from Monday, 24 June for one week. 6. PROCLAMATION OF MIDSUMMER
FAIR – Wednesday, 19 June The Mayor confirmed that the Proclamation of
Midsummer Fair would take place on Wednesday, 19 June. 7. MAYOR’S DAY OUT The Mayor confirmed that the
Mayor’s Day Out would take place on Thursday 5 September. The support of
Councillors was greatly valued each year and members were asked to let the
Civic and Twinning Officer know if they could help out. 8. HMS PROTECTOR The Mayor confirmed
that HMS Protector would be back at Ipswich Docks in July
and arrangements were in hand to acknowledge the ship’s return to the UK after
a lengthy deployment in the Antarctic. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To elect from among the Members of the Council four Bailiffs of the City for the Municipal Year 2013/14 Minutes: Councillor
Boyce proposed and Councillor Owers seconded that
Councillors Bird, Brown, McPherson and Swanson
be appointed as
Bailiffs. Resolved that Councillors Bird, Brown,
McPherson and Swanson be appointed as Bailiffs of the City for the Municipal Year
2013/2014. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider recommendations of Committees for Adoption PDF 72 KB Civic Affairs (13 May
2013) · Executive Councillors and Allocation of Portfolios · Appointment of Committees 2013/14 · Appointment of Chairs and Vice Chairs 2013/14 · Appointment of an Employment (Senior Officer) Committee (The Mayor will call a recess so that the Special Meetings of Committees can meet to make their appointments) Additional documents: Minutes: Civic Affairs (13 May 2013) Executive Councillors and Allocation of Portfolios Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to: i.
Amend the terms of
reference of scrutiny committees to reflect the changes to portfolios made by
the Leader of the Council and to make Environment Scrutiny Committee
responsible for scrutiny of the Public Places portfolio. ii.
Authorise the Head of Legal Services
to update the Constitution to reflect the changes to portfolios and the
recommended change to the terms of reference of scrutiny committees. Nominations For Committees For The Municipal Year 2013/14 Resolved to: i.
Agree the number and size
of committee and membership of committees as listed below:
REGULATORY COMMITTEES
Appointment of Chairs and
Vice-Chairs 2013/14 Scrutiny Committees Resolved (by 21 votes
to 19) that the Chairs
and Vice-Chairs be as follows:
Regulatory Committees Resolved (by 21 votes
to 19) that the Chairs
and Vice-Chairs be as follows:
Resolved (by 23 votes
to 19) that the Chairs
and Vice-Chairs be as follows:
Resolved (in the absence of any further nominations):
Appointment
of a standing Employment (Senior Officer) Committee Resolved (by 41 votes to 0) to: ii. Establish an Employment (Senior Officer) Committee with the terms of reference set out below and that the Constitution is amended accordingly.
Note: The
committee will be governed by the provisions contained within Part 4I of the
Constitution (Officer Employment Procedure Rules) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re-ordering of the agenda Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor altered the order of the agenda to take agenda items 13 and 15 next. However, for the ease of the reader the minutes will follow the order of the printed agenda. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Group Leaders will each have the opportunity to speak for not more than
15 minutes on their Group’s priorities for action and objectives for the
forthcoming municipal year in the following order: Councillor Bick Councillor Herbert Councillor Hipkin The Annual Statement of the Liberal Democrat Group and the Labour Group are appended to this summons. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor
Bick spoke to a written Annual Statement on the Liberal Democrat Group’s
priorities for the forthcoming Municipal Year, which had been appended to the
agenda for the meeting. Councillor
Herbert spoke to a written Annual Statement on the Labour Group’s priorities
for the forthcoming Municipal Year, which had been appended to the agenda for
the meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adoption of Annual Policies and Priorities The scheme for Annual Statements provides that the Statement of the
Leader of the largest group on the Council shall be deemed to be a motion for
adoption. It may therefore be debated and amendments proposed after which it
shall be put to the vote and, if carried, shall be adopted as Council policy
for the municipal year. The Council will therefore consider the Annual Statement of the Liberal Democrat Group as a motion for adoption. If the adopted Annual Statement contains proposals which fall outside
the Council’s budgetary or policy framework, the proposals shall not be acted
upon until there has been a report to the relevant Scrutiny Committee(s) and
Executive Councillor(s) in the normal way and
approval at a subsequent meeting of the Council. Minutes: Under
the Scheme for Annual Statements, that of Councillor Bick was deemed to be a
motion for adoption by the Council. Councillor Owers proposed and
Councillor Herbert seconded the replacement of the Liberal Democrat Annual
Statement by that of the Labour Group. On a show of hands, this proposal was lost by 19 votes to
21. Resolved (by 21 votes to 19) that:
i.
The Annual Statement of the Liberal Democrat Group, as appended to
the agenda, be adopted as Council policy for 2013/14. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Questions Time - see at the foot of the agenda for details of the scheme Minutes: Speaking on Motion 6a – Kinship carers Ms
Roberts (Kinship United,
Nuffield Children’s Centre, Chesterton), Ms Edwards and Ms Boulton
addressed the Council explaining the support group and personal experiences of kinship
caring under the current regime and why they supported the Motion to enable
opportunity for funding and support. They explained the difficulties that they
faced under the current regime and that the County Council should recognise
their role formally. The
Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing thanked the speakers for attending
and putting their case to the Council – she indicated that she would be
supporting the Motion. She requested
that they provide their contact details to the Committee Manager so that she
could meet with them to discuss how best to take the matters raised forward. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To deal with Oral Questions PDF 837 KB Minutes: 1. Councillor Johnson to the Executive Councillor
for Public Places Can
the Executive Councillor for Public Places reassure Council that the
surveillance of Cambridge boat-dwellers, as recently highlighted in the local
media, did not breach the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? The Executive Councillor for Public Places confirmed that the surveillance of Cambridge
boat-dwellers did not breach the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It was noted that Residential Moorings Licences were issued with a
number of stipulations. One being the occupation and use of
the boat, and that the boat must be occupied by the licensee and by members of
the immediate family of the licensee. The licensee must also notify the
Council for any continuous period of non-occupation lasting more than four
weeks or more than 30 days of non-occupation in any 12 month period. The boat
must be the licensee's only permanent residence and the licensee must notify
the Council as soon as the boat ceases to be the only permanent residence. The Executive Councillor confirmed that the Council had a total of 70
Moorings spaces, 55 narrow beam and 15 wide beam. The
waiting list for Council Moorings had reached 200 and turnover was very slow,
with on average less than one a year. Often Council officers were informed by
current boaters, or by those on the waiting list, that boats have been
unoccupied for some time. It was noted that between January and February officers undertook four
walk-by inspections of Council Moorings. During these walk-by inspections they
noted signs of a lack of occupation. This would include whether smoke was emitted from the chimney of the
boat, whether there were cobwebs or ivy covering access or doorways and whether
there had been any indication of recent access and egress surrounding boat. The Executive Councillor confirmed that at no time did officers either
enter property or watch property for a prolonged period. Officers had their ID
cards on display and wore work wear and were clearly visible. 2.
Councillor Reid to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste
Services Would
the Executive Councillor explain her reactions to Marshall's announcement on
Monday of the increase in flights from Cambridge Airport? The Executive
Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services responded that she was glad
that Cambridge Airport could provide this opportunity for mainly business
travellers to fly to and from Europe without having to drive to Stansted or
Luton. The success of Marshall’s as a
whole was very important to the Cambridge economy and bringing extra business
travellers and a limited number of tourists would be welcome. However, the
Executive Councillor was disappointed that there were no discussions with the
City Council about the possible impact on local residents or the environment.
At the recent Cambridge Airport Consultative Committee attended by the
Executive Councillor it was announced that business discussions were underway
about such flights but there was no timing on an announcement, as the
discussions were at a sensitive stage. The statement that this was a strategic
step in the development of Cambridge as a regional international airport caused
some alarm. The Cambridge Airport press
release indicated that there were plans to minimise the impact on local
residents but unfortunately they have not yet communicated those to the City
Council. Whilst the small
modern planes to be used would be quiet, particularly after take-off,
discussions with Environmental Health would have reduced the anxiety that
people may have felt and given confidence that the airport really was aware of
local residents. The Executive
Councillor confirmed that she would be holding a meeting with the Director of
Environment and Cambridge Airport to discuss the issue in more detail. 3.
Councillor Blackhurst to the Executive
Councillor for Housing Has the Adjudicator ruled on the Council’s dispute
with Apollo and if so, will the Executive Councillor tell us what effect the
ruling will have on the programme of planned maintenance? The Executive Councillor for Housing responded that Apollo were claiming
a total of £669,096 in additional overheads, non-productive working and costs
associated with survey work for year one of the contract. The Adjudicator had
disallowed £472,774 of Apollo’s claim. Should this claim have succeeded then clearly less work would have been
possible to tenant’s homes from available funding budgets.The
decision meant that a higher proportion of the overall budget for delivery of
housing investment programmes could now be released, with confidence, to spend
on works in current and future years. The Adjudicator’s decision regarding
appropriate levels of overhead cost would also assist in determining overhead
payments for the remainder of the contract. It was noted that the Adjudicator had ruled that 75% of the cost of the
adjudication to be paid by Apollo and 25% by the Council. The Executive Councillor confirmed that the Council would continue to work
with Apollo and its other contracting partners to ensure that delivery of
planned investment programmes continue to be delivered whilst demonstrating
value for money for our residents. 4.
Councillor Tunnacliffe to the Executive Councillor
for Public Places Could
the Executive Councillor provide an update on the proposed lighting along the
footpaths on Parkers Piece? The Executive Councillor for Public Places responded that between 28
January and 25 February the Council undertook a trial consultation on lighting
on Parker’s Piece. The consultation received 1,039 valid responses, with 76% of those in
favour of lighting. The full consultation analysis would be presented to the
West Central Area Committee on 20 June at which time the Committee would be asked
to approve the project moving forward to a design and costing phase. 5.
Councillor Cantrill to the Chair of the Civic
Affairs Committee At
a time when the public engagement in the election process is low, it is
important that the City Council does everything possible to make the process of
voting easy. The
selection of the University Sports Ground as the location for one of the
polling stations in the Newnham Ward in the recent
County Council elections, did nothing to help this
goal. Could
the Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee indicate what actions are being taken
to ensure that this venue is not used again. The Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee responded that he shared Councillor Cantrill’s concerns about the long standing problems of finding suitable a polling station in this area. Finding Polling Stations was, however, the responsibility of the Chief Executive in her role as Returning Officer. It was noted that the Returning Officer had written to Ward Councillors on 7 May acknowledging that the polling station had not been ideal but explaining that it had been very difficult to find a suitable polling station in that polling district. Selwyn College have been reluctant to rent out Selwyn Diamond as it is being used by the college for exams and other purposes. Newnham Bar was used in 2011 but was being refurbished this year. There are also concerns about its suitability on size grounds for use in a General Election. The Council had also tried portacabins at the Rugby Club which was unpopular because of size and the noise of the generators. The previous polling district in this area used Cockcroft Hall but that is not well located for much of the electorate and would now disrupt a nursery. The key challenge for election staff was finding a site which could take delivery and store polling booths and equipment before polling day itself, which could be available from 6.30am to 10.30pm on polling day and where building owners were happy to have the general public walking through their site. It was confirmed that the Civic Affairs Committee and Returning Officer would be conducting polling district and polling station reviews later in the year. The Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee was committed to trying to find a better, more permanent solution for next year onwards and this may involve changes in the area to be served by a polling station to cope with the difficulties experienced over many years. As there may be two combined elections in 2014 and 2015 there was a need to make sure that any solution is big enough for a combined poll. Members were asked for any suggestions of alternative venues that officer could be explored by the Returning officer. The Chair was also hopeful that the University and Colleges would be able to assist in finding a suitable location for a polling station within their considerable estate in the area. It was felt that the people most disadvantaged by the problems included many of their students and the Council would also liaise with CUSU to seek assistance from the student body. 6.
Councillor Pitt to the Executive Councillor for Public Places What steps have been taken to address the issues
around punt touting ahead of this summer? The Executive
Councillor for Public Places responded that the
proliferation of punt touts in the City Centre in recent years was directly
linked to independent punt operators trading from Garret Hostel Lane (GHL). It was
confirmed that in September 2011 the Conservators of the River Cam had altered
their regulations for issuing commercial licenses requiring that all punt
operators trade from one of 6 “recognised” punt
stations, GHL was not listed as one of these stations. Throughout
the 2012 season the touting continued as the GHL punt operators ignored the new
regulations and applied for a Judicial Review of the Conservators’ decision.
Over the summer the Conservators collected information on those trading from
GHL and instigated court proceedings against a number of them. The court
proceedings took place in Feb/March 2013 and the court found in favour of the Conservators in each case. It was
confirmed that, since the court proceedings and the outcome of the Judicial
Review (the judge upheld the Conservators’ decision although this has been
appealed for a 2nd time and is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal this
year) all operations from Garret Hostel Lane have ceased and as a direct result
the number of touts in the City Centre had reduced dramatically. The Council
had reviewed and re-issued its Punt Operators Code of Practice which detailed
permitted areas in which the legitimate companies could tout, these were all
directly adjacent to their businesses and no company had permission to tout in
the King’s Parade area. Although the Code was voluntary, all the legitimate
operators were consulted, and supported the Code of Practice. The Executive
Councillor confirmed that the Council would continue
to monitor the situation should further action prove necessary. 7.
Councillor Price to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and
Resources How
many of those affected by the Bedroom Tax/Social Sector Size Criteria were
given wrong information about the amount of money they would lose from their
housing benefit by housing officers? The
Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources responded that she was
aware of one isolated incident where a City Homes Officer may have given a
resident the wrong impression regarding the amount that their Housing Benefit
would be reduced by. The resident was however advised to speak with another
officer to get some more detailed information. It
was confirmed that Housing Officers had received training on all of the Welfare
Reforms and were extremely well informed and well aware of the changes that
happened in April. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the following Notices of Motion, notice of which has been given by: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillors Owers and Bird This Council acknowledges the incredibly valuable job done by kinship
carers in Cambridge, relatives and friends (most often grandparents) who care
for children informally because their parents are no longer able to look after
them, usually because of bereavement, ill-health, imprisonment, or addiction
problems. This Council acknowledges that, whilst foster carers and social care
workers may make a significant contribution to the care of children unable to remain
with their families, children raised by kinship carers typically have better
educational and social outcomes relative to children brought up in non-kinship
foster or social care. Each child raised by kinship carers also saves the
taxpayer up to £56,000 a year. This Council notes the existence of two Kinship Care support groups in
Cambridge: Cambridge Kinship
Carers, which meets at Bewick Bridge Primary School in Cherry Hinton,
and
Kinship United, which meets at Nutfield Children’s Centre in
Chesterton. This council notes that these support groups currently receive no
community development funding from the City Council, due to problems with the
constitution and status of their organisation. This Council notes the problems faced by such carers, such as the
following: -
Although children raised by kinship carers
tend to progress better than children raised by non-kinship carers, they still
typically experience much higher than average levels of anxiety and mental
health problems, usually related to the high levels of adversity they have
suffered in their early life. 88% have been abused or neglected. -
Most kinship carers are either on low-fixed
incomes, such as pensions, or have to give up work to become carers. 70% of
kinship carers themselves have a longstanding health condition or disability.
Due to these factors, and the financial burden placed on kinship carers by the
responsibilities of bringing up a child, the majority of kinship carers
experience severe poverty. They also suffer from a lack of restbite care and
the difficulties of caring for children who usually have emotional, educational
or behavioural problems. -
Local authorities tend to provide support on
the basis of legal status, rather than need, which disadvantages the 95% of
kinship carers who care informally. LAs tend to discourage kinship carers from
becoming formal kinship foster carers, who are entitled to higher levels of
support, to keep down costs. This leaves the majority of kinship carers
entitled to less help than foster carers, and unclear as to what support they
are entitled to. This Council notes that the 2011 Family and Friends Care Statutory
Guidance statutory guidance requires all responsible local authorities to
produce a policy outlining a consistent approach to supporting kinship carers
based on need, rather than legal status. This council notes that Cambridgeshire County Council has failed to
produce such a policy. This Council resolves to: -
Request the Cambridge City Council Community
Development team to liaise with the Cambridge Kinship support groups to advise
them on how they may access support and funding. - Write to Cambridgeshire County Council, specifically the Cabinet member for Children and Young People's Services, ... view the full agenda text for item 13/39/CNLa Minutes: Motion A Councillor Owers proposed and Councillor Bird
seconded the following motion: “This Council acknowledges the incredibly valuable job done by kinship
carers in Cambridge, relatives and friends (most often grandparents) who care for
children informally because their parents are no longer able to look after
them, usually because of bereavement, ill-health, imprisonment, or addiction
problems. This Council acknowledges that, whilst foster carers and social care
workers may make a significant contribution to the care of children unable to
remain with their families, children raised by kinship carers typically have
better educational and social outcomes relative to children brought up in
non-kinship foster or social care. Each child raised by kinship carers also
saves the taxpayer up to £56,000 a year. This Council notes the existence of two Kinship Care support groups in
Cambridge: Cambridge Kinship
Carers, which meets at Bewick Bridge Primary
School in Cherry Hinton, and Kinship United, which meets at
Nuffield Children’s Centre in Chesterton. This council notes that these support groups currently receive no
community development funding from the City Council, due to problems with the
constitution and status of their organisation. This Council notes the problems faced by such carers, such as the
following: -
Although children raised by kinship carers
tend to progress better than children raised by non-kinship carers, they still
typically experience much higher than average levels of anxiety and mental
health problems, usually related to the high levels of adversity they have
suffered in their early life. 88% have been abused or neglected. -
Most kinship carers are either on low-fixed
incomes, such as pensions, or have to give up work to become carers. 70% of
kinship carers themselves have a longstanding health condition or disability.
Due to these factors, and the financial burden placed on kinship carers by the
responsibilities of bringing up a child, the majority of kinship carers experience
severe poverty. They also suffer from a lack of respite care and the
difficulties of caring for children who usually have emotional, educational or
behavioural problems. -
Local authorities tend to provide support on
the basis of legal status, rather than need, which disadvantages the 95% of
kinship carers who care informally. LAs tend to discourage kinship carers from
becoming formal kinship foster carers, who are entitled to higher levels of
support, to keep down costs. This leaves the majority of kinship carers
entitled to less help than foster carers, and unclear as to what support they
are entitled to. This Council notes that the 2011 Family and Friends Care Statutory
Guidance statutory guidance requires all responsible local authorities to produce
a policy outlining a consistent approach to supporting kinship carers based on
need, rather than legal status. This council notes that Cambridgeshire County Council has failed to
produce such a policy. This Council resolves to: -
Request the Cambridge City Council Community
Development team to liaise with the Cambridge Kinship support groups to advise
them on how they may access support and funding. -
Write to Cambridgeshire County Council, specifically
the Cabinet member for Children and Young People's Services, to request the
County Council to produce a policy on Family and Friends Care which outlines
how they intend to provide consistent and transparent support to kinship carers
based on need rather than legal status, and which addresses the discrepancies
between the levels of support that kinship carers receive relative to foster
carers.” Resolved (unanimously) to
agree the motion as set out above. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillors Cantrill and Rosenstiel This Council: -
notes the results of the recent Cambridgeshire
County Council elections and its new political composition -
welcomes any proposed changes in governance
structure that increases the democratic accountability and transparency of the County
Council -
hopes that any changes in governance will ensure
that the residents and representatives of the City will be more effectively
involved in decision-making affecting the City -
Calls on the Leader of the Council and Chief
Executive to explore the support present at the County Council and neighbouring
district authorities to further simplify local democratic accountability for
the benefit of the residents of Cambridge Minutes: Motion
B Councillor
Cantrill proposed and Councillor Rosenstiel
seconded the following motion: “This Council: -
notes the results of the recent Cambridgeshire
County Council elections and its new political composition -
welcomes any proposed changes in governance
structure that increases the democratic accountability and transparency of the
County Council -
hopes that any changes in governance will ensure
that the residents and representatives of the City will be more effectively
involved in decision-making affecting the City -
Calls on the Leader of the Council and Chief
Executive to explore the support present at the County Council and neighbouring
district authorities to further simplify local democratic accountability for
the benefit of the residents of Cambridge” Councillor Herbert proposed and Councillor Owers seconded the following amendment: Delete all and replace with:
On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 19 votes to 20. Resolved (by 20 votes to 0) that: This Council: -
notes the results of the recent Cambridgeshire
County Council elections and its new political composition -
welcomes any proposed changes in governance structure
that increases the democratic accountability and transparency of the County
Council -
hopes that any changes in governance will ensure
that the residents and representatives of the City will be more effectively
involved in decision-making affecting the City -
Calls on the Leader of the Council and Chief
Executive to explore the support present at the County Council and neighbouring
district authorities to further simplify local democratic accountability for
the benefit of the residents of Cambridge |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No discussion will take place on this
item. Members will be asked to note the written questions and answers document as
circulated around the Chamber.
Minutes: Members noted the written questions and
answers circulated around the chamber. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: Resolved that:
i.
Record
of Members’ attendances at Committee, Sub Committee and Working Party Meetings
during 2012/2013 be noted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To note the appointment of the Mayor's Cadet for the ensuing year |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Statements |