Agenda and minutes

It was noted that the attendance list for the meeting on 27 June referred to ‘Chair’ and ‘Vice Chair’ and not ‘Mayor’ and ‘Deputy Mayor’. Councillor Roberts’ name had also been omitted.

 

With these minor amendments the minutes of the meetings held on 27 June 2013 and 18 July 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

 

1.  APOLOGIES

 

No apologies were received.

 

 

2.  HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE GEORGE OF CAMBRIDGE

 

On 22 July, the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a son who carries the title His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge. The Mayor confirmed that a letter of congratulations had been written on behalf of the Council to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and, after consultation with their office, a donation had been made to the East Anglia Children’s Hospice at Milton to mark the birth.

 

 

3.       OPEN CAMBRIDGE WEEKEND

 

The Mayor confirmed that the City had collaborated with the University of Cambridge in the Open Cambridge weekend and groups had visited the Guildhall on Friday 13 and Saturday14 September.

 

 

4.       MAYOR’S DAY OUT

 

The Mayor thanked those that attended the annual outing for senior citizens to Great Yarmouth on 5 September.

 

 

5.       CENTRE 33 AUCTION OF PROMISES

 

The Mayor thanked those that supported the fund raising event hosted at the Guildhall and confirmed that over £3000 was raised.

 

 

6.       REMEMBRANCE

 

The Mayor confirmed that 2 minutes silence would be observed from the main entrance of Guildhall on Monday 11 November at 11 am, and a wreath would be laid on behalf of the City at the American Cemetery that morning by the Deputy Mayor.

 

The Mayor also confirmed that, on Sunday 10 November, the Deputy Mayor would lead the civic procession to Great St. Mary’s Church for the Remembrance Sunday Service. The Mayor would lay a wreath, at the City’s War Memorial.    

 

 

7.       CHEVYN SERVICE

 

The Mayor confirmed that the preaching of the Chevyn Sermon would take place at St. Philip’s Church, Mill Road, on Sunday 26 January at 10.30am.

 

 

8.       CITY COUNCIL’S BEREAVEMENT SERVICES TEAM

 

The Mayor reported that the City Council’s Bereavement Services Team had received a gold award from the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management.   

 

 

9.         AWARD FOR STREET NAMING AND NUMBERING

 

The Mayor reported that the Cambridge City Council had been awarded a Street Naming and Numbering Award at this year’s Geoplace Exemplar Awards. The award was achieved for best example of local involvement in street naming and numbering and recognised the excellent collaboration between the City Council and the local community in naming new streets at Clay Farm and Trumpington Meadows.

 

In particular the award recognised the excellent engagement by the City Council with both the Trumpington Residents Association and the Local History Group

 

 

7.       DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Reid, Reiner, Saunders & Tucker	13/63b/CNL	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past, Present & Future
Brown, Gawthrop, Rosenstiel, O’Reilly & Reiner	13/63b/CNL	Personal: Member of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA)
Todd-Jones	13/63b/CNL	Personal: Has visited Carpenters Arms Pub
O’Reilly	13/63d/CNL	Personal: Has an allotment

 

Speaking on Motion 7d

 

Mrs Walker addressed the Council and made the following points:

 

       i.                    Residents have expressed concern and uncertainty regarding a lack of statutory protection for allotments.

     ii.                    The Council takes the provision of allotments seriously and recognised there is a lack of provision, with demand being unmet. This issue has been reported to committees in 2007 and 2010.

   iii.                    A Strategic Management Plan was introduced in 2010.

   iv.                    Suggested the issue of temporary/permanent designation of land use for allotments is unclear in the Local Plan. Mrs Walker felt officers were unhappy with the lack of clarity in the strategy regarding statutory protection of allotments.

    v.                    Expressed support for Motion D.

   vi.                    Signposted Barking and Dagenham Council’s Allotment Protection Policy.

 

The Executive Councillor for Public Places responded:

 

       i.                    Agreed that allotments were important as green spaces.

     ii.                    Signposted the upcoming discussion on the Motion.

 

 

Speaking on the CB1 Station Development

 

Mr Wratten addressed the Council and made the following points:

 

       i.                    Expressed concern at the proposed reduction of taxi rank space and dedicated taxi drop-off points.

     ii.                    Referred to the 2008 Outline Plan which proposed to segregate buses, taxis and other vehicles from pedestrians to maximise capacity in a convenient location.

   iii.                    Expected the new Station Road to exacerbate existing congestion issues and increase taxi fares to the station.

   iv.                    Questioned:

·       How the development would improve facilities.

·       If the council wanted to give taxis the same advantages as buses.

·       If taxis could have priority egress from the station as per the city centre.

    v.                    Referred to a thousand signature petition that had been collected.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change responded:

 

       i.                    Referred to problems with the current station forecourt, such as congestion on the access road.

     ii.                    The aim of the Outline Plan was a rebalance towards people rather than vehicles but recognised both would access the station.

   iii.                    Taxis would share the access road with bikes and private cars. The station forecourt redevelopment should improve the station design. Taxis would keep their drop off point outside the station privilege.

   iv.                    The station forecourt application is yet to be considered by the Planning Committee, so the design can still be amended.

    v.                    Suggested that Mr Wratten makes a representation on the planning application.

 

 

Speaking on Community Engagement

 

Mr Carpen addressed the Council and asked for an update on the Council’s work with students on volunteering and community engagement since July 2013.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing responded:

 

       i.                    Officers had met with students on 5 September 2013. It was apparent that many students were doing voluntary work in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.

     ii.                    There was a strong network between Cambridge universities to encourage volunteering.

   iii.                    It was sometimes hard to match students with opportunities due to time constraints on their availability.

   iv.                    The Council would support the Cambridge News Awards to encourage volunteering.

    v.                    Officers are liaising with students to produce a fact sheet on volunteering. The intention is to set up visits to community groups to avoid duplication of effort.

   vi.                    The Community Development Strategy was refreshed in 2013. The Executive Councillor said there was no further information to update.

 

Mr Carpen made the following supplementary points:

 

       i.                    Thanked Andrew Limb and Emma Croft for their liaison work.

     ii.                    Mr Carpen had contacted community groups who wanted to work with Cambridge universities on their Green Week.

   iii.                    There was a perception that it was difficult for young people to work/engage with young people. Mr Carpen asked if the Council could suggest a champion to work with 16-17 year olds.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing responded:

 

       i.          Asked for details of Cambridge universities Green Week.

     ii.          Hoped to suggest a champion to work with 16-17 year olds.

 

 

Speaking on Motion 7B

 

Mrs Blair addressed the Council and made the following points:

 

       i.                    Spoke in support of local pubs.

     ii.                    Expressed concern regarding the loss of the Dog and Pheasant Pub in East Chesterton.

   iii.                    Residents were angry at the perception that the developer circumvented the planning process by demolishing the Dog and Pheasant Pub prior to a planning appeal. Mrs Blair suggested the pub could have been saved if it was protected by Article 4 Directions.

   iv.                    Asked for the Council to bring in Article 4 Directions. Suggested not having these put pubs at risk. Noted this item was coming to committee in future.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change responded that Article 4 Directions were coming to committee in January 2014 as Mrs Blair said.

 

 

Speaking on Motion 7B

 

The Mayor read out the following statement in support of Motion 7B as submitted via email by Ms Gohler:

 

“In addition to the Interim Planning Policy Guidance on ‘The Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge’ and Draft Local Plan, Conservation Area Designations as well as definition of Local Centres, CambridgePPF strongly supports the motion to introduce Article 4 Directions to better protect our local pubs and as proposed by Councillor Dryden’s motion [see our letter to Cllr Tim Ward – 4 April 2013

 http://cambridgeppf.org/documents/CPPF_IPPG_Letter_4April2013.pdf].

 

However we are concerned that the motion does not include the protection of those pubs under threat of general change of use (not just change of use classes) and this will in effect still offer an indirect route for some pubs being lost as community facility.

 

Therefore we suggest the motion should be amended to include:

 

“…. removing the right to demolish houses within the City and/ or preventing any change use (including within use classes) without the Council’s prior approval.”

 

In addition we also suggest that the City Council under the Localism Act 2011 immediately establishes a Register of Community Assets which also includes all the pubs as listed in Appendix 1, which we herewith nominate to be included. This Register will need to be consulted on and the earlier nominated community assets are successfully registered, the better they are protected and will be giving the local community the right to bid under the Act.

 

We urge the Council to strengthen the protection of our local pubs as important community elements making all neighbourhoods in Cambridge special to live, work and enjoy.”

 

A copy of Ms Gohler’s statement was circulated to councillors.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change responded:

 

       i.                    Officers had advised that Article 4 would not protect pubs.

     ii.                    The Council's Register of Community Assets has been up and running for some time and is open to Cambridge Past, Present and Future, CAMRA or anyone else to nominate assets. However the City Council, by law, cannot nominate assets itself.

 

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor altered the order of the agenda to take agenda items 7b, 7c and 7d next. However, for the ease of the reader the minutes will follow the order of the printed agenda.

 

Council agreed that Executive recommendations 4(a) (Mid-Year

Financial Review) and 4(b) (Treasury Management) would be considered together, with one debate, rather than separately.

 

The Mayor drew members attention to the final version of the MFR - incorporating the amended Appendix G(b) (Capital and Revenue Projects Hold List) as tabled and approved through Strategy and Resources on 30 September – as circulated around the Chamber.

 

Resolved (by 21votes to 0) to: 

 

General Fund Revenue

 

i.                 Agree the budget strategy, process and timetable for the 2014/15 budget cycle as outlined in Section 7 [pages 27 to 32 refer] and Appendix A of the MFR document.

 

ii.               Agree the revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections as shown in Appendix D, and the associated decisions in Section 7 [pages 27 to 32 refer], of the MFR document.

 

Capital

 

iii.             Agree changes to the Capital & Revenue Projects Plan as set out in Section 6 [pages 24 to 26 refer] and proposed amendments to the plan as set out in Appendix G(a).

 

iv.             Agree the revised Capital & Revenue Projects Hold List, Plan and Funding as shown in Appendices G(b), G(c) and G(d), respectively, of the MFR document.

 

Other

 

v.              Approve the setting up of a new earmarked reserve “Keep Cambridge Moving” as detailed in Section 5 [pages 22 to 23 of the MFR document refer].

 

 

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to: 

 

i.                 Approve the changes to counterparty limits as set out below (and detailed in section 6 and Appendix A of the officer’s report):

 

- Increase current single counterparty limits from £10m to £15m;

 

- Increase the counterparty group limit from £15m to £22.5m (1.5 times single counterparty limit);

 

- Increase HSBC Deposit Account limit by £4m to £20m;

 

- Apply a single counterparty Certificates of Deposit limit of £10m;

 

and;

 

- Apply a Money Market Fund limit of £10m per fund.

 

ii.               Approve changes to the estimated Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2013/14 to 2016/17, inclusive, as set out in Appendix E of the officers report

 

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to:

 

i.                 Agree the proposed changes in housing capital budgets, as detailed in Sections 6 and 7, and summarised in Appendix F, of the Housing Revenue Account Mid-year Financial Review (Business Plan Update) Document.

 

-        Wide Area Network

 

-        Telephone payments upgrade and online payments Content Management System (CMS)

Resolved (by unanimously) to:

 

i.                 Approve the following schemes subject to resources being available to fund the capital and revenue costs:

 

-        Wide Area Network

-        Telephone payments upgrade and online payments Content Management System (CMS)

 

 

 

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

i.                 Agree the timetable (attached to the Officer’s report) for the Council’s budget setting process for 2014 and the changes to the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules in Appendix B of the Officer’s report to reflect these.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

i.                 Agree a change in the scheme of delegation to remove the requirement for any action taken in pursuance of this delegation to the Director of Resources to be reported to the Civic Affairs Committee at its next meeting, and that instead Members be advised by the Director of Resources when such action has been taken, and a record of that advice be made available to the public.

 

1. Councillor Cantrill to the Leader of the Council

 

This year’s living wage week is 3-9 November.  At this meeting last year, the Council agreed a Liberal Democrat motion for it to explore implementing the living wage. 

 

Can the Leader provide an update on the steps we have taken?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that:

 

         i.          The living wage proposal was referred to the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee and the Civic Affairs Committee in January 2013. Council had adopted the proposal in February 2013.

       ii.          Referred to living wage policy details.

      iii.          The policy had been applied to council and agency staff.

     iv.          The living wage policy and employer consideration status would be reviewed at the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee in January 2014 and Council in February 2014.

       v.          The living wage policy for contractors was considered through the procurement process.

 

2. Councillor Johnson to the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

The Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge Julian Huppert was quoted in the House of Commons on 10th October as saying the City Council now has to cut into "muscle and bone". On that point, does the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing regret the 44% cut to CHYPPS, forced through on a casting vote by the 'Young Person's Champion', Cllr Kerr, and does she recognise also that the depth of the cut into the service's "muscle and bone" will have a monumental impact on service provision?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that she:

 

       i.          Regretted the current financial situation where Central Government deficit required the Council to make savings.

     ii.          Disagreed with Labour’s policies for making savings.

   iii.          Took issue with Councillor Johnson’s comments at Community Services.

 

3. Councillor Herbert to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

 

Will she and her colleagues block work on the proposed £173,000 Marque public art until it has been reported to Committee and a proper Council decision is made

 

a) whether the art and concept is good enough or not for Cambridge and for this ‘prestigious’ building?

 

and

 

b ) whether Executive Councillors and Councillors support the spend of £173,000, which is a massive sum that could generate far better public art?

 

and can she share with the Council the main elements of the current £173,000 scheme, including the total amount being paid to and via the artist?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that:

 

      i.          Public art at the site at the junction of Hills Road and Cherry Hinton Road, referred to by its developers as ‘The Marque’ is required under the provisions of the Section 106 agreement associated with the outline planning permission granted on this site in 2006. To meet the requirements of the agreement, the scheme must be in accordance with the Council’s Public Art Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

    ii.          He would not block work on this public art proposal, because it is not the Council’s role to commission, judge or veto on-site public art provided by developers under the terms of a Section 106 agreement. Such agreements require the developers of a site to provide public art to the value of 1% of the construction costs of the development. The Council’s role is to ensure that the process by which developers do so is in accordance with the Council’s Public Art Policy as set out in the Public Art Supplementary Planning Guidance of 2010. This document provides guidelines about the roles public art should fulfil, the process by which a public art scheme should be arrived at, and the means by which high quality should be achieved. It does not assign any role to the Council or its Officers in comparing a submitted public art proposal with possible alternatives or in selecting an artefact or event to be implemented. Judgements on whether a particular piece of public art is  ‘good enough’ for the site or the city, or ‘better’ than any other piece  of art are subjective, and it is not appropriate for the Council or its  officers to approve or veto public art proposals on that basis.

 iii.          In the view of the Public Art Co-ordinator and the Planning Case Officer for the site, the developers on this site have followed the guidelines of the Public Art SPD in an appropriate manner. They have engaged experienced and successful public art consultants, set out an  appropriate artists’ brief, invited proposals from artists, assessed  shortlisted projects thoroughly, and commissioned an artist with an  international reputation. Most importantly, they have, as recommended by the Public Art SPD, involved local stakeholders in the process of reaching a final scheme. Advice was sought from Councillor Herbert, among others, about inviting members of the community to join the Steering Group for this scheme. The Public Art Co-ordinator and the Planning Case Officer are both of the view that subject to checking of  the scheme and construction costs, the public art proposal meets the  requirements of the Section 106 agreement.

  iv.          The proposal itself requires planning permission, because it is ‘development’ within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A planning application has been submitted, and is due to be determined at Planning Committee on 6th November. This decision must be made solely on whether the proposal is acceptable as development and in accordance with the development plan. It cannot be made on the basis of a judgement on the proposal’s artistic worth, or on the basis of a comparison between this scheme and any other possible ways of meeting the requirements of the Section 106 agreement.

 

4. Councillor Dryden to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Recently the elderly residents that were moved out of their homes from the Colville and Augers Road bungalows received redirected a letter from the city council stating that their old homes were going to be upgraded, this just a few days before the Planning Committee gave permission for their old homes to be demolished. How did this blunder happen?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

 

i.                 Letters had been issued in error by Estates and Facilities to 4 properties in Augers Road, indicating that electrical rewiring work was due to be undertaken as part of the annual housing maintenance investment programme.

ii.               Officers have apologised for the error occurring and I have been assured that improvements have been made to the appropriate information systems, so as to ensure that such an error does not occur again in future.

iii.             Housing Officers and the Executive Councillor were also upset at the distress caused to residents.

 

5. Councillor Pitt to the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

Does the Executive Councillor agree that the Arts Picture House plays a unique role in the cultural landscape in Cambridge?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

 

i.                 Agreed that the Arts Picture House played a unique role in the cultural landscape in Cambridge.

ii.               Acknowledged that when the old Arts Cinema had closed down, the Arts Picture House had filled the void.

iii.             Expressed concern regarding the decision of the Competition Commission, and felt that it would result in less choice in the city, not more.

iv.             Hoped that the closure could be prevented.

 

6. Councillor Pippas to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

The Street Champion Coordinator has been in post for some time. Can the Executive Councillor report what they have been doing and what events are planned?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that:

 

i.                 The Street Champion Coordinator had been very busy in the community and has been developing a sound base for the Street Champion Scheme.

ii.               The first three Street Champion volunteers had been signed up in Arbury with many more expressions of interest including two further possible volunteers to focus on dog ownership issues.

iii.             With a proper application process it can take a while depending on the speed of volunteers filling in paperwork.

iv.             The Street Champion Coordinator has made contact with community centres and would be developing community contacts by working with, and being present at, the centres.    

v.              Twitter was fully active @StreetChamps and updates were being provided on a regular basis.

vi.             Facebook is in the process of being developed more fully and would play a part for established members.

vii.           At the moment there is particular focus on The Meadows, Browns Field and Trumpington Community Centres.

viii.         Eight events were planned before Christmas with Litter Picks and Dog Fouling education patrols all brought about through the interest in the Street Champions scheme.

ix.             The following events are planned for Tuesdays and Saturdays for the next two months:

 

-        East Chesterton – Litter picks, 11am on Saturdays 9th November and 7th December, Browns Field Youth and Community Centre.

 

-        Trumpington - Litter  picks, 11am on Tuesdays 19th November, 10th December Trumpington Community Centre.

 

-        Arbury – Litter picks, 11am on Saturdays 30th November, and 14th December Meadows Community Centre.

 

-        Arbury/West Chesterton – Dog fouling education patrol, 10am Tuesdays 26th November, and 17 December around Mere Road/Carlton Road.

 

7. Councillor Ashton to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Following the coalition’s report that not enough bungalows are being built for the elderly that are proven to help community values do you regret this Council’s decision to demolish the bungalows in Cherry Hinton and also those in East Chesterton?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that:

 

i.       Older people now require different forms of housing and many local authority bungalows are too small to meet their needs.

ii.     Between July and September 2012 40% of Home Link bidders were successful, which indicates that we have a good range of properties to rehome people.

iii.   Due to their size, a number of houses designed for older people have been let to younger people.

iv.   She did not regret the Council’s decision to demolish the bungalows in Cherry Hinton and East Chesterton.

 

8. Councillor Moghadas to the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

Has the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing told GLL that she supports removing the Health Suite from Parkside Pools and when did the community and councillors and committee get a say?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that:

 

       i.          Usage of the Health Suite had decreased and was only used by a very small number of Cambridge residents.

     ii.          A report on the awarding of the Leisure Management Contract was brought to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee on 25 June 2013. The change of use of the Health Suite was discussed in detail and the Committee supported the recommendations.

 

 

The following Oral Questions were also tabled, but owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted, were not covered during the meeting:

 

9. Councillor Price to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Can the Executive Councillor for Housing please tell us her current position on the bedroom tax/spare room subsidy?

 

 

10.     Councillor Reid to the Leader

 

What response was made on behalf of the Council to the government's recent consultation on the proposal to remove some of the New Homes Bonus expected by councils for local investment in their communities, and give it to the Local Enterprise Partnerships?

 

11.     Councillor Tucker to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

Could the Executive Councillor for Public Places please update us on the Parkers Piece lighting project?

 

12.  Councillor Rosenstiel to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

 

Can the Executive Councillor advise the progress on the return of joint decision-making arrangements for traffic matters in the city?

 

13. Councillor Owers to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

Can the Executive Councillor explain how the Cambridge BID interacts with the two town centre City Rangers, the city street cleaning team, and the new Rapid Response Team?

 

 

14. Councillor Moghadas to the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

Does the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing share our commitment that staff delivering Council services should receive at least the living wage, and also that new contractors should not arbitrarily remove staff entitlements?

 

15. Councillor Ashton to the Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

What is the Council doing to celebrate the 50th Folk Festival next year.

 

This event that began as a local event and is now recognised as a National / International Event. Not only is it a wonderful event for all ages but has brought in considerable revenue over the years to this Council that has been used to subsidise other music events in the city. It has been mooted for some kind of memorial to the local man who started it all off Ken Woollard.

 

16. Councillor Dryden to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

Since you have disbanded the Public Arts Panel can you give us update where we are now to achieve the Parkers Piece project to celebrate the first FA written rules which were played here?

 

17. Councillor Johnson to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Can the Executive Councillor for Housing update Council on the most up-to-date figure of the total number of those on the Housing Needs Register?

 

18. Councillor Owers to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

Can the Executive Councillor give an update on the Rapid Response Team, and how the service will be advertised to the public?

 

19. Councillor Herbert to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

 

What are the Council and the County Council doing to ensure that Brookgate deliver on their transport obligations and their promised £2.4 million transport contribution, should further stages of CB1 proceed?

 

 

 

 

Reversing Coalition cuts in affordable housing

 

This Council is committed to maximising the delivery of affordable housing in Cambridge given the thousands of Cambridge households in serious housing need. 

 

We call on the Coalition Government and our 2 Cambridge MPs to achieve the removal of all provisions that damage local affordable housing delivery, particularly the repeal of the new Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 ‘get out clauses’ which gift the opportunity to some Cambridge developers to delete all affordable housing from their schemes.

 

Under Part 4a Paragraph 26.1 of the Council’s Constitution, and with the consent of Council, Councillor Price made a minor amendment to the published Motion.

 

Councillor Price proposed and Councillor Blencowe seconded the following motion:

 

“This Council is committed to maximising the delivery of affordable housing in Cambridge given the thousands of Cambridge households in serious housing need. 

 

We call on the Coalition Government and our 2 Cambridge MPs to achieve the removal of all provisions that damage local affordable housing delivery, particularly the repeal of the new Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 ‘get out clauses’ which gift the opportunity to some Cambridge developers to delete all affordable housing from their schemes.”

 

Resolved (unanimously) that the motion be agreed as set out above.

Following on from the Interim Planning Policy Guidance on the Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge and the related policies in the draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014, the Council calls upon the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change to designate, under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, removing the right to demolish public houses within the City without the Council's prior approval.

Councillor Dryden proposed and Councillor Todd-Jones seconded the following motion:

 

“Following on from the Interim Planning Policy Guidance on the Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge and the related policies in the draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014, the Council calls upon the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change to designate, under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, removing the right to demolish public houses within the City without the Council's prior approval.”

 

Councillor Reid proposed and Councillor Rosenstiel seconded the following amendment:

 

Delete all and replace with:

 

"Council notes

 

(1) the evidence base represented by the Cambridge Public House Study

 

(2) the measures taken, based on that evidence, to protect public houses  in Cambridge in the Interim Planning Policy Guidance

 

(3) that similar measures are being taken forward in the draft Cambridge  Local Plan 2014.

 

Council further notes the national recognition given to its pioneering work in this field by

 

(i) the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA)

 

(ii) the All Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group

 

each of who has asked the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate  Change to make a presentation to them concerning this work.

 

However, being aware that

 

(A) there is currently no protection against the demolition of pubs  outside conservation areas

 

(B) ministers' response to lobbying on this issue has to date been to recommend that councils use Article 4 Directions to require planning  permission before pubs outside conservation areas can be demolished

 

Council

 

(a) encourages the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change  in his continuing efforts to lobby government for changes in planning  law to make it easier to protect pubs

 

(b) welcomes the report that the Executive Councillor for Planning and  Climate Change is bringing to the January 2014 meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee covering the use of Article 4 Directions  to control the demolition of pubs outside conservation areas."

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 21 votes to 0.

 

Resolved (unanimously) that:

 

Council notes

 

(1) the evidence base represented by the Cambridge Public House Study

 

(2) the measures taken, based on that evidence, to protect public houses  in Cambridge in the Interim Planning Policy Guidance

 

(3) that similar measures are being taken forward in the draft Cambridge  Local Plan 2014.

 

Council further notes the national recognition given to its pioneering work in this field by

 

(i) the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA)

 

(ii) the All Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group

 

each of who has asked the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate  Change to make a presentation to them concerning this work.

 

However, being aware that

 

(A) there is currently no protection against the demolition of pubs  outside conservation areas

 

(B) ministers' response to lobbying on this issue has to date been to recommend that councils use Article 4 Directions to require planning  permission before pubs outside conservation areas can be demolished

 

Council

 

(a) encourages the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change  in his continuing efforts to lobby government for changes in planning  law to make it easier to protect pubs

 

(b) welcomes the report that the Executive Councillor for Planning and  Climate Change is bringing to the January 2014 meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee covering the use of Article 4 Directions  to control the demolition of pubs outside conservation areas.

 

 

The Council resolves to appoint His Honour Judge Gareth Hawksworth to the post of Honorary Recorder of Cambridge for as long as he holds the position of Resident Judge at Cambridge Crown Count.

 

Councillor Saunders proposed and Councillor Dryden seconded the following motion:

 

“The Council resolves to appoint His Honour Judge Gareth Hawkesworth to the post of Honorary Recorder of Cambridge for as long as he holds the position of Resident Judge at Cambridge Crown Count.”

 

Resolved (unanimously) that the motion be agreed as set out above.

 

 

Protecting Allotments

 

       i.          This Council notes that in December 2008 this Council unanimously agreed a Labour motion in support of the importance of allotments in the City, the unmet demand for allotments and fulfilling the Council’s duty to make available suitable and sufficient allotments to meet the needs of residents. Subsequently in October 2010 the then Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation, Cllr Rod Cantrill, approved a new Management Policy for Allotments setting out what the Council wanted to achieve from its allotments provision in the City at Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

 

     ii.          The Council further notes that the City Council owns 22 allotment sites, managing 8 of them directly, and that demand for them continues to grow. It considers that allotments are a unique resource and an intrinsic part of the City’s green spaces with significance for wildlife and biodiversity and providing many and socially inclusive benefits to allotment gardeners, communities and the wider environment. At a time of real financial hardship for many, they can also provide high quality, fresh and low cost food and the opportunity for a year-round healthy and active lifestyle.

 

   iii.          Cambridge is a city where there is significant and ever increasing pressure for land to be developed for housing, education and employment purposes.

 

   iv.          The Council notes that whilst Policy 67 of the draft new Local Plan offers good protection of open spaces in Cambridge, including allotments, the formal designation of an allotment site as ‘statutory’ rather than ‘temporary’ is also very important since, under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, statutory status gives the further safeguard that a local authority must seek permission from the Secretary of State before selling or changing the use of a 'statutory' site. It also provides allotment tenants with greater confidence in their tenure. It is likely that many of the Council’s allotment sites are ‘statutory’ sites but no formal designation has ever been given to them and so where any request for redevelopment or change of use is made, each site would have to be researched individually to determine its status.

 

    v.          The Council therefore resolves to bring a report to Environment Scrutiny Committee, in line with the recommendation from the government some years ago, with the recommendation that all the City’s current allotments and any future ones acquired or created in the urban extensions, be automatically formally designated as ‘statutory’ sites, and that in the event that any sites are suggested not to be given statutory status, details should  be provided of the final use intended for the land and an indication of the likely date for change of use.

 

 

 

Councillor O’Reilly proposed and Councillor Roberts seconded the following motion:

 

“Protecting Allotments

 

       i.          This Council notes that in December 2008 this Council unanimously agreed a Labour motion in support of the importance of allotments in the City, the unmet demand for allotments and fulfilling the Council’s duty to make available suitable and sufficient allotments to meet the needs of residents. Subsequently in October 2010 the then Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation, Cllr Rod Cantrill, approved a new Management Policy for Allotments setting out what the Council wanted to achieve from its allotments provision in the City at Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

 

     ii.          The Council further notes that the City Council owns 22 allotment sites, managing 8 of them directly, and that demand for them continues to grow. It considers that allotments are a unique resource and an intrinsic part of the City’s green spaces with significance for wildlife and biodiversity and providing many and socially inclusive benefits to allotment gardeners, communities and the wider environment. At a time of real financial hardship for many, they can also provide high quality, fresh and low cost food and the opportunity for a year-round healthy and active lifestyle.

 

   iii.          Cambridge is a city where there is significant and ever increasing pressure for land to be developed for housing, education and employment purposes.

 

   iv.          The Council notes that whilst Policy 67 of the draft new Local Plan offers good protection of open spaces in Cambridge, including allotments, the formal designation of an allotment site as ‘statutory’ rather than ‘temporary’ is also very important since, under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, statutory status gives the further safeguard that a local authority must seek permission from the Secretary of State before selling or changing the use of a 'statutory' site. It also provides allotment tenants with greater confidence in their tenure. It is likely that many of the Council’s allotment sites are ‘statutory’ sites but no formal designation has ever been given to them and so where any request for redevelopment or change of use is made, each site would have to be researched individually to determine its status.

 

    v.          The Council therefore resolves to bring a report to Environment Scrutiny Committee, in line with the recommendation from the government some years ago, with the recommendation that all the City’s current allotments and any future ones acquired or created in the urban extensions, be automatically formally designated as ‘statutory’ sites, and that in the event that any sites are suggested not to be given statutory status, details should  be provided of the final use intended for the land and an indication of the likely date for change of use.”

 

Councillor Reiner proposed and Councillor Ward seconded the following amendment:

 

“Protecting Allotments

 

i.                 This Council notes that in December 2008 this Council unanimously agreed a motion in support of the importance of allotments in the City, the unmet demand for allotments and fulfilling the Council’s duty to make available suitable and sufficient allotments to meet the needs of residents. Subsequently in October 2010 the then Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation, Cllr Rod Cantrill, approved a new Management Policy for Allotments setting out what the Council wanted to achieve from its allotments provision in the City at Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

 

ii.               This Council notes that during his tenure as Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation, Cllr Cantrill invested in additional allotments off Kendal Way in East Chesterton and on Empty Common in Trumpington, and that this Council has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to supporting allotments.

 

iii.             This council notes that the new urban extensions in Clay Farm, Glebe Farm, Trumpington Meadows, Bells School, NIAB, North West Cambridge, and City Football Club all have allotment provision.

 

iv.             This Council notes that the City Council has already begun work looking at the status of allotments generally, as part of the licensing renewal process.

 

v.              The Council further notes that the City Council owns 22 allotment sites, managing 8 of them directly, and that demand for them continues to grow. It considers that allotments are a unique resource and an intrinsic part of the City’s green spaces with significance for wildlife and biodiversity and providing many and socially inclusive benefits to allotment gardeners, communities and the wider environment. At a time of real financial hardship for many, they can also provide high quality, fresh and low cost food and the opportunity for a year-round healthy and active lifestyle.

 

vi.             Cambridge is a city where there is significant and ever increasing pressure for land to be developed for housing, education and employment purposes.

 

vii.           The Council notes that whilst Policy 67 of the draft new Local Plan offers good protection of open spaces in Cambridge, including allotments, the formal designation of an allotment site as ‘statutory’ rather than ‘temporary’ is also very important since, under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, statutory status gives the further safeguard that a local authority must seek permission from the Secretary of State before selling or changing the use of a 'statutory' site. It also provides allotment tenants with greater confidence in their tenure. It is likely that many of the Council’s allotment sites are ‘statutory’ sites but no formal designation has ever been given to them and so where any request for redevelopment or change of use is made, each site would have to be researched individually to determine its status.

 

viii.         The Council therefore resolves to bring a report to Environment Scrutiny Committee:

 

a.    setting out ways that City Council could strengthen protection of allotments, including formally designating them as statutory;

b.    recommending that more work to be done to establish which current sites are statutory and which are not;

c.    recommending that, in the event that any current allotments are found to be temporary, that the committee consider re-designation of such temporary sites as statutory;

d.    recommending that future allotments acquired or created in urban extensions be formally designated as statutory sites; and

e.    recommending that, in the event that any current or future sites are suggested not to be given statutory status, details be provided of the final use intended for the land and an indication of the likely date for change of use, however at the time of this motion the Council notes that it is not aware of any such proposals.

 

”

 

 On a show of hands the amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Resolved (unanimously) that:

 

“Protecting Allotments

 

       i.          This Council notes that in December 2008 this Council unanimously agreed a motion in support of the importance of allotments in the City, the unmet demand for allotments and fulfilling the Council’s duty to make available suitable and sufficient allotments to meet the needs of residents. Subsequently in October 2010 the then Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation, Cllr Rod Cantrill, approved a new Management Policy for Allotments setting out what the Council wanted to achieve from its allotments provision in the City at Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

     ii.          This Council notes that during his tenure as Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation, Cllr Cantrill invested in additional allotments off Kendal Way in East Chesterton and on Empty Common in Trumpington, and that this Council has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to supporting allotments.

 

   iii.          This council notes that the new urban extensions in Clay Farm, Glebe Farm, Trumpington Meadows, Bells School, NIAB, North West Cambridge, and City Football Club all have allotment provision.

 

   iv.          This Council notes that the City Council has already begun work looking at the status of allotments generally, as part of the licensing renewal process.

 

    v.          The Council further notes that the City Council owns 22 allotment sites, managing 8 of them directly, and that demand for them continues to grow. It considers that allotments are a unique resource and an intrinsic part of the City’s green spaces with significance for wildlife and biodiversity and providing many and socially inclusive benefits to allotment gardeners, communities and the wider environment. At a time of real financial hardship for many, they can also provide high quality, fresh and low cost food and the opportunity for a year-round healthy and active lifestyle.

 

   vi.          Cambridge is a city where there is significant and ever increasing pressure for land to be developed for housing, education and employment purposes.

 

 vii.          The Council notes that whilst Policy 67 of the draft new Local Plan offers good protection of open spaces in Cambridge, including allotments, the formal designation of an allotment site as ‘statutory’ rather than ‘temporary’ is also very important since, under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, statutory status gives the further safeguard that a local authority must seek permission from the Secretary of State before selling or changing the use of a 'statutory' site. It also provides allotment tenants with greater confidence in their tenure. It is likely that many of the Council’s allotment sites are ‘statutory’ sites but no formal designation has ever been given to them and so where any request for redevelopment or change of use is made, each site would have to be researched individually to determine its status.

 

viii.          The Council therefore resolves to bring a report to Environment Scrutiny Committee:

 

a.    setting out ways that City Council could strengthen protection of allotments, including formally designating them as statutory;

b.    recommending that more work to be done to establish which current sites are statutory and which are not;

c.    recommending that, in the event that any current allotments are found to be temporary, that the committee consider re-designation of such temporary sites as statutory;

d.    recommending that future allotments acquired or created in urban extensions be formally designated as statutory sites; and

e.    recommending that, in the event that any current or future sites are suggested not to be given statutory status, details be provided of the final use intended for the land and an indication of the likely date for change of use, however at the time of this motion the Council notes that it is not aware of any such proposals.

 

This Council notes that:

 

       i.          the Office of National Statistics (ONS) has launched a consultation about the future of the National Census.

 

     ii.          an option being considered is that information is collated from administrative data already held by Government and the National Census every ten years is abolished.

 

   iii.          Government formulas use population as a factor when calculating grants to local authorities, the NHS, the police and many other public bodies.

 

   iv.          models, samples and estimates need regular independent checking to make them as accurate as possible.

 

Council further notes that:

 

    v.          the ONS introduced a new model of estimating population in 2011 which under-estimated the population of Cambridge by 18,400.

 

   vi.          the estimates done by the Cambridgeshire County Council's Research group were higher and (as shown by the Census) more accurate.

 

 vii.          the DCLG only accepted the higher, more accurate, figure when the 2011 census data was released.

 

viii.          the ONS is continuing to use a variant of the model to estimate the population both of the city and of the sub-region and there is already a gap between the ONS and County estimates .

 

Therefore Council asks that the Chief Executive write to:

 

   ix.          the Office of National Statistics to express our concern at the loss of the National Census as it has proved to be necessary to correct inaccurate estimates.

 

    x.          the MPs for the City to express our concern that, if the Census is discontinued, there will cease to be this regular independent check.

 

Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Roberts seconded the following motion:

 

“This Council notes that:

 

       i.          The Office of National Statistics (ONS) has launched a consultation about the future of the National Census.

 

     ii.          An option being considered is that information is collated from administrative data already held by Government and the National Census every ten years is abolished.

 

   iii.          Government formulas use population as a factor when calculating grants to local authorities, the NHS, the police and many other public bodies.

 

   iv.          Models, samples and estimates need regular independent checking to make them as accurate as possible.

 

Council further notes that:

 

    v.          The ONS introduced a new model of estimating population in 2011 which under-estimated the population of Cambridge by 18,400.

 

   vi.          The estimates done by the Cambridgeshire County Council's Research group were higher and (as shown by the Census) more accurate.

 

 vii.          The DCLG only accepted the higher, more accurate, figure when the 2011 census data was released.

 

viii.          The ONS is continuing to use a variant of the model to estimate the population both of the city and of the sub-region and there is already a gap between the ONS and County estimates.

 

Therefore Council asks that the Chief Executive write to:

 

   ix.          The Office of National Statistics to express our concern at the loss of the National Census as it has proved to be necessary to correct inaccurate estimates.

 

    x.          The MPs for the City to express our concern that, if the Census is discontinued, there will cease to be this regular independent check.”

 

Resolved (unanimously) that the motion be agreed as set out above.

 

 

Member noted the written questions and answers circulated around the chamber.