Agenda and minutes

APOLOGIES

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Gillespie and O’Connell.

 

MAYOR’S DAY OUT

 

The Mayor informed Councillors that the annual Mayor’s Day Out to Great Yarmouth would take place on Wednesday 17 August 2016.  

 

HARVEST FESTIVAL CIVIC SERVICE

 

This would take place on Sunday 9 October at 9.30am at Great St. Mary’s Church. Details for this event will be emailed at the beginning of September.

 

PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF THANKS TO COUNCILLOR ROBERT DRYDEN

 

The Mayor welcomed Mr Fleuss to the meeting.

 

The Mayor informed Councillors that this year marked the 40th year of Mr Fleuss producing the annual Resolution of Thanks, a job that was originally passed on to him by his mentor Gee Horsley who was well known as a highly respected tutor in many arts related subjects at the then Cambridge School of Art. She produced the World War II memorial in the entrance lobby of the Guildhall having taken over from the person who produced the First World War memorial opposite.

 

On behalf of the City Council, the Mayor presented Councillor Dryden with a framed copy of the Resolution of Thanks for his service as Mayor during the 2015/16 municipal year, passed at the annual meeting of the Council on the 26 May 2016.

 

THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SIMON PAYNE AND THE HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES SIMON PUGH

 

This was the last meeting before both Simon Payne and Simon Pugh left the Council.  Members expressed their thanks to the two Officers for their service.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Gehring	16/10/CNLa	Personal: Is a European citizen
Councillor Roberts	16/10/CNLa	Personal: Works for the European Union

 

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

 

The minutes of the 3 meetings held 26 May 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Mr Carpen raised the following points:

       i.          It was confusing to search for public meetings on the various calendars used by City Council, County Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and the City Deal.

     ii.          There were various comments on social media highlighting peoples’ concerns with the multiplicity of calendars.

   iii.          Requested that the City Council, County Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and the City Deal amalgamated meeting information, to ensure meetings did not clash because two or more organisations held meetings on the same day.

 

The Leader responded:

       i.          The Councils and the City Deal did liaise to try and arrange meetings so they did not clash. Each organisation was aware of the others’ meeting calendar.

     ii.          The City Council, County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council had calendars that councillors, officers and members of the public could access on-line.

   iii.          The councils would like to arrange meetings so there were no clashes, but it was not always possible due to time constraints.

   iv.          The way that City Deal meetings were publicised could be reviewed.

    v.          Councillor attendance at meetings reflected their availability rather than lack of awareness of meetings.

 

Mr Carpen made the following supplementary points:

       i.          A session was arranged for the home builders federation at the Local Plan hearings, but they did not turn up. This was a cost to the public purse.

     ii.          By not using social media effectively the council was missing an opportunity to disseminate information.

 

The Leader responded by saying he welcomed public interest in meetings and the dissemination of information through social media.

 

2.    Mr Browne raised the following points:

       i.          Requested a town hall style public meeting to discuss the impact of the European Union Referendum result.

     ii.          Expressed concern over the:

a.    Increase in racially motivated attacks.

b.    Impact on participation in the European Union research programme.

 

The Leader responded:

       i.          He agreed with Mr Browne’s points.

     ii.          Hate crime and the rights of European Union citizens would be debated later on the agenda.

   iii.          There were a number of people who wished to remain in the European Union. Some held a demonstration outside the Guildhall to express support.

   iv.          It had to be taken into account that not all people in the city/country wished to be part of the European Union.

    v.          An indoor rational discussion is the correct approach.

   vi.          The Leader undertook to investigate setting up a public meeting in response to Mr Browne’s public question regarding the impact of the EU referendum.

 

As a supplementary point Mr Browne asked if the public meeting could be held in the next month.

 

The Leader anticipated the meeting would be held between 25 July and 5 August 2016.

 

3.    Mr Taylor raised the following points:

       i.          Asked councillors not to vote to increase their allowances later on the agenda. Funding should go towards services not councillors’ allowances. There was insufficient funding to pay for it from the Central Government grant.

     ii.          Asked for a recorded vote regarding the member allowance decision for transparency.

   iii.          Requested greater transparency on allowances and who received them.

Resolved (by 26 votes to 0):

To approve carry forward requests of £2,171,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital resources from 2015/16 to 2016/17 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report and the associated notes to the appendix of the Officer’s report.

Council was recommended to agree the carry forward requests as set out on the agenda.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the following amendment (additional text underlined):

 

Accordingly, Council is recommended to:

       i.          Agree the carry forward requests, totalling £485.3K revenue funding from 2015/16 to 2016/17 as detailed in Appendix C.

     ii.          Agree the carry forward requests of £18,616k (including £2,171k relating to the Housing Capital Investment Plan) capital resources from 2015/16 to 2016/17 to fund rephrased net capital spending as detailed in Appendix D – Overview.

   iii.          The council expresses concern on the delay of elements of the Councils Capital Plan, particularly in relation to areas such as EIP, 20 mph and cycling projects, that have a direct impact on residents day to day lives. This is despite the fact that the Council ‘paused’ the budget for EIP, during the financial year 2015/2016. The Council asks for a specific report to be brought to Strategy and Resources Committee identifying the reasons for the delays and setting out what actions need to be taken to address the issues.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 12 votes to 27.

 

Resolved (by 27 votes to 0) to:

       i.          Agree the carry forward requests, totalling £485.3K revenue funding from 2015/16 to 2016/17 as detailed in Appendix C of the agenda pack.

     ii.          Agree the carry forward requests of £18,616k (including £2,171k relating to the Housing Capital Investment Plan) capital resources from 2015/16 to 2016/17 to fund rephrased net capital spending as detailed in Appendix D – Overview.

Council was recommended to approve the report as set out on the agenda.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the following amendment (additional text underlined):

 

Accordingly, Council is recommended to:

       i.          Approve the report which included the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2015/16.

     ii.          The council notes the economic and financial uncertainty that has been created by the Referendum vote to leave the EU.  The Council asks for a specific report on the impact on the council’s finances of the decision, to be brought to the next Strategy and Resources committee.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 12 votes to 27.

 

Resolved (by 27 votes to 0) to:

Approve the report which included the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2015/16.

Resolved (unanimously):

To approve the designation of Maria Memoli, the Interim Head of Shared Legal Practice, as the Council’s Monitoring Officer for the period 1 August to 21 August and that Tom Lewis, the new Head of the (Shared) Legal Practice, is designated the Council’s Monitoring Officer from the 22 August 2016.

Resolved (unanimously):

To approve the Code of Corporate Governance.

Council was recommended to adopt the amended interim recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel as set out on the agenda.

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the following amendment (additional wording underlined, deleted text struck through):

 

Resolved to recommend to Council:

 

To adopt the amended interim recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel:

         

Basic Allowance

 

       i.          The Area Committee Allowance be removed and the sum consolidated into the Basic Allowance.

     ii.          The Basic Allowance be re-aligned to the National Living Wage and thereafter be indexed in line with National Living Wage increases in order to rectify the anomalous situation which has arisen through failing to index link Councillors' Allowances. By 1st April 2016 the national minimum wage will have increased by 25.6% from £5.73 per hour in 2008, (when current Allowance payments were last set) to £7.20 per hour. The Basic Allowance should be increased by the same percentage to £4,300 with effect from the 2016/17 municipal year. That the Basic Allowance is increased by 14% – this would increase basic allowance of £3199 to £3647 with effect from the 2016/17 municipal year.  The increase reflects the pay increase of the lower staff salary bands between 2008 – 2015 – taking into account the impact of the introduction of the Living Wage within the authority.

 

2.2 of the recommendation is adjusted accordingly.

 

   iii.          This increase be applied immediately, in full, since it will only bring the Basic Allowance closer to, rather than on a par with, that paid to Members of comparable Councils.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 12 votes to 27.

 

Resolved (by 27 votes to 0) to adopt the amended interim recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel:

 

Basic Allowance

 

       i.          The Area Committee Allowance be removed and the sum consolidated into the Basic Allowance.

     ii.          The Basic Allowance be re-aligned to the National Living Wage and thereafter be indexed in line with National Living Wage increases in order to rectify the anomalous situation which has arisen through failing to index link Councillors' Allowances. By 1st April 2016 the national minimum wage will have increased by 25.6% from £5.73 per hour in 2008, (when current Allowance payments were last set) to £7.20 per hour. The Basic Allowance should be increased by the same percentage to £4,300 with effect from the 2016/17 municipal year.

   iii.          This increase be applied immediately, in full, since it will only bring the Basic Allowance closer to, rather than on a par with, that paid to Members of comparable Councils.

 

Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs)

 

   iv.          As an interim measure, pending the outcome of a more comprehensive review of SRA payments, that the Planning Committee Chair’s SRA be increased by £1,000 to £3,226 pa to bring the allowance payment for this role closer to that paid by comparable authorities. That other allowances for the Planning Committee (ie for Vice-chair and Members) remain the same.

    v.          As an interim measure, that SRAs be removed from Vice Chairs of all committees other than that of the Planning Committee and that the SRAs to all members of committees (with the exception of the Licensing, Planning and Joint Development Control Committees) be discontinued. This saving could be reallocated to part fund the recommended changes to the Basic Allowance, the Planning Committee Chair’s allowance or expenses.

   vi.          With the exceptions outlined above, other SRAs remain as they are for the present, and a further detailed review of SRAs be conducted within 6 months when the impact of current developments in Councillor roles and responsibilities is clearer. The objective of this review will be to produce an internally consistent scheme for Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances which will be appropriate to current Councillor roles and responsibilities.

 

IT/Expenses

 

 vii.          As part of the move to increase efficiency and reduce waste, IT support be enhanced for councillors. (The Panel understand that there are IT support issues within the Council which should be resolved). This will produce efficiencies in the longer term. The council already support councillors by providing new laptops when requested. This should continue to be the case but the automatic issue of laptops or tablets is not agreed.

viii.          As the stationery expense is so out of date the claim for stationery expense be removed and a gross amount of £75 per councillor per annum be allowed in addition to the Basic Allowance. This is to cover stationery, mobile phone and other communication expenses.

   ix.          Apart from the changes outlined above travel, subsistence and carers' allowances remain the same but carers should be paid at least the Living Wage.

    x.          That the next full review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme should take place not more than two years from the date of the Panel’s report.

 

2.2   That Council approves the budgetary requirement for 2016/17

       up to £46,917 from Reserves.

Primary Questions

 

1) Councillor Baigent to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

Is the Council investment in Haverhill Business Park generating a return?

 

The Executive Councillor responded the investment was generating rent of over £450k per annum, equivalent to a return of 6.1% on the costs of acquisition.

 

The Council was investing in property as reserves in the bank were not earning much interest.

 

2) Councillor Austin to the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Open Spaces

 

How much longer will the public have to wait before they have full access to Jesus Green? It is now over six weeks since the Beer Festival ended and damage was done during the dismantling and removal process.

 

The Executive Councillor responded that unfortunately a period of heavy rain during the dismantling of the infrastructure after the Beer Festival resulted in localised damage to Jesus Green. This period of wet weather then continued on a regular basis throughout June, which nationally has been recorded as the wettest ever since records began.

 

These unprecedented weather conditions hampered the rectification works and although officers positioned themselves to undertake the work by delivery of materials to site, there was not the opportunity to work the damaged area with the machinery required until Thursday 8 July 2016.

 

The affected area has been demarked by orange fencing to deter but not preclude access.   With the work now complete this fencing has been removed and full access to the park is possible with only some small, but obvious areas, not useable due to grass not yet establishing. The continuation of current mild weather and precipitation should ensure quick re-establishment of these areas.

 

3) Councillor Barnett to the Executive Councillor for Communities

 

How are plans for 2016 Folk Festival progressing?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that since April 2015 the management and delivery of the Folk Festival rests with Cambridge Live, the City Council did not have an operational role. Following dialogue with Cambridge Live, plans for the event were progressing as expected and tickets were expected to sell out soon. The Festival is maintaining its very high level of artistic, ethical and green standards and is receiving excellent national press coverage. Cambridge Live has continued the work established with the Greener Festival Awards and Cambridge Folk Festival is now a Greener Festival Associate, reflecting its long track record in this area. It is now also working with ‘Attitude is Everything’, an organisation committed to improving deaf and disabled people’s access to live music. Within the programme itself, the festival’s commitment to social justice, fairness and tolerance were clearly visible. Further detailed information on the line-up was listed on the Cambridge Folk Festival pages on the Cambridge Live website.

 

4) Councillor Cantrill to the Leader

 

Does the leader believe that the replacement lighting on Burrell’s Walk satisfies both the form and function objectives that were discussed at length prior to the work commencing?

 

The Leader responded that no-one from the County Council or Balfour Beatty was available to meet him in Burrell’s Walk 13 July 2016.

 

The Leader had looked at lighting in Burrell’s Walk 11 and 13 July. He would do so again the following week.

 

There appeared to be issues with light quality as not all were working. This would be reviewed in future with the County Council.

 

5) Councillor Perry to the Executive Councillor for Environment and Waste (on behalf of Councillor Sinnott)

 

Can the Executive Councillor update the council on progress with the next stages for electric and hybrid taxis?

 

The Executive Councillor referred to paperwork from the June Environment Scrutiny Committee which was available on-line.

 

The livery on vehicles would be reviewed in future.

 

6) Councillor Ratcliffe to the Leader

 

Further to reports of hate crime in Huntingdon since the EU Referendum, have similar incidents been occurring in Cambridge?

 

The Leader responded that he met the Commander of Cambridgeshire Police a week ago. There had been an increase in hate crimes across the city and outside, but these were not specifically focussed on European Union citizens. More so on members of the Muslim, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transsexual communities.

 

7) Councillor Todd-Jones to the Leader

 

Given the importance of the City Deal proposals for Histon Road and Milton Road, can the Leader give the Council an update on the Local Liaison Forum process?

 

The Leader responded that he thought Histon and Milton Road would benefit from separate Local Liaison Forums. The Leader met with the Chair of the Local Liaison Forum who expressed concern regarding process and set up. These concerns were passed onto the County Council. Meetings in the near future have been delayed so that concerns could be addressed.

 

A process that engaged residents was desirable.

 

Local Liaison Forums have been established for the tranche 1 infrastructure schemes, and have all met once so far.  Local Liaison Forum were intended to make sure that local communities could have their say on schemes as they develop.  Local Liaison Forum Chairs should be invited to come along to City Deal Board and Assembly meetings to ensure the Board makes informed decisions based on local community input.  The Local Liaison Forums will be held in public.

 

8) Councillor Gehring to the Leader

 

Does the Leader agree that more democratic scrutiny is better for sustainable long term decisions such as for the City Deal?

 

The Leader responded the Council had a seat on the City Deal Board. The post holder would be accountable to the Council.

 

9) Councillor Smart to the Leader

 

Can he update Councillors on devolution since the recent special council meeting?

 

The Leader responded that all councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough had supported the proposals and public consultation was underway. Also there had been changes in Central Government post holders since the devolution process began.

 

The Leader expected Central Government to clarify its approach in future. The Leader wanted a clear commitment on affordable housing.

 

13) Councillor Adey to the Leader

 

Would the Leader of the Council please indicate what difference the result of the referendum on EU membership will have upon the Authorities twinning links?

 

The Leader responded he expected the referendum would have no impact on twinning arrangements. The value of twinning links would become more important in future.

 

The Council had a modest budget for twinning arrangements, which should operate in future similarly to current ones.

 

 

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

 

 

10) Councillor Bick to the  Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Which of the new actions to prevent rough sleeping reported to him at Housing Scrutiny Committee is already having an impact on today's noticeably worsened situation on the city's streets? Does he think there is enough hostel capacity in the city?

 

11) Councillor Sargeant to the Leader

 

What is the current position on work to develop shared services with other councils?

 

12) Councillor Sarris to the Leader

 

Are the police reviewing Parkside Police Station and what is the Council’s view?

 

14) Councillor Page-Croft to the Executive Councillor for Environment and Waste

 

Does the Executive Councillor believe in the use of by laws by the city council to deal with issues?

 

Secondary Question

 

15) Councillor Barnett to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

Given opposition party claims about maternity leave provision during the 2015/16 budget setting process, can he advise the outturn on the funding reserve allocated?

The Motion

 

This Council notes

 

·         The majority national referendum vote to leave the European Union, creating new challenges for Cambridge as an international city

 

·         That nationally and locally there is a need to address the wider reasons for the exit vote  and the disaffection many felt towards the EU and the wider political system

 

·         That locally a large majority of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire residents voted to remain

 

·         That our community enjoys and welcomes EU citizens as residents, people who regard Cambridge as their home and who perform key roles in our economy and in local NHS services and study or research at the city’s two Universities, and who deserve clear assurances that they are welcome to stay

 

·         That there have been disturbing reports of a rise of racist and xenophobic incidents, hate crime and racist graffiti in Cambridgeshire, including hate messages targeted at local residents from Poland distributed recently in nearby Huntingdon

·         That Cambridgeshire police and the Council’s Safer Communities Team are working effectively to combat hate crime and encourage community cohesion

 

This council states that:

·         Cambridge is determined to stay a diverse, open, welcoming and tolerant city

 

·         EU citizens contribute much to our community and should be granted clear rights to remain, and need a statement now by Government supporting this

·         There is no place for racism or hate crimes in our city and that any perpetrators need to be caught and prosecuted.

 

This council therefore resolves to:

·         Write to the Prime Minister, and all the candidates for that job, asking for a clear statement from each of them supporting the rights of EU citizens already here in Cambridge to remain in the UK

·         Write in similar terms to the city’s two MPs informing them of this motion and asking for their assistance in lobbying government to achieve our objectives on this, and in tackling hate crime

·         Continue the council’s work with community organisations and Cambridgeshire police in combating and preventing hate crime, and investigate further opportunities to build our city’s commitment to togetherness and tolerance and support the rights of all our residents to live and work here in peace, whatever their nationality and culture

·         Continue to work on the wider impacts on the city of the exit vote, and any opportunities, working with local organisations , employers and our MPs.

 

Councillor Ratcliffe altered motion 6a through rule 26 with the consent of the Council (additional text underlined).

 

Councillor Ratcliffe proposed and Councillor Gehring seconded the following motion: 

 

EU Citizens and Hate Crime

 

This Council notes

 

·       The majority national referendum vote to leave the European Union, creating new challenges for Cambridge as an international city

·       That nationally and locally there is a need to address the wider reasons for the exit vote  and the disaffection many felt towards the EU and the wider political system

·       That locally a large majority of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire residents voted to remain

·       That our community enjoys and welcomes EU citizens as residents, people who regard Cambridge as their home and who perform key roles in our economy and in local NHS services and study or research at the city’s two Universities, and who deserve clear assurances that they are welcome to stay

·       That there have been disturbing reports of a rise of racist and xenophobic incidents, hate crime and racist graffiti in Cambridgeshire, including hate messages targeted at local residents from Poland distributed recently in nearby Huntingdon

·       That Cambridgeshire police and the Council’s Safer Communities Team are working effectively to combat hate crime and encourage community cohesion

 

This council states that:

·       Cambridge is determined to stay a diverse, open, welcoming and tolerant city

·       EU citizens contribute much to our community and should be granted clear rights to remain, and need a statement now by Government supporting this

·       There is no place for racism or hate crimes in our city and that any perpetrators need to be caught and prosecuted.

 

This council therefore resolves to:

·       Write to the new Prime Minister, and (when appointed) the Minister responsible for Brexit negotiations all the candidates for that job, asking for a clear statement from each of them supporting the rights of EU citizens already here in Cambridge to remain in the UK

·       Write in similar terms to the city’s two MPs informing them of this motion and asking for their assistance in lobbying government to achieve our objectives on this, and in tackling hate crime

·       Continue the council’s work with community organisations and Cambridgeshire police in combating and preventing hate crime, and investigate further opportunities to build our city’s commitment to togetherness and tolerance and support the rights of all our residents to live and work here in peace, whatever their nationality and culture

·       Continue to work on the wider impacts on the city of the exit vote, and any opportunities, working with local organisations, employers and our MPs.

 

Resolved (unanimously) that:

 

This Council notes

 

·       The majority national referendum vote to leave the European Union, creating new challenges for Cambridge as an international city

·       That nationally and locally there is a need to address the wider reasons for the exit vote  and the disaffection many felt towards the EU and the wider political system

·       That locally a large majority of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire residents voted to remain

·       That our community enjoys and welcomes EU citizens as residents, people who regard Cambridge as their home and who perform key roles in our economy and in local NHS services and study or research at the city’s two Universities, and who deserve clear assurances that they are welcome to stay

·       That there have been disturbing reports of a rise of racist and xenophobic incidents, hate crime and racist graffiti in Cambridgeshire, including hate messages targeted at local residents from Poland distributed recently in nearby Huntingdon

·       That Cambridgeshire police and the Council’s Safer Communities Team are working effectively to combat hate crime and encourage community cohesion

 

This council states that:

·       Cambridge is determined to stay a diverse, open, welcoming and tolerant city

·       EU citizens contribute much to our community and should be granted clear rights to remain, and need a statement now by Government supporting this

·       There is no place for racism or hate crimes in our city and that any perpetrators need to be caught and prosecuted.

 

This council therefore resolves to:

·       Write to the new Prime Minister, and (when appointed) the Minister responsible for Brexit negotiations, asking for a clear statement from each of them supporting the rights of EU citizens already here in Cambridge to remain in the UK

·       Write in similar terms to the city’s two MPs informing them of this motion and asking for their assistance in lobbying government to achieve our objectives on this, and in tackling hate crime

·       Continue the council’s work with community organisations and Cambridgeshire police in combating and preventing hate crime, and investigate further opportunities to build our city’s commitment to togetherness and tolerance and support the rights of all our residents to live and work here in peace, whatever their nationality and culture

·       Continue to work on the wider impacts on the city of the exit vote, and any opportunities, working with local organisations, employers and our MPs.

The motion

 

Council notes that Greenwich Borough Council has adopted a requirement obliging publication of a viability assessment that is both full and un-redacted to justify any shortfall from Local Plan affordable housing targets in plans that are submitted for residential developments. It requests the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to work with officers to investigate this approach for introduction in Cambridge as part of a wider review to update the Council's handling of developer obligations for affordable housing.  

 

Councillor Bick altered his motion under rule 26, with the Council’s consent, to incorporate an amendment of which Councillor Blencowe had given notice.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Avery seconded the following motion: 

 

Viability Assessments for Affordable Housing

 

Council notes that at the Full Council in February of this year a clear commitment was given by Councillor Price that in regards to Viability Assessments the Council would be seeking to maximise transparency for the benefit of both councillors and the public, acknowledging the clear public interest in the issue of affordable housing policy commitments.

 

Council further notes that Greenwich Borough Council has adopted a requirement obliging publication of a viability assessment that is both full and un-redacted to justify any shortfall from Local Plan affordable housing targets in plans that are submitted for residential developments. It requests the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to work with officers to investigate this approach for introduction in Cambridge as part of a wider review to update the Council's handling of developer obligations for affordable housing.

 

Furthermore Council is requested:

·       to consider other emerging best practice in viability assessment and reviews, including the work of the London s106 group, with a view to maximum transparency for members and for the wider community.

·       and to work with South Cambs Planning Services, on the development of a consistent shared Greater Cambridge protocol for s106 including the option of an interim approach pending a review of the Affordable Housing SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD on adoption of the new draft Local Plans.

 

Resolved (unanimously) that:

 

Council notes that at the Full Council in February of this year a clear commitment was given by Councillor Price that in regards to Viability Assessments the Council would be seeking to maximise transparency for the benefit of both councillors and the public, acknowledging the clear public interest in the issue of affordable housing policy commitments.

 

Council further notes that Greenwich Borough Council has adopted a requirement obliging publication of a viability assessment that is both full and un-redacted to justify any shortfall from Local Plan affordable housing targets in plans that are submitted for residential developments. It requests the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to work with officers to investigate this approach for introduction in Cambridge as part of a wider review to update the Council's handling of developer obligations for affordable housing.  

 

Furthermore Council is requested:

·       to consider other emerging best practice in viability assessment and reviews, including the work of the London s106 group, with a view to maximum transparency for members and for the wider community.

·       and to work with South Cambs Planning Services, on the development of a consistent shared Greater Cambridge protocol for s106 including the option of an interim approach pending a review of the Affordable Housing SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD on adoption of the new draft Local Plans.

The motion

 

The council believes that foreign EU and non-EU nationals who live, study and work in Cambridge are integral members of our community and condemns the recently reported rise in racist and xenophobic hate crimes recorded across the country. These crimes are an unacceptable attack on members of our community and do not represent the views of the citizens of Cambridge.

 

We resolve to work to ensure that local organisations have the support and resources they need to fight and prevent racism and xenophobia, and ask officers to bring to the attention of councillors any areas where additional resources may now be required.

 

The council also reaffirms its belief that close ties with Europe are in the best interests of residents, businesses and academics in and around Cambridge, and that this was reflected in a strong "Remain" vote in the city. It resolves to work with local businesses and universities in particular to maintain and enhance ties with Europe wherever possible.

 

The motion was withdrawn prior to the meeting as an agreement had been reached with Councillor Ratcliffe under motion 6a (minute item 16/10/CNLa).

The Mayor advised that no written questions had been received.

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

The decision was noted.

 

The decision was noted.