Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Election results by party > Declarations > Document > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Link: Video recording of the meeting
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 22 February 2018 PDF 89 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on the 22 February 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mayor's announcements Minutes: Apologies Apologies were received from Councillors Adey and McPherson. Reach Fair The Mayor reminded Members that they would have received an invitation,
via email, to attend the annual Proclamation of Reach Fair on bank holiday Monday
7 May. The Mayor asked for replies to be sent by email to Penny Jackson. City Council
Annual Meeting The Mayor asked for members to let Penny Jackson know if they would be
bringing a guest to the Annual Council Meeting so that seats around the perimeter
of the Chamber could be allocated. Heidelberg
Easter Festival Reception The Mayor was honoured to host a reception for visitors from Heidelberg
recently and said it was wonderful to welcome so many young people to the
Guildhall. Installation Of The High Sheriff Of Cambridgeshire The Mayor was privileged to be a part of the procession on the
Installation of the High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire hosted in the Chamber
recently. Elections The Mayor informed those present that Councillors Roberts, Holland,
Sarris, T.Moore, Avery and Austin whose terms on the
Council ended in May, had decided not to stand for re-election and Councillor
Abbott had recently resigned. He went on to say that the Council were losing
some extremely able Members and thanked them all for their service to the City.
He wished those Councillors who were standing for re-election well. Donald Mackay and
Alan Carter Members were asked to note that Donald Mackay, who was a member of the Council for 13 years and Mayor between 1979 – 1980, had sadly passed away. Condolences had been sent to his family on behalf of the Council. The Mayor also informed members of the passing of Alan
Carter former Managing Director of the Housing Development Agency. Alan joined the city council as Head
of Strategic Housing in February 2008 and was Managing Director of the Housing
Development Agency from April 2016 until he left the council in the summer last
year. Alan
contributed much to the council and one of his major achievements was helping
the council secure the £70m housing devolution deal Councillor Price addressed the chamber and spoke about Alan. The chamber observed a minutes silence to remember former Mayor Donald Mackay and Alan Carter. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public questions time Minutes: Members of the Public asked a number of questions as set out below: 1. Mr Slade raised the following: i. The whole council would be up for election in 2020. ii. Requested councillors reconsider if election by thirds should still be held each year. Issues raised: a. Voter fatigue. b. Voter apathy. c. The amount of paper waste generated. iii. Requested details of the cost of the last three elections. iv. Requested clarification on the advantages of election by thirds. v. Queried if elections could be by halves or once every four years from 2020. Councillor Benstead responded: i. Cost of the last three elections: a. £114,000 in 2015. b. £112,000 in 2016. c. £115,000 in 2017. ii. 2018 was the first year in a number of years when only City Council elections would take place; in previous years other elections had taken place at the same time as City Council elections for example Parliamentary elections. iii. The Council had considered elections by thirds and ‘all up’ elections every four years. Elections by halves was not an option the council could adopt. iv. Factors considered during cross-party discussions: a. High turnover of electorate in city who wouldn’t get the chance to vote if elections were only held four yearly. b. Sophisticated/politicised electorate. v. Elections by thirds should continue due to the above factors, this would assist the continuity of governance through gradual change and minimise risk to ensure the smooth running of the council. Mr Slade made a supplementary point to request that councillors/political parties consider how to deal with waste from election leaflets. 2. Mrs Simms raised the following: i. Stated the council had made a grave error and disservice to Shopmobility users by introducing charges for the service. ii. The charges would deter people from using a life line service. iii. Affordability of the service would have a great impact on low income users and their social independence. iv. Took issue with the consultation process. Queried if consultation responses were considered. Posters suggested the charges would be introduced regardless of the consultation responses. v. Queried if the council would review the mobility charges. The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport responded: i. Referred to discussions at Environment Scrutiny Committee and the February Council meeting where the issue of Shopmobility charges were discussed at length. ii. Charges were introduced due to County Council funding being withdrawn. The City Council had picked up a shortfall in County Council funding for the previous two financial years. iii. The City Council had sought sponsorship from retailers to offset the service cost but none was forthcoming. iv. The City Council introduced charges to make the service sustainable. The City Council could not continue to dip into reserves to subsidise the Shopmobility charges. v. Advice on charges had been sought from the National Federation of Shopmobility. Other cities had also introduced charges. vi. The situation would be reviewed in future. Mrs Simms made a supplementary point by reiterating concerns about social isolation. 3. Mrs White raised the following: i. Expressed concern about the Shopmobility charges. ii. Commented that some cities had introduced charges for Shopmobility and some had not. iii. The National Federation of Shopmobility did not cover all Shopmobility schemes as stated in the officer’s report. iv. The charges in Cambridge would be higher than in other cities. v. Commented that some Shopmobility users did not use car parks or have a blue badge so other services promoted with Shopmobility were not always relevant. The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport responded: i. The charges were only agreed in February 2018. The Council needed to look at the impact of the charges before reviewing further. ii. Different cities had different charges for various services. iii. The City Council had a responsibility to provide services to all residents across the city. It had to review this under the current financial climate. The charges would cover the £50,000 shortfall in funding from the County Council. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re-Ordering Agenda Minutes: Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor used his
discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the
reader, the minutes will follow the order of the agenda. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the recommendations of Committees for adoption |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Civic Affairs: Recruitment of Independent Person & Deputy PDF 249 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Unanimously resolved: i. To appoint Mr Rob Bennett as the
Council’s Independent Person and Judge David Pearl as the Deputy Independent
Person. ii. That both posts be for a three year fixed
term with a further option to extend the appointment for a two year period subject
to annual ratification at the Annual Meeting of the Council. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Civic Affairs: Changes to Scrutiny Committees and Review of Decision Making Processes PDF 252 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Unanimously resolved: i. To approve the changes to Part 3 section 6 of the Constitution as
set out in Appendix A (Appendix B shown with tracked changes for reference) of
the Officer’s report. ii. To agree the new scrutiny committees keep to the already agreed
2018/19 programme of meetings as referred to in paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of the
Officer’s report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: Unanimously resolved: i. To approve a submission on Council Size to the Local Government
Boundary Commission for England of 42 councillors as set out in the officer report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To deal with oral questions Minutes: 1)
Councillor Roberts to the Leader Could the Leader of the council please
confirm that while several older and wealthier Cambridge colleges are marked on
the Mayor's ceremonial chain, there is sadly no mention of any women's
colleges, newer colleges nor Anglia Ruskin University? The Leader responded:
i.
The chain is a historical item and reflected the
colleges that were in existence at the time. Significant changes had taken
place since the chain was created as Cambridge University colleges accepted
women and Anglia Ruskin University came into existence.
ii.
The council had investigated costs for changing the
chain and found these too high to be practicable.
iii.
It was important to acknowledge the city had
changed since the forging of the chain. For example, it now had two
universities. 2)
Councillor Page Croft to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport What
representation has the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
to stagecoach made about the lack of information given to residents when routes
have changed? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The
County Council were responsible for liaising directly with Stagecoach.
ii.
Service users were given basic information through
screens at bus stops. Not all service users had access to information via
tablets.
iii.
Stagecoach should invest in greater information
provision instead of expecting the City Council to subsidise them. 3)
Councillor Avery to the Executive Councillor for Housing Aside from attempting to deliver on the 500 homes to be
funded from the devolution monies, what is the Executive Cllr for Housing doing
to address the broken home rental market in Cambridge at all levels? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The
private sector provided twenty five percent of housing for residents.
ii.
The
gap was widening between social housing and market rents. Various actions had
been taken to mitigate this. For example: a. Introducing housing
benefit plus. b. Rebranding the rent
deposit and rent advance loan scheme. c. Setting up the town
hall lettings scheme for people on low incomes. d. The homelessness
service. e. Setting up the
Housing Development Agency. 4) Councillor O'Connell to the Executive Councillor for
Planning Policy and Transport What
plans do the council have to review the applicability of national guidance on
fire engine and emergency vehicle access to planning applications in Cambridge? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
No new guidance had been introduced.
ii.
The media anticipated there would be changes to the
building regulations in future as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire. This
would probably impact building control more than planning
applications. 5) Councillor Smart to the Executive Councillor for Streets
and Open Spaces Can the Executive Councillor update us on the River Cam Art project? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
There had been public interest in the art project
for some time.
ii.
Funding for phase 1 of the River Cam Art project
was approved this year.
iii.
Five shortlisted artists would be interviewed tomorrow
(ie 20 April 2018) and would start work in May. 6) Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor for Housing How would the Executive Councillor defend his doubling of the garage rent demanded
from my 84 year-old resident who lives in a sheltered housing scheme in an
on-street residents’ parking zone which she has no entitlement to join and is
anyway oversubscribed by 2 to 1; the increase being informed to her without
explanation and with no more notice than normal annual inflation-related
increases in the past? The Executive Councillor responded: i.
The
decision to increase garage rents was taken as part of the HRA budget setting
in January 2018. The previous system of rents was overly complex, and required
manual adjustments to each property. The intention of the creation of a new
system of rent setting was to create a much simpler process to reduce the cost
of administration, and at the same time to ensure rents were set fairly, taking
into account the high demand for city centre garages
and for designated parking spaces on new city centre
developments. ii.
In
approving the rent-setting policy, the Executive Councillor
took account of the impact that it would have on tenants, and ensured that city
centre tenants renting garages in the high demand area, would not have the full increase applied immediately
but would benefit from phasing. New tenants moving in to the city centre would be made aware of new garage rental charges and
be able to make decisions on whether to accept a property or keep a car
locally, with the information available to them. iii.
With
the benefit of hindsight, the Executive Councillor
did not appreciate the impact that the new policy would have on a minority of
garage tenants, those who were not tenants, but who needed to keep a car in the
city, and whose financial circumstances made adjusting to the increase a real
problem. Over recent weeks, the Executive Councillor
heard from several such people, either directly or through their ward councillors, and having heard of the impact the policy had on
them, he wanted to take action to make sure that they were treated fairly. iv.
Council
officers were not in a position to determine which garage tenants were in
hardship, so the Executive Councillor could not
reasonably waive rent for one 84-year old tenant just on the basis of age,
without taking account of others who may have had different circumstances. The
only fair way to address this was to extend the protection offered to Council
tenants to all local residents, and phase in the increase in garage rents. v.
The
Executive Councillor did not intend to wait for the
next Housing Scrutiny Committee to revise this policy, but to take an out of
cycle decision to extend the protection offered to council tenants, to other
local residents who rented garages. This would mean that the charge increase
for all residents was limited to £2.00 per annum, plus inflation and plus VAT.
Where garages were rented to businesses, or people who
lived outside of the city, no such phasing-in of the increase would apply. vi.
The
Executive Councillor hoped that the opposition spokes
would support this proposal, so that he could ask officers to implement it
quickly by writing to all affected garage tenants, issuing amended bills and
revising direct debits as required. 7) Councillor Cantrill to the Executive Councillor for Streets
and Open Spaces Could the Executive Councillor indicate how frequently the public
toilets are inspected across the city, and describe the nature and frequency of
the maintenance plan used, and comment on whether this is adequate to ensure
that the toilets are maintained to an acceptable standard for the residents of
the city? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The Council was responsible for a number of public
toilets. Churchill was the cleaning contractor.
ii.
The Executive Councillor outlined cleaning
rotas/schedules. Toilets were inspected each time they were cleaned which was
several times a day. Cleaners had to report faults at the time of inspection.
iii.
Churchill operatives could undertake minor repairs.
Council Officers would clean needles and offensive graffiti within one hour,
other types of graffiti would take longer. Officers also responded to reports
from members of the public. The following oral questions were tabled but
owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted, were not covered during
the meeting. The Mayor asked Executive Councillors if a written response could
be provided to those questions that had not been covered. 8) Councillor Holt to the Executive Councillor for Planning
Policy and Transport What does he regard as appropriate responsibilities of a major developer
to the existing community around his development? 9) Councillor Nethsingha to the
Executive Councillor for the Planning Policy and Transport As summer approaches I am anticipating
the usual frustration with attempting to cycle into town across an incredibly
crowded Garrett Hostel Bridge. Could the
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport explain what action the
City Council is taking to tackle the congestion on cycle routes into the city
from the west, given the increase in cycle movements as a result of the
expansion of the West Cambridge site and at Eddington. In particular could he explain what is being
done to remove the punting operation on Garrett Hostel Lane, which
significantly increases congestion on this key route? 10) Councillor Austin to the Executive Councillor for City Centre
and Open Spaces Could the Executive Councillor tell us
why, despite her repeated warm words in the past, absolutely nothing has
changed to deter vehicles from parking illegally on Midsummer Common and
whether she has the remotest idea how she is going to bring this under control?
11) Councillor Baigent to the Executive
Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre Air
quality is a growing problem in cities across the world, what are we doing here
in Cambridge to improve air quality for our residents and visitors? 12) Councillor Ratcliffe to the Executive Councillor for
Streets and Open Spaces Can the Executive Councillor update us on the improvements to the Jesus
Green toilets? 13) Councillor Bird to the Executive Councillor for Communities Can
the Executive Councillor update Council on anti-poverty initiatives that aim to
make children and families from low-income households more active, and to
confirm what additional work in this area is to be proposed? 14) Councillor Sargeant to the Executive Councillor for Streets
and Open Spaces Can
the Executive Councillor give us an update on the work to maintain and enhance
the tree cover in Cambridge? 15) Councillor Gehring to the Leader Which reform steps for planning decisions will be agreed with South
Cambs as part of the new shared planning service? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the following notices of motion, notice of which has been given by: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Gillespie - These Walls Must Fall. This Council believes that the UK’s immigration detention system is not fit for purpose and the Government must end indefinite detention. Therefore, this Council: • Endorses the These Walls Must Fall Campaign and the declaration. • Calls on the Government to implement the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into detention. • Asks our local MPs to support the spirit of the motion, to raise the matter in the House of Commons, and to support changes in current laws and procedures to introduce alternatives to detention. • Seeks further support for the motion via the Local Government Association, and by encouraging other Councils in the UK to show their support on this issue. http://detention.org.uk/manchester-council-passes-these-walls-must-fall-motion-against-detention/ Minutes: Councillor Gillespie proposed and Councillor Cantrill seconded the following motion: This Council believes that the UK’s immigration detention
system is not fit for purpose and the Government must end indefinite detention.
Therefore, this Council: ·
Endorses the These Walls Must Fall Campaign and
the declaration. ·
Calls on the Government to implement the
recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into detention. ·
Asks our local MPs to support the spirit of the
motion, to raise the matter in the House of Commons, and to support changes in
current laws and procedures to introduce alternatives to detention. ·
Seeks further support for the motion via the
Local Government Association, and by encouraging other Councils in the UK to
show their support on this issue. Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Roberts - Stephen Hawking The council notes: • The passing of world-leading scientist
and author Professor Stephen Hawking, who died aged 76 at his Cambridge home on
14 March 2018. • That, as an academic, Hawking made an outstanding
contribution to theoretical physics and theoretical cosmology, leading to
widespread recognition, including being made a Fellow of the Royal Society,
receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and becoming the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of
Cambridge. • That, beyond academia, Hawking promoted
scientific discovery and complex ideas to millions through his best-selling
book 'A Brief History of Time' and a wide range of other popular books,
documentaries, films and children's literature. • That, politically, Hawking was a staunch
defender of universal and well-funded healthcare, nuclear disarmament and
efforts to prevent climate change. • That, through a public poll in the UK in
2002, Hawking was ranked 25th in a list of the 100 Greatest Britons, with many
voters citing his ability to inspire others, break down barriers and encourage
free thinking. • That Hawking lived and worked in
Cambridge for nearly all his adult life, helping both intentionally and
coincidentally to promote the University of Cambridge and our city. • That there is a small statue of Hawking
by the late artist Ian Walters at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, which
was unveiled in 2007, and that Trinity Hall named a conference/seminar room
after Professor Hawking in 2015 – neither of which is a publicly accessible
tribute to his work and life. The council believes: • That Professor Stephen Hawking was a
proud resident of Cambridge. • That Cambridge gained from our city's
association with Professor Stephen Hawking. • That – judging by the messages from the
public, people-lined streets and media reaction following his death – the
University of Cambridge, the scientific community and our city have lost a
much-loved and respected ambassador. • That for someone who did so much to
promote science among the public, challenge stereotypes and
inspire others, it would be remiss not to have a public and lasting tribute to
Professor Hawking The council resolves: • To work to put in place a lasting public
tribute to Professor Stephen Hawking, taking into account the wishes of the
Hawking family, Gonville and Caius College, his
department and the University of Cambridge • To engage with Cambridge residents
through the local media and other outlets, to ensure that the eventual project
carries with it the widest possible support • To ask the Executive Councillor for
Streets and Open Spaces to lead on the project, alongside the appropriate
council committees Minutes: Councillor Roberts proposed and Councillor Sarris seconded the following motion: The council notes: · The passing of
world-leading scientist and author Professor Stephen Hawking, who died aged 76
at his Cambridge home on 14 March 2018. · That, as an academic,
Hawking made an outstanding contribution to theoretical physics and theoretical
cosmology, leading to widespread recognition, including being made a Fellow of
the Royal Society, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and becoming
the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the
University of Cambridge. · That, beyond
academia, Hawking promoted scientific discovery and complex ideas to millions
through his best-selling book 'A Brief History of Time' and a wide range of
other popular books, documentaries, films and children's literature. · That, politically,
Hawking was a staunch defender of universal and well-funded healthcare, nuclear
disarmament and efforts to prevent climate change. · That, through a
public poll in the UK in 2002, Hawking was ranked 25th in a list of the 100
Greatest Britons, with many voters citing his ability to inspire others, break
down barriers and encourage free thinking. · That Hawking lived
and worked in Cambridge for nearly all his adult life, helping both
intentionally and coincidentally to promote the University of Cambridge and our
city. · That there is a
small statue of Hawking by the late artist Ian Walters at the Centre for
Theoretical Cosmology, which was unveiled in 2007, and that Trinity Hall named
a conference/seminar room after Professor Hawking in 2015 – neither of which is
a publicly accessible tribute to his work and life. The council believes: · That Professor
Stephen Hawking was a proud resident of Cambridge. · That Cambridge
gained from our city's association with Professor Stephen Hawking. · That – judging by
the messages from the public, people-lined streets and media reaction following
his death – the University of Cambridge, the scientific community and our city
have lost a much-loved and respected ambassador. · That for someone
who did so much to promote science among the public, challenge stereotypes and
inspire others, it would be remiss not to have a public and lasting tribute to
Professor Hawking. The council resolves: · To work to put in
place a lasting public tribute to Professor Stephen Hawking, taking into
account the wishes of the Hawking family, Gonville
and Caius College, his department and the University of Cambridge · To engage with
Cambridge residents through the local media and other outlets, to ensure that the
eventual project carries with it the widest possible support · To ask the
Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces to lead on the project,
alongside the appropriate council committees Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillors Bick, Avery, Cantrill, O'Connell, Tunnacliffe, Austin - Shop Mobility Council calls on
the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to immediately
withdraw and reconsider the charges for the use of Shop Mobility which were
introduced on 1 April. Minutes: Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded the following motion: Council calls on
the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to immediately
withdraw and reconsider the charges for the use of Shop Mobility which were introduced
on 1 April. On a show of hands the motion was lost by 13 votes to 24. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Cantrill - Brexit Motion With less
than a year to go before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave
campaigners told the British people a set of falsehoods. We were
told the negotiations would be easy but the Rt Hon
David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described
Brexit being “as complicated as moon landing”. We were
told that by leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would
then be given to the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government
spending more of our taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the
horrendous increases in child and pensioner poverty. People were
told that Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt
Hon Michael Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants
albeit from outside of the EU. Meanwhile: ·
The
UK economy is now the slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity
of the UK and of Cambridge residents; ·
Cambridge
businesses, in particular those that are international in outlook and related
to the knowledge economy, are cutting or delaying investment because of the
continued uncertainty; ·
Both
private business and public-sector organisations such
as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour shortages; ·
New
investment in Cambridge is being jeopardised and new
job opportunities are being lost; ·
Inflation
caused by Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs
for Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet
in our city. The Council
agrees that the current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be
fully protected. At the
Referendum over 73% of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European
Union and that nobody voted to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on
Brexit. This
Council calls on the government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and to
give the people of Cambridge a vote on whatever deal it ends up getting along
with the opportunity to vote on keeping the many benefits Britons currently
enjoy by staying in the European Union. Minutes: Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor
Gehring seconded the following motion: With less than a year to go
before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave campaigners told
the British people a set of falsehoods. We were told the negotiations
would be easy but the Rt Hon David Davis MP,
Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described Brexit being “as
complicated as moon landing”. We were told that by
leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would then be given
to the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government spending more of
our taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the horrendous
increases in child and pensioner poverty. People were told that
Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt Hon Michael
Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants albeit from
outside of the EU. Meanwhile: ·
The UK
economy is now the slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity
of the UK and of Cambridge residents; ·
Cambridge
businesses, in particular those that are international in outlook and related
to the knowledge economy, are cutting or delaying investment because of the
continued uncertainty; ·
Both
private business and public-sector organisations such
as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour shortages; ·
New
investment in Cambridge is being jeopardised and new
job opportunities are being lost; ·
Inflation
caused by Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs
for Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet
in our city. The Council agrees that the
current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be fully
protected. At the Referendum over 73%
of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European Union and that nobody
voted to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on Brexit. This Council calls on the
government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and to give the people of
Cambridge a vote on whatever deal it ends up getting along with the opportunity
to vote on keeping the many benefits Britons currently enjoy by staying in the
European Union. Councillor Herbert proposed and Councillor R. Moore seconded the
following amendment to motion (deleted text With less than a year to go
before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave campaigners told
the British people a set of falsehoods. We were told the
negotiations would be easy but the Rt Hon David Davis
MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described Brexit being
“as complicated as moon landing”. We were told that by
leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would then be given to
the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government spending more of our
taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the horrendous increases
in child and pensioner poverty. People were told that
Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt Hon Michael
Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants albeit from
outside of the EU. Meanwhile: ·
The UK economy is now the
slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity of the UK and of
Cambridge residents; ·
Cambridge businesses, in
particular those that are international in outlook and related to the knowledge
economy, are cutting or delaying investment because of the continued
uncertainty; ·
Both private business and
public-sector organisations such as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour
shortages; ·
New investment in Cambridge
is being jeopardised and new job opportunities are
being lost; ·
Inflation caused by
Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs for
Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in
our city. The Council agrees that the
current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be fully
protected. At the Referendum over 73%
of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European Union and that nobody
voted to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on Brexit. This Council calls on the
government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and fully supports
the actions of our MP Daniel Zeichner who has
campaigned against Brexit and repeatedly challenged the Government’s shambolic
handling of Brexit, and stood up for the interests of Cambridge and all its
residents including to secure full rights for all our non-UK EU citizens. On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 25 votes to 13. Resolved (by 38
votes to 1) that: With less than a year to go
before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave campaigners told
the British people a set of falsehoods. We were told the
negotiations would be easy but the Rt Hon David Davis
MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described Brexit being
“as complicated as moon landing”. We were told that by
leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would then be given
to the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government spending more of
our taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the horrendous
increases in child and pensioner poverty. People were told that
Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt Hon Michael
Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants albeit from
outside of the EU. Meanwhile: ·
The UK economy is now the
slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity of the UK and of
Cambridge residents; ·
Cambridge businesses, in particular
those that are international in outlook and related to the knowledge economy,
are cutting or delaying investment because of the continued uncertainty; ·
Both private business and
public-sector organisations such as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour
shortages; ·
New investment in Cambridge
is being jeopardised and new job opportunities are
being lost; ·
Inflation caused by
Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs for
Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in
our city. The Council agrees that the
current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be fully
protected. At the Referendum over 73%
of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European Union and that nobody voted
to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on Brexit. This Council calls on the
government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and fully supports the
actions of our MP Daniel Zeichner who has campaigned
against Brexit and repeatedly challenged the Government’s shambolic handling of
Brexit, and stood up for the interests of Cambridge and all its residents
including to secure full rights for all our non-UK EU citizens. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Smart - Fixed Odds Betting Terminals This Council notes the following points. Evidence shows that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals are one of the most addictive forms of gambling available to Cambridge residents. Casework from worried residents has already caused Daniel Zeichner MP to call for action to lower the maximum bet to £2. There are 64 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in Cambridge in 16 betting shops. The legal maximum is four terminals per shop and every shop has the maximum. It is possible to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds on a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal, making payment with cash or a card. Because more than 80% of money spent in betting shops comes from Fixed Odds Betting Terminals the gambling industry lobbies, supports and promotes their continued usage. Over the past decade the amount of money lost on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in the UK has doubled to £2bn per year and continues to grow. The government appointed industry regulator, the Gambling Commission, has continued to allow Fixed Odds Betting Terminals to be increasingly used whilst at the same time the government receives £400m every year in betting duty tax from this form of gambling, and indeed, has increased the percentage of tax. Daniel Zeichner MP and many others have called for the maximum bet to be set at £2 on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. This, together with a package of other sensible measures, would at least help to limit the damage done to the lives of vulnerable people, to their families and friends; indeed to society as a whole. This Council believes that the maximum bet should be set at no higher than £2 for every 20 seconds of use of a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal. This Council requests that the Leader will write to the following. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2. The Chair of the Gambling Commission and the interim Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2. The two Cambridge MP’s, Daniel Zeichner MP to support him in his resolve to champion this issue, and to Heidi Allen MP to ask her to put pressure on government to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2. Minutes: Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Ratcliffe seconded the following motion: This Council notes the following points. Evidence shows that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals are one of the most addictive forms of gambling available to Cambridge residents. Casework from worried residents has already caused Daniel Zeichner MP to call for action to lower the maximum bet to £2. There are 64 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in Cambridge in 16 betting shops. The legal maximum is four terminals per shop and every shop has the maximum. It is possible to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds on a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal, making payment with cash or a card. Because more than 80% of money spent in betting shops comes from Fixed Odds Betting Terminals the gambling industry lobbies, supports and promotes their continued usage. Over the past decade the amount of money lost on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in the UK has doubled to £2bn per year and continues to grow. The government appointed industry regulator, the Gambling Commission, has continued to allow Fixed Odds Betting Terminals to be increasingly used whilst at the same time the government receives £400m every year in betting duty tax from this form of gambling, and indeed, has increased the percentage of tax. Daniel Zeichner MP and many others have called for the maximum bet to be set at £2 on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. This, together with a package of other sensible measures, would at least help to limit the damage done to the lives of vulnerable people, to their families and friends; indeed to society as a whole. This Council believes that the maximum bet should be set at no higher than £2 for every 20 seconds of use of a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal. This Council requests that the Leader will write to the following. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2. The Chair of the Gambling Commission and the interim Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2. The two Cambridge MP’s, Daniel Zeichner MP to support him in his resolve to champion this issue, and to Heidi Allen MP to ask her to put pressure on government to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2. Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Gillespie - Good Food for Cambridge Cambridge City Council notes: · That the government has tried to take away free school meals
for 1.1 million children while subsidising parliamentary bars and restaurants
by £4 million in the last year. · That public demand for reducing plastic waste has soared,
forcing the government to bring in a bottle deposit scheme. · That soil degradation now means we have only 30 to 40 years
of soil fertility left, which was acknowledged at the parliamentary launch of
the Sustainable Soils Alliance. · That Scotland is considering enshrining the right to food in
law, after the recommendation was made by an Independent Working Group on Food
Poverty. · That Cambridge Sustainable Food have done superb work
engaging with businesses and residents, and the new Food Poverty Alliance comes
at a time when it is much needed. · That
the University of Cambridge in 2016 launched its sustainable food policy. · That food security is put at critical risk by the economic
consequences of Brexit, because of the volume of food which we currently
import, and the food footprint of Cambridge. · That
the councils excellent work promoting recycling champions risks being undermined
by the development of a new incinerator near Waterbeach. · That there is a UK health epidemic due to unhealthy eating. · The
introduction of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. · That
Iceland have banned palm oil from all own-brand products, realising that there
is no such thing as sustainable palm oil. · That
Waitrose will ban all disposable coffee cups this year. · That 3.5 million UK residents (7%) currently identify as
vegan according to new research by comparethemarket.com and
Gresham college. · The
activities of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vegetarianism and
Veganism. · That the German government has banned meat and fish from
being served at government functions, and insisted on food which is seasonal, regional,
produced on organic farms, and sourced from Fair Trade providers if available. · The
many benefits that the Cambridge Sustainable Food Hub project would bring to
the region, including increased scope for food waste innovation and sustainable
food startups. · That
climate change, mass extinctions, and ocean dead zones are being caused by
human activity. Cambridge City Council resolves: ·
To draft and begin consultation on a
Sustainable Food Policy, which can incorporate the Food Poverty Action Plan
being worked up by the Food Poverty Alliance. To include the following points
as items within the draft (amendments are very welcome): ·
To reduce catering and hospitality
spend on food where possible by offering simple plant-based food from a local
social enterprise rather than lavish fare, and donate any savings found this
way to the Food Poverty Alliance. ·
To pledge to seeking gold standard
accreditation from Sustainable Food Cities. ·
To reaffirm its commitment to being a
fair trade city, and examine whether the resolutions made regarding fair trade
in 2002 have been fully held up. · To support the Refill scheme to encourage reusing bottles for drinking water, to provide drinking water fountains in city parks to support this, and to ask Visit Cambridge, Cambridge Live and Cambridge BID ... view the full agenda text for item 18/22/CNLf Minutes: Councillor
Gillespie proposed and Councillor O’Connell seconded the following motion: Cambridge City
Council notes: ·
That the government has tried to take away free school meals for 1.1 million
children while subsidising parliamentary bars and restaurants by £4 million in
the last year. ·
That public demand for reducing plastic waste has soared, forcing the
government to bring in a bottle deposit scheme. ·
That soil degradation now means we have only 30 to 40 years of soil
fertility left, which was acknowledged at the parliamentary launch of the
Sustainable Soils Alliance. ·
That Scotland is considering enshrining the right to food in law, after
the recommendation was made by an Independent Working Group on Food Poverty. ·
That Cambridge Sustainable Food have done superb
work engaging with businesses and residents, and the new Food Poverty Alliance
comes at a time when it is much needed. ·
That the University of Cambridge in 2016 launched its sustainable food
policy. ·
That food security is put at critical risk by the economic consequences
of Brexit, because of the volume of food which we currently import, and the
food footprint of Cambridge. ·
That the councils excellent work promoting recycling champions risks
being undermined by the development of a new incinerator near Waterbeach. ·
That there is a UK health epidemic due to unhealthy eating. ·
The introduction of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. ·
That Iceland have banned palm oil from all
own-brand products, realising that there is no such thing as sustainable palm
oil. ·
That Waitrose will ban all disposable coffee cups this year. ·
That 3.5 million UK
residents (7%) currently identify as vegan according to new research by comparethemarket.com and Gresham
college. ·
The activities of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vegetarianism and
Veganism. ·
That the German government has banned meat and fish from being served at government
functions, and insisted on food which is seasonal, regional, produced on
organic farms, and sourced from Fair Trade providers if available. ·
The many benefits that the Cambridge Sustainable Food Hub project would
bring to the region, including increased scope for food waste innovation and
sustainable food startups. ·
That climate change, mass extinctions, and ocean dead zones are being
caused by human activity. Cambridge City
Council resolves: ·
To draft and begin consultation on a Sustainable Food Policy, which can
incorporate the Food Poverty Action Plan being worked up by the Food Poverty
Alliance. To include the following points as items within the draft (amendments
are very welcome): ·
To reduce catering and hospitality spend on food where possible by
offering simple plant-based food from a local social enterprise rather than
lavish fare, and donate any savings found this way to the Food Poverty
Alliance. ·
To pledge to seeking gold standard accreditation from Sustainable Food
Cities. ·
To reaffirm its commitment to being a fair trade city, and examine
whether the resolutions made regarding fair trade in 2002 have been fully held
up. ·
To support the Refill scheme to encourage reusing bottles for drinking
water, to provide drinking water fountains in city parks to support this, and
to ask Visit Cambridge, Cambridge Live and Cambridge BID to assist with this. ·
To adopt a framework for food and cafe procurement, like Preston Council,
which asks questions about food sustainability and
fairness. (current ITT framework is not
detailed or strong enough: "The successful operator will be encouraged to
provide “healthy eating”, locally produced, Gluten Free and Fairtrade
options.") ·
To adopt a strategy for community centres, which ensures all new kitchens
have adequate cooking facilities for local community groups to prepare food and
teach cooking skills. ·
To consider planting more fruit-bearing trees in sites where they would
help to relieve hunger. ·
To appraise the sustainability of food in the city market stalls, and close
the loophole which allows disposable cardboard cups with polyethylene linings
to be used. ·
To ask Cambridge Live and the events team to introduce a sustainable food
framework, which aims to guide event organisers toward
sustainable food procurement, offering healthy options, and minimising plastic
use. Biodegradable food packaging should only be encouraged when there
is a waste pathway in place for it to actually biodegrade. (current
guidance: "All events should minimise waste, maximise recycling, use where
possible sustainable resources and manage and mitigate ecological/biodiversity
impacts with clear guidance on how these will be achieved set out in the Event
Management Control Document" - however, many MCDs are highly vague and
superficial). ·
To empower environmental health officers to award a sustainable food
rating to food outlets which they can choose to display alongside their food
hygiene rating, and to warn outlets about the environmental consequences of
food waste and over-packaging. ·
To offer support to local businesses in reducing their waste overhead and
environmental damage from food and packaging, and seek to build more
partnerships around sustainable food. Cllr Bick
proposed under Council Procedure Rule 13.8(f)(i), that the motion be referred for decision to the
Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre. Resolved by (by 39 votes to 1) that the
motion be referred for decision to the Executive Councillor for Environmental
Services and City Centre and reported to either the next, or the next but one,
subsequent ordinary meeting of the Council. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Written questions 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 were asked to note the written question and answer
that had been placed in the information pack circulated around the Chamber. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Urgent Decision |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICT Greater Cambridge Planning Service PDF 234 KB Minutes: The decision was noted. |