A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the 25 May were confirmed as
a correct record and signed by the Mayor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Note the Returning Officer's Report that the following have been elected to the Office of Councillor Kings Hedges – Delowar Hossain Minutes: It was noted the following had been elected to the Office of Councillor: Kings Hedges – Delowar Hossain |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mayor's announcements Minutes: Members were reminded that the annual Mayor’s Day out to
Great Yarmouth was taking place on Wednesday 16 August. The Chevin Sermon and
Harvest Festival Civic Service would take place at Great St. Mary’s Church. Councillor Ashton
and his consort Barbara Ashton were presented with the Resolution of Thanks for
his Mayoral year. Members were
informed of the sad passing of former Councillor Valerie Holt of Castle Ward
2015-19. Amongst other things Valerie
made a significant contribution as a trustee of Cambridge Live during the
transference back in-house to the Council. A minutes silence
was held to reflect on the sad event at Sackville Close, Members thoughts were
with those left behind. Business of the Council Apologies were received from Councillors S Davies, Divkovic, Swift and
Thittala Varkey. Apologies
for lateness were received from Councillor Levien.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public questions time Minutes: All public questions were published in advance of the meeting. The Mayor (as Chair of the meeting) explained that for all 10 questions
to receive a response from the relevant Executive Councillor in the public
forum there would be no supplementary questions. All questions and the
responses would therefore be minuted, otherwise it
was likely that only half of the questions submitted were likely to be answered
in the thirty minutes allocated. All those who had submitted public questions were advised that they
could also contact the relevant Executive Councillor outside of the meeting. The Mayor advised that that questions 1 and 3 and would be taken first
as all other questions related to agenda item 8e, Stop Dumping Sewage in our
River and Chalk Streams motion. The list of public questions were as follows: Q1: There were several developments
in progress or proposed (Hartree, Cambridge East, Spingstead
and Marleigh etc.) which cross City/ South Cambs
areas. Concerned about investment property being left empty
on some of these sites. Why are these being marketed to international buyers as an
investment before local residents, given that one of the main reasons for
building them is to satisfy the local need for housing? Is
there anything the Council can do to ensure local sales marketing is
conducted in advance or at least in tandem with any international
marketing? The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the
following: i.
The City Council had no plans to restrict the sale
of residential units on the open market, whether the sale was local, national,
or international. ii.
There were some over sea buyers who were UK
passport holders who had the same rights as those residing in the UK. No one
was discriminated against. iii.
To discourage owners leaving their properties
vacant the Council limited the council tax exemption on unoccupied properties
to one month. iv.
The Council nominated people with a local
qualifying housing need for tenancies and the affordable housing elements for
all new housing developments in the city. v.
For developments on Council owned land the marketing
and sales of dwellings were focused on local and national marketing; limited
marketing on one purchase per buyer. Q2: I quote from the Council's statement :
".....this Council calls on everyone to engage with the River Cam and its
associated chalk streams and tributaries with respect, accepting our
stewardship of this vital natural resource, and asks all residents and
organisations of Cambridge to act as guardians of the river and be mindful of
the impact of our own actions and those of others that threaten its health and
survival." Please consider the enormous adverse impact a Designated Bathing Area at
Lammas Land would have on the highly sensitive environment of this stretch of
river. Three nature reserves meet here (Paradise, Sheep's Green
and Coe Fen) and protected wildlife have their home. Snob's brook, which
is where Cam Valley Forum proposes swimming lessons, houses water voles - it is
illegal to disturb them. At least 12 species of fish have been found here and
in the river Cam and the Rush stream. Vicar's Brook is a pure chalk stream
which enters the Cam just above the proposed area. Otters have returned in the
last few years. Paradise is home to huge numbers of species, including 64 bird
species. Ancient willows, where Charles Darwin collected beetles, house
numerous invertebrate species. Already, thoughtless picnickers can be
seen using fallen wood for fires. Attracting more people from
across the county to come and swim here would be irresponsible and contrary to
the Council's Biodiversity Emergency Policy. I personally think
this would be an environmental disaster. Given the expressed concern of many local residents
and of the Friends of the Cam, together with the highly doubtful benefits of a
DBA, should the council not be considering the overriding adverse ecological
impact of a DBA at Lammas Land and not supporting the CVF in this venture? i.
Agreed about the ecological importance of the
river, the riverbanks and the local nature reserves
along the whole stretch of the river within the city boundary. ii.
The ecology was extremely important and the bioblitz information that had been collected along Hobson’s
Brook and at Logan’s meadow was important baseline information. Hoped to
continue to learn more and improve the waterways every day, and month, and year
ahead. iii.
However, was concerned about sewage and other
pollutants going into the river and the harm that had been done to animals and
plants in and around the waterways, and the danger to people who swum in, punt,
kayak, or row on the whole length of the river. iv.
Sewage effluent could be a whole concoction of
micro plastics, chemicals, nutrients, oil, bacteria, all of which could be
extremely bad for river health, and for those who use the river. v.
There was much to be learnt about the negative
impacts on the river and had to consider and learn from what others have done
to endeavour to reduce pollution in the water ways. vi.
If there was information that the levels of sewage
in the water could be harming the ecology and people who swum in or use it, and
if there are ways to get the water companies to clean up, then the Council must
consider what we could be done improve things, having a badly polluted river
flowing past ancient willows was not acceptable. vii.
The motion proposed to Council was important
because pollution levels needed to be reduced. Believed that asking Defra for a
stretch along the River Cam within Cambridge City Council boundary to be
designated as a bathing water site was one way to achieve this, but we do not
want to create division. Rather wanted to focus on how the Council could
collaborate to find solutions, working with external partners at local level to
look at how to deal with the pollution problems for the whole catchment on all
possible solutions. Q3: A recent newsletter from Coleridge Labour states that the Fanshawe Road
Flats Redevelopment will provide between 84 - 86 "much needed new
homes" (note, not 93, as initially stated) and, at a minimum, 44 of these
homes are designated for council rents replacing the 22 council homes that are
currently being emptied of local residents. We
need to be clear what is meant by council homes. Council homes do not
mean council rents. The Coleridge Labour newsletter states that the
number of homes available for council rents hinges on a Homes
England grant so this could mean "60% of market rent or a mix of social
rent (below 50% of market rent) and affordable rent (80% of market rent)".
The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness said the
following: i.
Acknowledged there had been changes to the scheme
with the proposal now for 84 homes, a significant gain on the existing 33 homes
of which 22 were rented. ii.
The new scheme would deliver a minimum of 22 rented
council homes at 60% of the market rent or local housing allowance, which ever
was lower. iii.
The original report for the approval of Fanshawe
noted that if there was an issue around grants the Council would need to
consider a mix tenure scheme of affordable housing and market housing for sale.
The best approach to tenure was still under review. iv.
Any recommendations and delegations would be
considered at the next meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Committee in September
2023. v.
Whatever the decision on the tenure the Council
remained committed to achieving 20% net biodiversity gain across the
development. Q4: We are told that the creation of a Designated
Bathing Area (DBA) will create a legal requirement for monitoring, the results
of which will apparently allow the authorities to 'apply pressure' to Anglian
Water to take action to reduce or eliminate sewage discharges to the river Cam.
Can we ask exactly how Anglian Water will be compelled to reduce sewage
discharges to the river, given that they have ignored their obligations (agreed
at Privitisation) for over 30 years and are now some
£6.6 billion in debt and presumably lack the financial resources to upgrade
their outdated infrastructure.? Furthermore, won't the creation of
a DBA before sewage discharges into the river have ceased, by its very name,
encourage people to swim in contaminated water, regardless of
the fact that a DBA only defines 'use' and associated infrastructure,
such as the availability of toilets and parking? Would it be fair to say that
people's health is being put at risk to create the impression of a clean,
healthy river? Surely no part of the river can be
considered 'clean' until all of the river is? The Executive Councillor for Planning,
Building Control and Infrastructure responded:
i.
The Council could and should call out the water
company dealing with sewage and wastewater treatment for some of the pollution
of the city’s river and streams where there was evidence. If bathing water
designation for a section of the river leads to securing the funds and
investment to clean up the river, then consideration should be given to
supporting such a local initiative. ii.
Did not want to wait another 30 years for the
source of the pollution to be reduced or removed. iii.
Agreed that no part of the river could be
considered ‘clean’ until all the river was and was interested in the
feasibility study being done at South Cambridgeshire District Council for a
designation within the river catchment just beyond the city. But that did not
mean the Council stepped away from measures that could help in the city. iv.
Important to note that giving a stretch of river a
bathing water designation did not mean many more people would swim there. When
a section of the River Wharfe used for swimming in lkley
was designated the council saw little change in the number of bathers and river
users Q5: Bearing in mind that: The preamble to the motion from the Labour Group appears to support the
notion that rivers have rights. Yet a river rights perspective on pollution
requires us to work actively to free all parts of all rivers in the UK from all
sources of pollution. The campaigns against sewage pollution have led to media and political
pressure on government and political parties for water companies to be run
according to a different business model that does not include fines for
continued regular illegal sewage dumping. The water companies already know, and DeFRA and
the EA should know, where and when sewage is illegally dumped in rivers. So the DBA (designated bathing area) policy allows a slowing
of effective regulation and a commitment to put the necessary infrastructure in
place. The DBA efforts on the Wharfe in Ilkley Yorkshire have already shown
that they do not bring rapid improvements in water quality as was hoped. Water companies have said that any new infrastructure will be paid for
by an increase in bills rather than reductions in dividends and executive pay
so any infrastructure money that benefits the Cam will be paid for in bills
across the region. The Labour Group must be scrupulously careful about a potential conflict
of interest as a co-beneficiary in the shifting of Anglian Water’s sewage works
from a brownfield to a greenfield site to release land for development. Why then, is the Labour Group pushing a DBA policy that will reduce
pressure on water companies at a time when national campaigns have been having
an effect; a policy supported by a regulation averse DeFRA
and a many times fined illegal sewage dumping Anglian Water whose directors
should be facing custodial sentences according to a former chair of the
Environment Agency? The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and
Infrastructure responded: i.
The use of a designated bathing water area as one
path to improvement was being considered outside of the city, and it was right
that the Council also considered it for the waterways with our city. ii.
Did not agree that pushing for designation would
reduce the pressure on water companies, nor that
a designation would have no impact. Did not see the link between knowing where
there was sewage outfall and designation, or why that should slow things down.
Indeed, the view was that designation and the raised awareness of the poor
quality of the water in the city would be one factor in putting pressure on
water companies and other polluters to improve things. iii.
Did not accept there was a conflict of interest in
supporting improvements to Anglian Water’s facilities and calling for cleaner
water in the Cam. iv.
The revulsion felt towards untreated waste in the
rivers with sanitary waste along the riverbanks and chalk streams had motivated
and mobilised public opinion, it has united environmental groups around a
common cause and goal, and all councillors should acknowledge this, as well as
the water companies themselves. v.
Finally, it was not just about the water companies,
there needed to be an integrated and collaborative approach to water
management, as called for here, built into the Emerging Local Plan. Q6: On the basis that the water companies show no respect for their
legal obligations (to the point of the Environmental Agency stating that water
company CEOs should be in jail for their legal infringements and that water
companies routinely pay fines rather than make the necessary infrastructural improvements)…. Knowing that bathing area designation requires only partial river water
testing (between May and September; once weekly; discounting exceptional
events; and testing only for e-coli and intestinal enterococci - nitrates,
phosphates, microplastics, viruses and antibiotic resistant bacteria are NOT
required to be monitored)… Knowing that DB status was designed for open sea bathing waters, and not
rivers, and that river water (and the pollution it carries) flows continuously
from source to sea… Bearing in mind that the motion is internally contradictory in that it
both specifies an ‘environmental destination’ anticipating upwards of 100 people
swimming in a narrow river with a nature rich bank, and subsequent protection
as a site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI); and that the infrastructure to support such numbers swimming (toilets,
waste management and necessary access; catering outlets expected) cannot be
consistent with such levels of nature protection… …how, then, can the City Council be confident at the outset - and
therefore without a risk to bathers’ health - that a level of ‘good’ or
‘excellent’ water quality along the River Cam can be achieved, and without
detriment to the river and surrounding environment? i.
Confident that the source of the sewage pollution
could be reduced or eliminated, to achieve good or excellent level, but it was
important that the Council considered all options to get there. ii.
The water companies had let residents down, but
that was not a reason to do nothing or just accept that people should go
swimming in a heavily polluted river. iii.
Believed that designation would help to provide
evidence needed to support action against polluters, including water companies.
Needed to know the sources of the pollution, so we can decide how best to
protect the local ecology as well as make the water safer for people. This
would not change things overnight, but designation could be part of the wider
plan to improve water quality. Q7: The inspirational town planner Jan Gehl advocates that to build
communities that work well, the evidence needs to be shown and environmental
capacity issues need to be addressed. So one should
count all the punts, rowers, swimmers and canoes using the river just as
highway planners have long tallied up road users. Where is the evidence that this has been done in the proposal for the
DBA? How many punts, swimmers, canoeists can this small stretch of the Cam
safely take as a “riverscape” visitor destination? What kind of health and safety analysis has there been? In response the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and
Infrastructure said the following: i.
The motion put forward was to consider the sewage
pollution in the river and streams, and also how a
bathing water designation would provide evidence gathering about the levels of
the pollution and help find ways to reduce it. ii.
Acknowledged how heavily used the river was. There
was a history of swimming and river use for recreation at least from the
sixteenth century and could easily imagine Saxon swimmers too. iii.
Knew from personal observation that during the opening up in the summer after the first pandemic lock down,
the river use increased greatly. The joy of many people being out on the river,
was very clear. Indeed, the river did not belong to a few people, but was a
precious place for all who choose to use it. iv.
However, limited by the regulations, understood the
application for a bathing water directive was for a section of a water way already
used for bathing only, and that the level of bathing was stipulated by Defra in
the application.
Survey
information was required with the application.
Of course, if the sewage pollution could be reduced all river users
would benefit, not just swimmers and not just in the designated length of
the river. v.
To wider the point about how many people could
safely use a stretch of the Cam, if there was evidence that designation was
increasing numbers then would have to address the health and safety issues, but
do not imagine that things would change significantly just because the
water was being assessed by the Environment Agency. Chair of the Friends of Sheep’s Green Learner Pool and, Chair of the
Friends of Sheep’s Green and Lammas Land Q8: Speaking as the Chair of the Friends of Sheep’s Green Learner Pool,
and the Chair of the Friends of Sheep’s Green and Lammas Land, and our joint
question relates to item 8e on the Agenda, ‘Stop dumping sewage in our River
and Chalk Streams’. While we support all the other actions recommended to reduce threats to
the Cam and its tributaries, we do not agree that a Designated Bathing Area in
the area proposed by Cam Valley Forum would benefit the river or Cambridge
residents. The level of pollution in the river is very high, and there is no
evidence that monitoring it as part of a DBA would reduce pollution or put the
necessary pressure on the water companies to do so, especially as Anglia Water
already undertake weekly water quality tests. Promoting the river as a bathing
area without addressing the real issue of why water treatment companies are
permitted to discharge sewage into our river – which they should not do whether
people swim in the river or not – puts people, and especially children, at risk
from swimming in poor quality water. We have heard from multiple sources that
there was a mass outbreak of illness following a recent ‘Cam Slow Swim’ event.
This is very worrying. Councillor Thornburrow suggests that the designation of a water bathing
site by Defra would impose a legal obligation on Anglia Water to reduce sewage
pollution until the level of ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ is reached. However, this
legal obligation, as far as we can see, is not mentioned by Defra on what to
expect if a site is designated https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bathing-waters-apply-to-designate-or-de-designate/designate-a-bathing-water-guidance-on-how-to-apply. The only
stipulations concern the frequency of water monitoring and the signs required
to be displayed during the bathing season. It does not say that any water
company is legally obliged as a result of the DBA to
improve the water quality. The Council already has a wonderful paddling pool by the playground at
Lammas Land which is enjoyed by hundreds of Cambridge children every summer. It
is approaching its 100th birthday and is in desperate need of having money
spent to renovate it to ensure its continued longevity. Likewise, Sheep’s Green
Learner pool, built in 1977 for children to learn to swim, is still enjoyed by
many today. However, it too is in desperate need for the Council to spend money
on it, by reinstating the heating system that was removed previously, and
installing showers so that it can once again be used by local schools for
swimming lessons. A DBA would require the Council to spend money on facilities that would
still not make it safe for people, especially children, to swim in the river.
We would therefore like to ask the Council to consider allocating the funding
for the DBA towards much-needed improvements to the Lammas Land paddling pool
and Sheep’s Green Learner pool, facilities that already exist and enable
Cambridge children to learn to swim and enjoy playing in the water safely.
Investing now in this life-saving infrastructure would mean that once the River
Cam is eventually clean enough to swim in, the children of Cambridge would be
better equipped to swim safely once again in the river. In response the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and
Infrastructure said the following i.
The motion to Stop Dumping Sewage in our River and
Chalk Streams, if supported, would result in
consideration at the Environment and Community Committee, and possible approval by the Executive Councillor.
If designation did go forward, understood that the cost to the Council would be
to continue to support existing facilities, plus notify the public each year on
the results of water testing and the implications for bathers. Had considered
how the designation at Ilkley and Oxford had been put in place, but each
location was unique and must be considered on their own merits. ii.
Clause 13 of the Bathing Water Regulation 2013,
sets out the legal obligation where the
“appropriate agency classifies a bathing water as “poor” under regulation 11.
Could provide a link to this legislation and to other links about guidance on
how to comply with the legislation. iii.
Regarding points about funding for
the two pools that the statement refers to, were not dependent on the DBA going
ahead or not. Supporting swimming lessons for children was important and there
were quite a few learner pools across the city. It would be a separate exercise
to carry out a feasibility study for the requirements and costs to improve
these learner pools and others around Cambridge. This was important and the
Executive Councillor for Communities had confirmed this as a priority and that the
Council would be looking into this later this year or next year. Q9: I am aware that there are many people who strongly support a dba
because they are convinced it will deliver a healthier river. The reason I am worried and have NOT joined in supporting a DBA at
Sheep's Green, is because the criteria that need to be met are totally
unsuitable for our river. These criteria demand access, public toilets,
changing facilities, parking, lifeguards, first aid service, kiosks
and shops. I have recently read DEFRA have raised the bar to 100 swimmers per
day in peak season. To meet these criteria, Sheep's Green will need to be transformed from a
magical mediaeval meadow into a major honey pot destination, and potentially
become a Bournemouth on Cam. Is this what the council want at Sheep's
Green? By voting for this motion, is the council committing to delivering the
infrastructure that the criteria demand? What size car park that must support
100 swimmers per day? How will access change? How many kiosks/shops? How will
lifeguards and first aid be funded? All this must be in place for Sheep's Green
to qualify for dba status. The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and
Infrastructure responded: i.
Would not support changes to access, public toilets,
changing facilities, parking, lifeguards, first aid service, kiosks and shops in the vicinity of any location currently
used for swimming in the city. ii.
If a DBA application was made, the application
required that there are toilet facilities within 500m from the proposed site,
but only asks that information was provided about parking facilities, public
transport, easy access (including disabled access), changing facilities,
lifeguards, first aid, litter bins, and cafes, shops
or kiosks. There were no specific
requirements for these. iii.
Also, for the application the zone must be used by
an average of at least 100 existing bathers a day during the bathing season (15
May to 30 September). This must be
surveyed before an application can be made.
Depending on the area of the river chosen, may find that the
criteria would not be met. Q10: Cam Valley Forum wants to apply for designated bathing water status
for Sheep’s Green, because this is the most powerful way we have
to improve the water quality in the Cam, for the benefit of swimmers,
punters, kayakers, our rowing crews, other river users and our wonderful
natural habitats. It is important to note that designation is about protecting the health
of existing “bathers” not attracting new ones. The experience of other inland
river groups, such as at Ilkely in Yorkshire is that
designation results in no change in visitor numbers, not least because it
highlights the “poor” water quality (as we currently have in the Cam) This “poor” classification then creates statutory obligations under the
Bathing Water regulations 2013 that should accelerate the much-needed
improvements in Haslingfield sewage works. This is why councils and community groups across the country
are applying. 11 inland river sites have already achieved designation,
including Oxford, Ilkely, and 4 in London. 100s of
coastal sites have of course, had designated bathing water status for years. Do you agree with Cam Valley Forum, that the environmental and health
benefits of designation make a powerful case for the city council to support
our application? The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure
responded i.
Felt the Cam Valley Forum arguments for a
designation were compellingly and would continue to watch Ilkley and Oxford to
see how their designations proceed. The debate, discussion and voting on the
Motion submitted, along with the two amendments would be interesting. ii.
Finally, by saying that the idea that designation
meant that part of the river that was bordered by an area rich in plant and
animal variety with local nature reserves would suddenly turn into an overflow
for Parkside Pool was simply not the case, and the apparent willingness to
tolerate a sewage-laden river flowing past the homes of water voles seemed to
be rather self-defeating. iii.
As a Council want natural chalk streams and a river
that was not damaged by human action and believed the improved monitoring and
awareness that a bathing water designation brings would help significantly as
part of a wider range of measures. It would not solve the problem alone, but
without it would be a harder job, which is why the motion had been brought to
Council today. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the recommendations of the Executive for adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (by 25 votes to 1) to: Approve carry
forward requests of £15,880,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets
and associated resources from 2022/23 into 2023/24 and beyond to fund re-phased
net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s report and the
associated notes to the appendix. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Greater Cambridge Impact Fund- (Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources) Appendix B to the report relates to information which following a public interest test the public is likely to be excluded by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 ie. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). Additional documents:
Minutes: i.
Approve the
allocation of £200,000 development funding to support the establishment of
Greater Cambridge Impact (‘the Fund’) and enable fundraising over the next
year. ii.
Agree ‘in
principle’ a further £800,000 contribution to the Fund once it is established,
subject to progress made to secure funding commitments of £5m from other
parties, and that officers should provide advice in relation to this decision at a later date. iii.
Note that i) and ii) are one-off financial contributions from
Reserves with the objective of leaving a lasting legacy
from additional business rates collected due to the growth of the Cambridge
economy. iv.
Note that
activity to establish the Fund will be overseen by a Fund Development Board;
that the £200,000 development funding will be managed by Jemma Little, Economic
Development Manager, Cambridge City Council in line with council policies; and
that progress will be reported by the Fund Development Board on a regular basis
to the Executive Cllr for Finance and Resources and may be brought back to the
Strategy & Resources Committee to provide updates at key stages over the
next year. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Place Group Resource for Key Projects - (Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources) Additional documents: Minutes: Approve funding for
additional resource as set out in Section 4 (a) of the officer’s report as
detailed below: The basis of funding for these posts
is to be from General Fund Reserves initially but with the expectation that the
posts will be up to 100% funded from capital resources once capital plan items
are brought forward and approved. Additional funding costs are:- · GF Retrofit Project Manager - £64,000 p.a. · GF Retrofit Project Officer– £56,750 p.a · GF Retrofit Project Clerk of Works 0.5 FTE – £28,375
p.a. · Senior Development Manager– £86,000 p.a. · Corporate Space Manager 0.6 FTE - £46,000 p.a. · External consultancy support for Corporate Space
Strategy – £75,000 in 2023/24 to establish approach, procurement and then make
further recommendations for delivery and cost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: a) Carry forward requests totalling £1,391,800 of revenue funding from
2022/23 to 2023/24, as detailed in Appendix C. These are carry
forward requests in excess of £50k. Requests up to and including £50k which
total £176,070 are approved via delegated authority to the Chief Financial
Officer. b) Approve additional budget in 2023/24 of £80k to the Climate Change
Fund funded from reserves, as detailed in Paragraphs 3.6 to 3.8 below. c) Approve the allocation of £200k from the General Fund reserve to
establish Greater Cambridge Impact (GCI) as detailed in Paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10
below. d) Approve the allocation of £218k in 2023/24 from the General Fund
reserve to fund the additional resource required to enable the delivery of key
programmes and projects within the Place Group. The allocation required will
increase to £267k in 2024/25 and £281k 2025/26 onwards as detailed in
Paragraphs 3.11 below. e)
To carry forward
requests of £81,444,000 of capital resources from 2022/23 to 2023/24 to fund
rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D. f)
Note the handing back to
the government of the majority of the recent
Sustainable Warmth Grants - unspent - which was intended to insulate private
sector homes and request a detailed review at the relevant scrutiny committee
of the contributory factors to this situation and courses of action to improve
take-up of future iterations of this government funding source for the very
important climate change-related objective of retrofitting existing homes. On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 14
votes 24. Resolved (by 28 votes to 0) to: i.
Approve carry
forward requests totalling £1,391,800 of revenue funding from 2022/23 to
2023/24, as detailed in Appendix C. These are carry
forward requests in excess of £50k. Requests up to and including £50k which
total £176,070 are approved via delegated authority to the Chief Financial
Officer. ii.
Approve
additional budget in 2023/24 of £80k to the Climate Change Fund funded from
reserves, as detailed in Paragraphs 3.6 to 3.8 of the officer’s report. iii.
Approve the
allocation of £200k from the General Fund reserve to establish Greater
Cambridge Impact (GCI) as detailed in Paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 below. iv.
Approve the
allocation of £218k in 2023/24 from the General Fund reserve to fund the
additional resource required to enable the delivery of key programmes and
projects within the Place Group. The allocation required will increase to £267k
in 2024/25 and £281k 2025/26 onwards as detailed in Paragraphs 3.11 below. e)
To carry forward requests of £81,444,000 of capital resources from 2022/23 to
2023/24 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the recommendations of Committees for adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (by 33 votes to 0)
to: i.
Approve the
changes to Council Procedure Rules and Budget Framework Rules as set out in the
Appendix A of the officer’s report. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To deal with oral questions Minutes: 1. Councillor Young to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services. Could the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces please update council on the herbicide free trials going on across the city? The Executive Councillor responded: i.
Most
recently the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee considered an Officer
report in March 2023. The report updated
on the work completed on the Herbicide Reduction Plan[1]
which include an evaluation of the two herbicide free trial wards in Arbury and
Newnham, an appraisal of the herbicide free street scheme. The report made
recommendations on the further reduction and stop in the use of herbicides in
the City with the scheme being expanded into West Chesterton and Trumpington.
This would allow further assessment of the scheme. ii.
Alternative
methods of managing weeds had also been considered such as mechanical brushes,
hoeing and pressure washing. iii.
An
evaluation of the Trial had identified that the Plan had created opportunities
for contributions, collaborative working and involvement and feedback and
learning from a wide range of stakeholders, including Councillors, Pesticide
Free Cambridge, On the Verge, residents, volunteers, and community groups and
we continue to work on these aspects of the Herbicide Reduction Plan. iv.
About
to conduct ‘ward walkabouts’ in the Trial areas in August to which Ward
Councillors would be invited. The Herbicide Working Group would also meet
again, now that there were new items to discuss. v.
Since
the report in March 2023, we have worked on a Communication Plan and undertaken
more outreach work, such as, a letter to Schools on becoming pesticide free,
contributed to research by University College London[2]
and there has been no applications of herbicides on the County Council’s
highways land in the city. vi.
The
Happy Bee scheme has proved popular with residents and would look at how this
could be maintained. vii.
The
Trial responses remained positive. viii.
Officers
continue to monitor the Trial and the impact on local streets before giving
further consideration on whether to become herbicide free and from a position
of understanding the implications following an appraisal of the impact of that
change. 2.
Councillor
Wade to the Executive Councillor for Communities What support
will we be providing residents with this winter for those still struggling with
the cost-of-living crisis? The Executive
Councillor responded: i.
During 2022/23 the
Council provided a range of support for residents struggling with the rising
cost of living, including: · A series of 11 Cost of Living Support Pop-Ups at community venues across the city from
October 2022-February 2023. · Provided regular Warm and Welcoming Spaces at the Council’s 5 community centres, which
offered community events, quiet spaces and meals to
local people. ·
Supported
partners to provide warm spaces and community meals by awarding £1,000 winter support grants to 43 voluntary and community
organisations. ·
Distributed
500 hot water bottles, 130 blankets and 89 air-fryers to people in need. ·
A total
of £20,000 to the Cambridgeshire Local Assistance Scheme (CLAS) to ensure that
they could meet increased demand for energy vouchers from Cambridge residents in urgent financial need. ·
Offered £10,000 match funding to Cambridge Sustainable
Food and Cambridge Food Poverty Alliance’s “Cost of Food
and Living Crisis Campaign”. which aimed to raise funds for frontline support
to communities. ii. Much of this activity was funded through £179,000 funding from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care System (ICS) for work to address heating and health issues during 2022/23. iii. Further funding had been secured from the ICS for 2023/24, but rather than cost of living issues, this is focussed on three themes of family, children and young people’s mental health, and high impact service users. iv. Officers in the cross-council Cost of Living Working group met recently to review the lessons learnt from support provided over the winter of 2022/23 and explore what support could be provided by the Council and partners over the coming autumn and winter. v. Feedback received from residents attending the Warm and Welcoming Spaces was that most people valued the support and sense of community connection that they got from coming to community centres, rather than needing somewhere warm to be in the cold weather. With this feedback in mind, rather than running dedicated sessions, the Council would be keeping its community centres open all year round and promoting them to residents as warm and welcoming spaces that they can access when needed. vi. Officers are also considering how we work with partner organisations to respond to ongoing needs. We are exploring opportunities for further pop-up events, but initial feedback suggests that there is more limited capacity amongst voluntary and community partners to engage in these events over the coming winter. vii. Data from the Low-Income Family Tracker (LIFT) system was being used to develop targeted communication campaigns for low-income residents who may benefit from income maximisation support, housing advice, energy efficiency measures and free sports and cultural activities provided by the Council and other local partner organisations. viii. All of this had been made possible as a result of the local community and volunteering sector which the Council would like to pay tribute to. 3. Councillor Holloway to the Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness Could the
Executive Councillor give an update on Homelessness and how we are preparing
for the winter? i.
The
Council continues to see very high levels of homelessness in Cambridge, and we
provide a wide range of services to people experiencing homelessness to help
them into settled accommodation as quickly as possible. ii.
Street
homelessness is only part of the picture of homelessness in Cambridge. iii.
Many
people will experience the devastating impact of homelessness without sleeping
on the streets. However, those on the streets are those most at risk from the
impact of adverse weather. The Council has a programme in place, as in previous
years that provides additional options during the worst of the winter. iv.
This
winter, provision would repeat what was provided last year with nightly
provision from November until March (inclusive), regardless of the weather for
people who were rough sleepers locally connected to the city. v.
When
the weather was particularly bad the Council also provide further bedspaces
under the Severe Weather Emergency Provision (SWEP), within hostels in the city
or, if these spaces aren’t available, in hotel accommodation. This is provided on a short-term basis when
the Met Office forecasts a temperature of zero or under for three successive
days or during periods of prolonged heavy rain or high winds or long periods of
generally cold and damp weather. 4.
Councillor
Flaubert to the Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and
Community Safety Could the
Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and Community Safety please
explain what support is available from the City Council for victims of Hate
Crimes? The Executive
Councillor responded: i.
There
was no place for hate in Cambridge. ii.
To
combat hate crime in the City, the Council were undertaking the following as
well as supporting victims of hate crime: ·
In
November 2022, the Council supported the launch of Stop Hate UK Cambridgeshire
24 hour hate crime reporting service. This service helped tackle all forms of
hate crime and discrimination. ·
The
Council delivers a confidential racial harassment service which offered advice
and helped anyone living or visiting Cambridge suffering racial harassment. The
service identified the support required, accessed the risk of further
incidents, and took action to increase home security, legal action, and
injunctions as example. ·
Officers
actively engaged with local communities to foster dialogue, promote
inclusivity, and addressed hate crime issues. ·
Had
met with the Police and Crime Commissioner to discuss these issues as tackling
hate crime was a Community First Priority. 5.
Councillor
Hossain to the Leader Cambridge does
not want this Congestion Charge. It will crush businesses and hit the least
well off and most vulnerable the hardest. We need to listen. Listen to
residents, to businesses, to charities, to community and to all faith groups.
No one should be taxed to go to their prayers. During covid, residents of our
city saw planters pop up in their roads almost overnight. Now those planters
have become metal barriers. This council claims to be so concerned about
congestion and pollution in our city. Yet our politicians are creating the very
congestion & pollution they claim to want to solve! It’s time this council
said enough! Enough to the madness of closing Mill Road bridge, to the
threatened closure of Arbury Road! We must stop the push to carve up the city
that we love. Taxpayers cannot use their roads, someone using as their private
roads as for example Nightingale Avenue, Bateman street, Luard Road, Panton
Street, Story's way, Carlyle Road, Vinery Road. We are here for all not for
few. What is
Cambridge Council’s view on roads closures & congestion charge plan? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
Recommended reading the published State of the
City 2023 report. The report highlighted that only three other cities in the UK
recorded more days of poor air quality than Cambridge.
ii.
The two wards exposed to the highest air
pollution were Petersfield and Kings Hedges; something needed to be done to
tackle climate change and congestion in the city.
iii.
There were no plans to close Arbury Road, the
closure of Mill Road had been taken in March following an extensive
consultation, 72% of respondents supported the restriction of vehicles crossing
the bridge and welcomed the closure.
iv.
Could not comment on road closures referenced
in the question and would have to investigate these in more detail.
v.
From the extensive GCP consultation on the
Sustainable Travel Zone (STZ), there were concerns around the design of the STZ
which is why the GCP Board had asked officers to look again at the scheme and
recommend alternative ways forward which might include things like reduced
hours, reduced charges, or free days.
vi.
Work was being undertaken to find a suitable way to
find a proposal that would be acceptable to residents. Until that proposal was
available and the Council had a chance to analyse the proposal it was wrong to
comment if the Council supported the congestion charge or not.
vii.
It was important to stress that no decision had
been taken and all options remained for consideration, including the option not
to proceed with STZ. 6.
Cllr
Pounds to the Executive Councillor for Communities. Could the
Executive Councillor for communities give us more information about the
recently announced Street Arts Festival? The Executive
Councillor responded with the following: The Executive
Councillor responded: i.
The
Streets Arts Festival named Out of the Ordinary was a brand-new event developed
by the Cultural Services Team. ii.
The
aim was to provide a free cultural event for residents and visitors to the
city, co funded in partnership with Cambridge Business Improvement District
(BID). iii.
The
event would include small street shows, walkabout acts across the city centre
during the August bank holiday weekend. Further information would be released
next week. iv.
It
was hoped that this would become an annual event in the cultural calendar; an
arts calendar bid was being prepared so that additional events and workshops
could be offered next year outside of the city centre. 7.
Councillor
McPherson to the Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and
Community Safety Following
recent tragic events, what is the council doing to ensure residents are made
fully aware of the dangers of lithium battery charging? The Executive
Councillor responded: i.
Would
like to convey our thoughts and sympathies to those affected by the tragic
event at Sackville Close. ii.
Would
like to thank the emergency services for their rapid response and to council
officers for their continued work to support those impacted by this sad event. iii.
Needed
to work with multiple agencies (and particularly with the fire service) to
ensure that this did not happen again. iv.
It
was important to promote the fire service’s safety message while assisting
members of the community to implement the advice. v.
An
information event had been planned to take place in Kings Hedges with external
agencies. vi.
The
Council’s Cambridge Matters and Open Door Magazine was also being used to
promote these safety messages. vii.
Would
be working with residents to look at how the Council could increase access to
safe storage and charging points for e-bikes and mobility scooters. viii.
For
the wider community, it was recognised that information was recognised in
different ways and all services and councillors must promote fire safety messages
where possible. ix.
Had
highlighted the importance of fire safety advise to Police and Crime
Commissioner to raise the issues with the Vison Zero Partnership. x.
Would
be writing to the relevant Secretary of State to emphasise the need to regulate
charging batteries for e- cars, bikes, scooters etc. 8.
Councillor
Baigent to the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control
and Infrastructure What are the
important quick wins that could improve rail transportation for the Cambridge
area? The Executive
Councillor responded: i.
The
Council supported further rail investment and it was vital to get further
improvements right. ii.
A
modern transport system needed to work for people in their daily lives; people
shaped their routines around transport systems asking if there was a bus stop
or railway near home or work etc, iii.
In
2014, 9.8million passengers used Cambridge station. The rail transport strategy
2014 resulted in a 660% increase in the Cambridge station usage to 74.6milion
in 2019 which dropped to 14.9million due to the pandemic in 2021. Rising again
to 45.6 million in March 2022. iv.
The
rail figures across the country showed usage for work was 80% pre-pandemic use
while leisure had increased to 120%. v.
Any
improvements were quick wins and supported more quick wins. The Council would
work with the Combined Authority on these improvements. vi.
Wanted
to ensure that every train would stop at the new Cambridge Station, would like
the Cambridge to Kings Lynn service to increase to two trains a hour, Cambridge to Cambridge
North should be six a hour and every train should stop at the new Waterbeach
station. 9.
Councillor
Naomi Bennett to the Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness The Green and
Independent Group welcomes the 25 June 2023 by Homes England that they will now
fund replacement “Affordable” homes as well as new ones. However, the new
scheme comes with conditions that existing projects may not be able to satisfy.
What plans does the Executive councillor have to take advantage of the
additional funding and will she bring a report to Housing Scrutiny in September
2023 to identify which pipeline projects are expected to qualify and which are
not? The Executive
Councillor said the following: i.
The
Development Team were aware of the changes to Homes England grant funding and
staff were reviewing schemes that may benefit from this change in funding, to
evaluate which schemes may be eligible. Not all schemes would be suitable, and
the Council would need to balance resources in terms of delivery, placemaking
and benefits for the Housing Revenue Account. ii.
The
team were in regular engagement with Homes England to ensure that the Council
would be well placed to capitalise on this change in funding. iii.
There
would be an update on the delivery programme at the Housing Scrutiny Committee
in September, where they would be updated on the Homes England grant programme,
and it was hoped to update on which pipeline projects would be submitted for
grant applications. A full list of
oral questions including those not asked during the meeting can be found in the
Information Pack, which is published on the meeting webpage Agenda for Council on Thursday, 20th July, 2023, 6.00 pm -
Cambridge Council. [1] following the Exec Councillor decision on the 27th January 2022 to Trail a Herbicide Reduction Plan [2] The research presents as a questionnaire that feeds into a larger project on general attitudes to the environment and the impact of community behaviours, social norms, and policies on broader changes in human-environmental relationships and outcomes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the following notices of motion, notice of which has been given by: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Flaubert - Removal of Restrictive Covenants on Childminders Council notes that some housebuilders impose
restrictive covenants prohibiting residents from running businesses from homes
and that such a prohibition can prevent the operation of domestic childcare
provision within the community and shares the concern about the implications of
this with Cambridgeshire County Council, which debated the matter earlier this
year. Council considers that the availability of
childcare is an important component of a sustainable community - in terms of
service, social integration, employment and parental participation in the
workforce: its absence encourages unnecessary travel and presents a barrier to
securing family livelihoods and the pursuit of chosen lifestyles – and that
this is particularly true of wholly new neighbourhoods. Council calls on: (a) the Planning Committee and members on the
Joint Development Control Committee to explore the use of planning conditions
to avoid restrictive covenants on business use which preclude domestically
based childcare provision, where this can be supported by evidence of need (b) the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to
engage with housebuilders active in Greater Cambridge to address the childcare
deficit for new communities being delivered as part of the current adopted
Local Plan 2018; and in view of predicted growth, seek their support for
approaches that will meet the needs of childcare providers and families in the
emerging joint local plan (c) the Executive Councillor for Planning and
Infrastructure to develop a planning policy regarding childminders that will
include feedback from the engagement with housebuilders and stakeholders across
Greater Cambridge, including organisations like PACEY, to ensure that needs are
balanced across all the interests in the community so that childminders are
exempt from blanket covenants to restrict businesses being run from homes. Minutes: Councillor Flaubert proposed and Councillor Payne seconded the following motion: Council notes that some housebuilders impose restrictive covenants
prohibiting residents from running businesses from homes and that such a
prohibition can prevent the operation of domestic childcare provision within
the community and shares the concern about the implications of this with
Cambridgeshire County Council, which debated the matter earlier this year. Council considers that the availability of childcare is an
important component of a sustainable community - in terms of service, social
integration, employment and parental participation in
the workforce: its absence encourages unnecessary travel and presents a barrier
to securing family livelihoods and the pursuit of chosen lifestyles – and that
this is particularly true of wholly new neighbourhoods. Council calls on: a)
the
Planning Committee and members on the Joint Development Control Committee to
explore the use of planning conditions to avoid restrictive covenants on
business use which preclude domestically based childcare provision, where this
can be supported by evidence of need b)
the
Greater Cambridge Planning Service to engage with housebuilders active in
Greater Cambridge to address the childcare deficit for new communities being
delivered as part of the current adopted Local Plan 2018; and in view of
predicted growth, seek their support for approaches that will meet the needs of
childcare providers and families in the emerging joint local plan c)
the
Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure to develop a planning
policy regarding childminders that will include feedback from the engagement
with housebuilders and stakeholders across Greater Cambridge, including
organisations like PACEY, to ensure that needs are balanced across all the
interests in the community so that childminders are exempt from blanket
covenants to restrict businesses being run from homes. Councillor Thornburrow proposed and Councillor Moore seconded the following
amendment to the Removal of Restrictive Covenants on Childminders and Other
Small Enterprises motion. (Deleted text Council
notes that some housebuilders impose restrictive covenants prohibiting
residents from running businesses from homes and that such a prohibition can
prevent the operation of Council notes that
at its annual meeting on May 16 2023 Cambridgeshire
County Council resolved to ‘make a recommendation to the District Councils that
on strategic new developments, a condition of planning is that such restrictive
covenants which are to be put in place state explicitly that childcare on
domestic premises will be exempt, where there is an identified need which can
be demonstrated’. Council
agrees that the availability of childcare is an important
component of a sustainable community in terms of service, social integration,
employment and parental participation in the workforce, its absence encourages
unnecessary travel and presents a barrier to securing family livelihoods and
the pursuit of chosen lifestyles – and that this is particularly true of wholly
new neighbourhoods. Council further
notes that restrictions on other small enterprises can have equally negative
effects on the communities where they apply, and that exemptions for childcare
on domestic premises should also apply to other small enterprises. Council
therefore calls on: (a)
the Planning Committee and members on
the Joint Development Control Committee to explore the use of planning
conditions to avoid restrictive covenants on business use which preclude small enterprises such as domestically based
childcare provision, where this can be supported by evidence of need (b) the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to engage with
housebuilders active in Greater Cambridge to address the childcare deficit for new communities being delivered as part of the
current adopted Local Plan 2018; and in view of predicted growth, seek their
support for approaches that will meet the needs of childcare providers and
families in the emerging joint local plan (c) the Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure to
develop a planning policy regarding childminders that will include feedback
from the engagement with housebuilders and stakeholders across Greater
Cambridge, including organisations like The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years (PACEY), to
ensure that needs are balanced across all the interests in the community so that
childminders are exempt from blanket covenants to restrict businesses being run
from homes. On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 27 votes to 0. Resolved
(unanimously) that: Council notes that some
housebuilders impose restrictive covenants prohibiting residents from running
businesses from homes and that such a prohibition can prevent the operation of small enterprises, including domestic childcare provision within the community. Council notes that at its annual meeting on
May 16 2023 Cambridgeshire County Council resolved to
‘make a recommendation to the District Councils that on strategic new
developments, a condition of planning is that such restrictive covenants which
are to be put in place state explicitly that childcare on domestic premises
will be exempt, where there is an identified need which can be demonstrated’. Council agrees that the
availability of childcare is an important component of a sustainable community
in terms of service, social integration, employment and parental participation
in the workforce, its absence encourages unnecessary travel and presents a
barrier to securing family livelihoods and the pursuit of chosen lifestyles –
and that this is particularly true of wholly new neighbourhoods. Council further notes that restrictions on
other small enterprises can have equally negative effects on the communities
where they apply, and that exemptions for childcare on domestic premises should
also apply to other small enterprises. Council therefore calls on: a)
the Planning Committee and members on the Joint Development
Control Committee to explore the use of planning conditions to avoid
restrictive covenants on business use which preclude small enterprises such
as domestically based childcare provision, where
this can be supported by evidence of need b)
the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to engage with
housebuilders active in Greater Cambridge to address the childcare deficit
for new communities being delivered as part of the current adopted Local Plan
2018; and in view of predicted growth, seek their support for approaches that
will meet the needs of childcare providers and families in the emerging joint
local plan c)
the Executive Councillor for Planning and Infrastructure to
develop a planning policy regarding childminders that will include feedback
from the engagement with housebuilders and stakeholders across Greater
Cambridge, including organisations like The Professional Association for Childcare and
Early Years (PACEY), to ensure that needs
are balanced across all the interests in the community so that childminders are
exempt from blanket covenants to restrict businesses being run from homes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Bennett - Community Wealth Building and Procurement The purpose of
this motion is to: ·
Encourage smaller businesses, community organisations and local
businesses and organisations to consider becoming council suppliers ·
Identify and remove invisible barriers to participation while. ·
continuing to comply with the strict statutory rules and best practice
guidelines for public sector procurement. 1. This council proposes to encourage
more small and local suppliers by showing that other such suppliers already do
so. It will do this by publishing its participation statistics as prominently
as possible. 2. This council recognises that
invisible barriers for smaller organisations do exist. Sole traders may
struggle to find time to access training at conventional times. For this
reason, council officers will explore options on all Council media channels
available for the most suitable way in which to engage with novice suppliers 3. The Council shall draw these steps to
the attention of “multipliers” and ask them to share this with their networks.
Multipliers are professional organisations and industry bodies that deal with a large number of potential suppliers. Background Notes
(not part of active motion): 1
By
law, public procurement must be a level playing field open to all potential
suppliers. Councils cannot for example offer preferential treatment to local or
smaller businesses or community organisations. 2
However,
nothing prevents councils from working to eliminate invisible barriers to
participation. 3
In particular, smaller organisations are time poor and may struggle to
research opportunities or access training. 4
Cambridge
City Council current available figures (2021) shows we achieved the following
participation rates a. Spent £48,344,507 with SMEs. This is
51% of Cambridge City Council's total procurement spend. b. Spent £2,773,347 with VCSEs This is
3% of Cambridge City Council's total procurement spend. c. Spent £68,062,517 with locally based
suppliers This is 72% of Cambridge City Council's total procurement spend. 5
Out
of 259 authorities, Cambridge City Council achieved: a. 44th place for its SME spending (51%) b. 195th place for its VCSE spending
(3%) c. 4th place for its locally based
supplier spending (72%) 6
Overall,
this puts Cambridge City Council in the top quartile. a. Rankings may be affected by
differences between the functions of the councils. b. Locally placed suppliers may include
local branches of national and international businesses. c. There are no figures for smaller SMEs
such as micro businesses NB – figures for 2022 are
due to be published later this month 7
Abbreviations: a. SME means small and medium
enterprises. The UK definition of SME is now a small or medium-sized enterprise
with fewer than 500 (was 250) employees. and a turnover of less than €50
million, or a balance sheet total of less than €43 million b. VCSE means an incorporated voluntary,
community or social enterprise which serves communities solely within England. c. Community wealth building is usually
defined as creating a resilient and inclusive economy for the benefit of the
local area. d. And is one of the key principles of
“doughnut economics” a term coined by Kate Raworth. e. Cllrs Bennett and Tong wish ... view the full agenda text for item 23/43/CNL Minutes: Councillor Bennett
will withdraw the Motion under Council Procedure Rule 13.3. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Tong - Open Doors at the Guild Hall 1. This council resolves to promote a
closer relationship between the council and residents by opening the Guild Hall
to the public. 2. It is envisaged that initially this
would be on a trial basis and hours would be limited, or by appointment only. 3. It is envisaged that priority would
be given to school groups and other educational visits. 4. This council resolves to consider
ways of opening up its collection of antique
ceremonial objects to public view, perhaps by partnering with a suitable local
Museum. Background Notes
(not part of active motion): 1. We understand that before lock down, school visits were made to the Guild Hall on
occasion. 2. The Guild Hall still contains a court house and functioning cells which were used up until
the 1920s. 3. The Guild Hall is also home to the
Council’s collection of ceremonial objects, such as maces and trowels. Minutes: Councillor Tong
proposed and Councillor Howard seconded the following motion: 1.
This
council resolves to promote a closer relationship between the council and residents
by opening the Guildhall to the public. 2.
It
is envisaged that initially this would be on a trial basis and hours would be
limited, or by appointment only. 3.
It
is envisaged that priority would be given to school groups and other
educational visits. 4.
This
council resolves to consider ways of opening up its
collection of antique ceremonial objects to public view, perhaps by partnering
with a suitable local Museum. Background Notes
(not part of active motion): 1.
We
understand that before lock down, school visits were made to the Guild Hall on
occasion. 2.
The
Guild Hall still contains a courthouse and functioning cells which were used up
until the 1920s. 3.
The
Guild Hall is also home to the Council’s collection of ceremonial objects, such
as maces and trowels. Councillor Bick
proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the following amendment to the
composite motion (deleted text 1. This council resolves to
promote a closer relationship between the council and residents by opening the
Guildhall to the public.
Council notes that: 1. With the Guildhall
currently occupied by a tenant and Mandela House still operating as if locked
down, that the council is not projecting an open and accessible physical
presence to the public; 2. The council has made the
welcome decision to retain the Guildhall as a civic building at the heart of
the city and to operate from it in future; 3. That even with the
recent shift to digital transactions with the council, there is an unrealised
potential for a physical shop window for its work offering some personal
contact. Council calls for: 1. A timetable for the
council’s re-occupation of the Guildhall to be agreed and published as soon as
is practicable; 2. An interim
re-instatement of a daily open door, a reception to the public staffed by the
council, a small exhibition space for topical matters related to the city
council and other public services, and computer terminals enabling digital
access for the public to the wider services of the council; 3. Access to be enabled to schools and other
visitors to the council chamber and civic
regalia. On a show of hands, the amendment was lost by 10 votes to 23. Councillor Pounds proposed, and Councillor Dryden seconded the following
amendment to the Open Doors at the Guildhall motion. (Deleted text
6.
· Public access to the Guildhall and its predecessor buildings
have played a vital role in the civic and community life of Cambridge for
centuries. · There is an open invitation to the Guildhall for members of
the public to observe and contribute to the work of the Council, which is
fundamental to the transparency and accountability of the democratic
process. · The presence of the ceremonial artifacts in the Guildhall is
symbolic of the Council's institutional authority as a democratically elected
decision-making body, and these are available to view. · The Guildhall’s facilities are open to the public for a
diverse range of community and commercial activities, facilitated in part by
the Allia-operated Future Business Centre which was
pioneered by the Labour Group. · Hosting tours of the Guildhall for the Cambridge community,
including youth organisations, is already a core part of the Mayor’s role, and
work is underway to establish the demand for – and resource implications of –
tours for school children. Council believes that: · Maintaining and expanding public access to the Guildhall is
an important part of showing openness to residents, and
preserving the civic history of Cambridge. · This must be part of a wider culture around opening our
spaces across the city, improving resident access to other spaces such as
community centres, so that delivery of services and contact with the Council is
not limited to a central location. Council resolves to: · Reiterate its commitment to maintaining the Guildhall as the
City’s seat of local government, and its commitment to refurbishing the
Guildhall into a community-oriented civic space in line with the pledge made in
Cambridge Labour’s manifesto. · Continue to invite a diverse range of community and
educational organisations into the Guildhall and encourage any such
organisations which are interested to reach out to the Mayor. On a show of hands, the amendment was carried by 23 votes to 4. Resolved (by 33 votes to 4) that: Council notes that: · Public access to
the Guildhall and its predecessor buildings have played a vital role in the
civic and community life of Cambridge for centuries. · There is an open
invitation to the Guildhall for members of the public to observe and contribute
to the work of the Council, which is fundamental to the transparency and
accountability of the democratic process. · The presence of
the ceremonial artifacts in the Guildhall is symbolic of the Council's
institutional authority as a democratically elected decision-making body, and
these are available to view. · The Guildhall’s
facilities are open to the public for a diverse range of community and
commercial activities, facilitated in part by the Allia-operated
Future Business Centre which was pioneered by the Labour Group. · Hosting tours of
the Guildhall for the Cambridge community, including youth organisations, is
already a core part of the Mayor’s role, and work is underway to establish the
demand for – and resource implications of – tours for school children. Council believes that: · Maintaining and
expanding public access to the Guildhall is an important part of showing
openness to residents and preserving the civic history of Cambridge. · This must be part
of a wider culture around opening our spaces across the city, improving
resident access to other spaces such as community centres, so that delivery of
services and contact with the Council is not limited to a central location. Council resolves to: · Reiterate its
commitment to maintaining the Guildhall as the City’s seat of local government,
and its commitment to refurbishing the Guildhall into a community-oriented
civic space in line with the pledge made in Cambridge Labour’s manifesto. · Continue to invite
a diverse range of community and educational organisations into the Guildhall
and encourage any such organisations which are interested to reach out to the
Mayor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Moore - Waste Strategy This council notes: · Cambridge
City Council is the waste and recycling collection authority for Cambridge
City. · Cambridgeshire
County Council is the waste disposal authority for Cambridgeshire including the
city of Cambridge · The
County Council has a PFI contract with Thalia (previously Amey
Cespa) for the disposal of residual (black bin)
waste, which is treated in the Mechanical
Biological Treatment (MBT) facility before it is sent
to landfill in Waterbeach. · The
Waterbeach landfill is predicted to be full in the next 8-10 years (2031-2033). · Food
waste represents the largest material category in England’s waste stream, and
is generally sent for disposal, also forming the largest component of England’s
residual waste. Detailed waste analysis from 2019 shows that one third of
residual waste in Cambridgeshire is food waste, although residents are asked to
dispose of their food waste in the green bin. · Estimates suggest that 8-10% of global
greenhouse gas emissions are from with food waste. · In 2020 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in
Cambridge were caused by waste management, which equates to 49.6 ktCO2e. · The
government’s 2018 Waste & Resources Strategy has a target of achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) 12.3 which aims at halving per-capita global food waste by 2030 and
standardising waste collection across the UK in order to
increase recycling rates. · The Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service
recently carried out a successful separate food waste collection trial. · The
City Council’s climate strategy has an ambition of Cambridge being a net zero
carbon city by 2030. · Upgrade works at the treatment facility
provide an opportunity to ensure the future needs of the city and county and
our carbon reduction targets. · The
government is offering collection authorities (including all
of the districts in Cambridgeshire) funding, through the waste and
resources strategy, to introduce separate weekly food waste collections. This council will: · Ask
the leader of the City Council to write to the Leader of Cambridgeshire County
Council requesting that they create a waste disposal strategy to ensure both
the best service and continuity for residents alongside improving opportunities
for food waste treatment and increased recycling rates. · Ask
the leader of the City Council to write to the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support both waste collection and waste
disposal authorities to establish separate weekly food waste collections as set
out in the Waste and Resources Strategy, in order to
achieve our waste reduction and net zero targets. Minutes: Councillor Moore proposed and Councillor Nestor seconded the
following motion:
This council notes: · Cambridge
City Council is the waste and recycling collection authority for Cambridge
City. · Cambridgeshire
County Council is the waste disposal authority for Cambridgeshire including the
city of Cambridge · The
County Council has a PFI contract with Thalia (previously Amey Cespa) for the
disposal of residual (black bin) waste, which is treated in the Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)
facility before it is sent to landfill in Waterbeach. · The
Waterbeach landfill is predicted to be full in the next 8-10 years (2031-2033). · Food
waste represents the largest material category in England’s waste stream, and
is generally sent for disposal, also forming the largest component of England’s
residual waste. Detailed waste analysis from 2019 shows that one third of
residual waste in Cambridgeshire is food waste, although residents are asked to
dispose of their food waste in the green bin. · Estimates suggest that 8-10% of global
greenhouse gas emissions are from with food waste. · In 2020 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in
Cambridge were caused by waste management, which equates to 49.6 ktCO2e. · The
government’s 2018 Waste & Resources Strategy has a target of achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) 12.3 which aims at halving per-capita global food waste by 2030 and
standardising waste collection across the UK in order to increase recycling
rates. · The Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service
recently carried out a successful separate food waste collection trial. · The
City Council’s climate strategy has an ambition of Cambridge being a net zero
carbon city by 2030. · Upgrade works at the treatment facility
provide an opportunity to ensure the future needs of the city and county and
our carbon reduction targets. · The
government is offering collection authorities (including all of the districts
in Cambridgeshire) funding, through the waste and resources strategy, to
introduce separate weekly food waste collections. This council will: · Ask
the leader of the City Council to write to the Leader of Cambridgeshire County
Council requesting that they create a waste disposal strategy to ensure both
the best service and continuity for residents alongside improving opportunities
for food waste treatment and increased recycling rates. · Ask
the leader of the City Council to write to the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support both waste collection and waste
disposal authorities to establish separate weekly food waste collections as set
out in the Waste and Resources Strategy, in order to achieve our waste
reduction and net zero targets. Resolved (unamiously) to support the motion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Thornburrow - Stop Dumping Sewage in our River and Chalk Streams This Council notes that: On 21st July 2022, a motion
was passed by the Council regarding Rivers, Safe Swimming and Sewage, which
recognised the cumulative impact of sewage discharge events. The responsible bodies are the
Environment Agency for general oversight, Cambridge Water for water supply, and
Anglian Water for sewage. Despite members highlighting the issues in this
Council, and engaging with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water, recent
evidence shows that pollution levels in our rivers and chalk streams remain
unacceptable. Many residents and local
organisations have rightly raised concerns about the health implications of the
poor water quality in our rivers and chalk streams, especially during summer
months when local children and families would expect to be able to bathe and
enjoy nature-rich river banks. Cam Valley Forum have
undertaken water quality tests for the year 2021 to 2022, and Anglian Water
continue to take weekly tests. All show
poor water quality. On 22nd September 2022,
South Cambridgeshire District Council agreed a motion calling for measures to
stop water companies dumping raw sewage in our chalk streams,
and has begun working towards a formal application to Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs for an inland bathing
water stretch within their district under the Bathing Water Directive
(2006/7/EC). A designation as a bathing water site from the Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs imposes a legal
obligation on Anglian Water to reduce sewage pollution in the area concerned
until the level ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ is reached; requires the Environment
Agency to test the water regularly during the bathing season in order to
produce an annual classification as “excellent”, ”good”, “sufficient” or
“poor”; requires the local council and agencies to publish the annual water
quality classification; and can help residents enjoy the benefits of wild
swimming, reducing stress, and improving wellbeing, fitness and contact with
nature. Therefore, this Council calls
on everyone to engage with the River Cam and its associated chalk streams and tributaries
with respect, accepting our stewardship of this vital natural resource, and
asks all residents and organisations of Cambridge to act as guardians of the
river and be mindful of the impact of our own actions and those of others that
threaten its health and survival. Furthermore, in order to reduce threats to the River Cam and its tributaries caused by
pollution and over-abstraction, this Council: · will support a formal
application to Defra for an inland water stretch along the River Cam
within Cambridge City Council boundaries to be designated as a bathing water
site, working with Anglian Water and local partners such as Cam Valley Forum, recognising
that designation would bring tangible benefits to the health of the river and
city residents, subject to approval of the Executive Councillor following
consideration by the
Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee; · asks the Chief Executive to send a formal letter to the Environment Agency, Cambridge Water, and Anglian Water expressing its concerns over the state of the River Cam and associated chalk streams and other tributaries, and calling for ... view the full agenda text for item 23/45/CNL Minutes: Councillor Thornburrow proposed, and Councillor Holloway seconded the following motion: This Council notes that: On 21st July 2022, a motion
was passed by the Council regarding Rivers, Safe Swimming and Sewage, which
recognised the cumulative impact of sewage discharge events. The responsible bodies are the
Environment Agency for general oversight, Cambridge Water for water supply, and
Anglian Water for sewage. Despite members highlighting the issues in this
Council, and engaging with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water, recent
evidence shows that pollution levels in our rivers and chalk streams remain
unacceptable. Many residents and local organisations
have rightly raised concerns about the health implications of the poor water
quality in our rivers and chalk streams, especially during summer months when
local children and families would expect to be able to bathe and enjoy
nature-rich river banks. Cam Valley Forum have
undertaken water quality tests for the year 2021 to 2022, and Anglian Water
continue to take weekly tests. All show
poor water quality. On 22nd September 2022,
South Cambridgeshire District Council agreed a motion calling for measures to
stop water companies dumping raw sewage in our chalk streams,
and has begun working towards a formal application to Department for
Environment, Food & Rural Affairs for an inland bathing
water stretch within their district under the Bathing Water Directive
(2006/7/EC). A
designation as a bathing water site from the Department for Environment, Food &
Rural Affairs imposes a legal obligation on Anglian Water to reduce sewage
pollution in the area concerned until the level ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ is
reached; requires the Environment Agency to test the water regularly during the
bathing season in order to produce an annual classification as “excellent”,
”good”, “sufficient” or “poor”; requires the local council and agencies to
publish the annual water quality classification; and can help residents enjoy
the benefits of wild swimming, reducing stress, and improving wellbeing,
fitness and contact with nature. Therefore, this Council calls
on everyone to engage with the River Cam and its
associated chalk streams and tributaries with respect, accepting our
stewardship of this vital natural resource, and asks all residents and
organisations of Cambridge to act as guardians of the river and be mindful of
the impact of our own actions and those of others that threaten its health and
survival. Furthermore, in order to reduce threats to the River
Cam and its tributaries caused by pollution and over-abstraction, this Council: ·
will
support a formal application to Defra for an inland water stretch along
the River Cam within Cambridge City Council boundaries to be designated as a
bathing water site, working with Anglian Water and local partners such as Cam
Valley Forum, recognising that designation would bring tangible benefits to
the health of the river and city residents, subject to approval from the Executive
Councillor following consideration by the Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee; · asks
the Chief Executive to send a formal letter to the Environment Agency,
Cambridge Water, and Anglian Water expressing its concerns over the state of
the River Cam and associated chalk streams and other tributaries, and calling
for their assistance in improving water quality and reducing pollution; · will
continue to consider the impact of the emerging Local Plan on the water
environment through the cross-party, cross-boundary Shared Planning Local Plan
Advisory Group, and the cross-party Cambridge City Planning and Transport
Scrutiny Committee; · affirms
the goal, agreed by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, of having
the water management plan for our chalk streams based on being an
‘environmental destination’ with subsequent protection as sites of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI), rather than ‘business as usual plus’; · will
provide public access to the full response of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning
to the Cambridge Water, Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) consultation. References Information provided by the Government on Bathing Water Quality https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bathing-waters Information from Cam Valley Forum https://camvalleyforum.uk/water-quality/ South Cambridgeshire District Council motion, agreed on 22 September 2022 https://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=93434 Councillor Glasberg proposed and Councillor Bennett seconded the
following amendment to the composite motion (deleted text This Council notes that: On 21st July 2022, a motion was passed by the Council regarding Rivers, Safe Swimming and Sewage, which recognised the cumulative impact of sewage discharge events. The responsible bodies are the Environment Agency for general oversight, Cambridge Water for water supply, and Anglian Water for sewage. Despite members highlighting the issues in this Council, and engaging with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water, recent evidence shows that pollution levels in our rivers and chalk streams remain unacceptable. Many residents and local organisations have rightly raised concerns about the health implications of the poor water quality in our rivers and chalk streams, especially during summer months when local children and families would expect to be able to bathe and enjoy nature-rich river banks. Cam Valley Forum have undertaken water quality tests for the year 2021 to 2022, and Anglian Water continue to take weekly tests. All show poor water quality. On 22nd September 2022, South Cambridgeshire District Council agreed a motion calling for measures to stop water companies dumping raw sewage in our chalk streams, and has begun working towards a formal application to Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs for an inland bathing water stretch within their district under the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC). A designation as a bathing water site from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs imposes a legal obligation on Anglian Water to reduce sewage pollution in the area concerned until the level ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ is reached; requires the Environment Agency to test the water regularly during the bathing season in order to produce an annual classification as “excellent”, ”good”, “sufficient” or “poor”; requires the local council and agencies to publish the annual water quality classification; and can help residents enjoy the benefits of wild swimming, reducing stress, and improving wellbeing, fitness and contact with nature. Therefore, this Council calls on everyone to engage with the River Cam and its associated chalk streams and tributaries with respect, accepting our stewardship of this vital natural resource, and asks all residents and organisations of Cambridge to act as guardians of the river and be mindful of the impact of our own actions and those of others that threaten its health and survival. Furthermore, in order to reduce threats to the River Cam and its tributaries caused by pollution and over-abstraction, this Council: · will support a formal application to Defra for an inland water stretch along the River Cam within Cambridge City Council boundaries to be designated as a bathing water site, working with Anglian Water and local partners such as Cam Valley Forum, recognising that designation would bring tangible benefits to the health of the river and city residents, subject to approval from the Executive Councillor following consideration by the Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee; ·
The Council will carefully consider the
implications of the 3 July 2023 guidance Bathing waters: apply to designate or
de-designate - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ·
In particular, the council will take advice
as to the legal and public health implications of encouraging a minimum of 100
people to spend an aggregate of 800 hours immersed in an unsafe and polluted
area. This is a requirement of any new application for designated status. ·
The Council will also take advice as to the
legal and public health implications of encouraging an unknown number of people
to expose themselves to polluted water. It should be borne in mind that only
testing for e coli would be required if designated status is granted and not
for the other chemicals and contaminants known to be present in the Cam. ·
The Council will carefully consider and take
independent biodiversity advice on the impact on the river, the river banks, protected species and particularly on the three
local nature reserves adjacent to the site. ·
The Council will consult the Conservators of
the River Cam who are the statutory navigation authority for the river. ·
The Council will consider the impact on
existing other users of the area including but not limited to the existing 600 member canoe club, the iconic punt route through this
narrow site to Grantchester Meadows and the impact on the key tourism asset of
the Scudamores punt station and existing visitors to
and residents of this popular and heavily used area.. ·
The Council shall review the accident and
safety records of the site and consider the costs and biodiversity implications
of making the site physically safe for swimmers. ·
The council shall consider the considerable
capital and recurring costs and feasibility of providing and maintaining
appropriate bankside facilities to comply with the 3 July 2023 requirements and
its own safety standards. ·
The Council shall consider the likelihood of
any designated bathing water application resulting in cleaner water given that
water status remains poor at the only current inland bathing site at Ilkley. ·
The Council shall consider
carefully the outcome of this preliminary review before making any
decision to permit a public consultation to take place or any application for
designated bathing area status to proceed. · asks the Chief Executive to send a formal letter to the Environment Agency, Cambridge Water, and Anglian Water expressing its concerns over the state of the River Cam and associated chalk streams and other tributaries, and calling for their assistance in improving water quality and reducing pollution; · will continue to consider the impact of the emerging Local Plan on the water environment through the cross-party, cross-boundary Shared Planning Local Plan Advisory Group, and the cross-party Cambridge City Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee; · affirms the goal, agreed by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, of having the water management plan for our chalk streams based on being an ‘environmental destination’ with subsequent protection as sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), rather than ‘business as usual plus’; · will provide public access to the full response of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to the Cambridge Water, Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) consultation. On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 5
votes to 32 votes. Councillor Porrer proposed and
Councillor Nethsingha seconded the following amendment to the composite motion
(deleted text On 21st July 2022, a motion was passed by the Council regarding Rivers, Safe Swimming and Sewage, which recognised the cumulative impact of sewage discharge events. The responsible bodies are the Environment Agency for general oversight, Cambridge Water for water supply, and Anglian Water for sewage. Despite members highlighting the issues in this Council, and engaging with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water, recent evidence shows that pollution levels in our rivers and chalk streams remain unacceptable. Many residents and local organisations have rightly raised concerns about the health implications of the poor water quality in our rivers and chalk streams, especially during summer months when local children and families would expect to be able to bathe and enjoy nature-rich river banks. Cam Valley Forum have undertaken water quality tests for the year 2021 to 2022, and Anglian Water continue to take weekly tests. All show poor water quality. On 22nd September 2022, South Cambridgeshire District Council agreed a motion calling for measures to stop water companies dumping raw sewage in our chalk streams, and has begun working towards a formal application to Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs for an inland bathing water stretch within their district under the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC). A designation as a bathing water site from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs imposes a legal obligation on Anglian Water to reduce sewage pollution in the area concerned until the level ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ is reached; requires the Environment Agency to test the water regularly during the bathing season in order to produce an annual classification as “excellent”, ”good”, “sufficient” or “poor”; requires the local council and agencies to publish the annual water quality classification; and can help residents enjoy the benefits of wild swimming, reducing stress, and improving wellbeing, fitness and contact with nature. Therefore, this Council calls on everyone to engage with the River Cam and its associated chalk streams and tributaries with respect, accepting our stewardship of this vital natural resource, and asks all residents and organisations of Cambridge to act as guardians of the river and be mindful of the impact of our own actions and those of others that threaten its health and survival. Furthermore, in order to reduce threats to the River Cam and its tributaries caused by pollution and over-abstraction, this Council:
·
Agrees to evaluate the potential of a formal
application to Defra for an inland water stretch along the River Cam within
Cambridge City Council boundaries to be designated as a bathing site, working
with Anglian Water and local partners such as Cam Valley Forum, in order to
secure an improvement in water quality while also taking into account the
impact of any increased usage and avoidance of significant additional cost; and
requests a report on this to the Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee
to inform a balanced decision by the Executive Councillor. · asks the Chief Executive to send a formal letter to the Environment Agency, Cambridge Water, and Anglian Water expressing its concerns over the state of the River Cam and associated chalk streams and other tributaries, and calling for their assistance in improving water quality and reducing pollution; · will continue to consider the impact of the emerging Local Plan on the water environment through the cross-party, cross-boundary Shared Planning Local Plan Advisory Group, and the cross-party Cambridge City Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee; · affirms the goal, agreed by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, of having the water management plan for our chalk streams based on being an ‘environmental destination’ with subsequent protection as sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), rather than ‘business as usual plus’; · will provide public access to the full response of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to the Cambridge Water, Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) consultation. On a show of hands, the amendment was carried by 33 votes to 1. Resolved (by 33 votes to 1 vote) that: This Council notes that: On 21st July 2022, a motion was passed by the Council regarding Rivers, Safe Swimming and Sewage, which recognised the cumulative impact of sewage discharge events. The responsible bodies are the Environment Agency for general oversight, Cambridge Water for water supply, and Anglian Water for sewage. Despite members highlighting the issues in this Council, and engaging with the Environment Agency and Anglian Water, recent evidence shows that pollution levels in our rivers and chalk streams remain unacceptable. Many residents and local organisations have rightly raised concerns about the health implications of the poor water quality in our rivers and chalk streams, especially during summer months when local children and families would expect to be able to bathe and enjoy nature-rich riverbanks. Cam Valley Forum have undertaken water quality tests for the year 2021 to 2022, and Anglian Water continue to take weekly tests. All show poor water quality. On 22nd September 2022, South Cambridgeshire District Council agreed a motion calling for measures to stop water companies dumping raw sewage in our chalk streams and had begun working towards a formal application to Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs for an inland bathing water stretch within their district under the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC). A designation as a bathing water site from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs imposes a legal obligation on Anglian Water to reduce sewage pollution in the area concerned until the level ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ is reached; requires the Environment Agency to test the water regularly during the bathing season in order to produce an annual classification as “excellent”, ”good”, “sufficient” or “poor”; requires the local council and agencies to publish the annual water quality classification; and can help residents enjoy the benefits of wild swimming, reducing stress, and improving wellbeing, fitness and contact with nature. Therefore, this Council calls on everyone to engage with the River Cam and its associated chalk streams and tributaries with respect, accepting our stewardship of this vital natural resource, and asks all residents and organisations of Cambridge to act as guardians of the river and be mindful of the impact of our own actions and those of others that threaten its health and survival. Furthermore, in order to reduce threats to the River Cam and its tributaries caused by pollution and over-abstraction, this Council: · Agrees to evaluate the potential of a formal application to Defra for an inland water stretch along the River Cam within Cambridge City Council boundaries to be designated as a bathing site, working with Anglian Water and local partners such as Cam Valley Forum, in order to secure an improvement in water quality while also taking into account the impact of any increased usage and avoidance of significant additional cost; and requests a report on this to the Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee to inform a balanced decision by the Executive Councillor. · asks the Chief Executive to send a formal letter to the Environment Agency, Cambridge Water, and Anglian Water expressing its concerns over the state of the River Cam and associated chalk streams and other tributaries, and calling for their assistance in improving water quality and reducing pollution; · will continue to consider the impact of the emerging Local Plan on the water environment through the cross-party, cross-boundary Shared Planning Local Plan Advisory Group, and the cross-party Cambridge City Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee; · affirms the goal, agreed by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, of having the water management plan for our chalk streams based on being an ‘environmental destination’ with subsequent protection as sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), rather than ‘business as usual plus’; · will provide public access to the full response of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning to the Cambridge Water, Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) consultation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PDF 393 KB