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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Minutes: The minutes of 18 June 2024 were confirmed as a correct record and
signed by the Mayor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Note the Returning Officer's Report that the following had been elected to the Office of Councillor To note that Beth Gardiner-Smith was elected to office for Romsey Ward on 12 September 2024. Minutes: It was noted the following had been elected to the Officer of
Councillor: Romsey – Beth Gardiner-Smith. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mayor's announcements Minutes: Councillors Baigent, Martinelli and Sheil would participate in the
meeting online. Councillors Lee, Lokhmotova, Moore and Sheil sent apologies as they
would be late. The Mayor made a statement about the situation in the Middle East. Recent events the Mayor has attended:
i.
August attended the Laying the Ditchburn Stone, a
cultural exchange event in association with the Mill Road Traders Assoc in
Italy.
ii.
14 August attended the Mayor’s day out
in Great Yarmouth which was a great experience and was enjoyed by everyone.
iii.
Had recently attended the Chevin Service and
Harvest Festival. The Mayor then gave a list of upcoming events.
i.
On 9th November there would be the
Commemoration of Fallen Indian Soldiers in WW1 and WW2 event. This invite was
extended to all Councillors, to attend please contact the Civic team.
ii.
Advised he would be leading a 2-minute silence
outside the Guildhall to commemorate Armistice Day.
iii.
There would also be a wreath laying service taking
place on Remembrance Sunday, 10th November, at the war memorial on
Hills Road. The City Events Team would be organising a gathering there to take
place simultaneously with a service at Great St Mary’s Church. Resolution of Thanks On behalf of the City Council, the Mayor presented Councillor Gawthrope
Wood with a framed copy of the Resolution of Thanks for her service as Mayor
during the 2023/24. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: Councillor Moore joined the Committee before
this item was considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public questions time Minutes:
Members of the public asked a number of questions,
as set out below. The Mayor used his discretion to alter the order of
the questions being asked. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes would
follow the order of the published agenda. Question
1 Will you
consider flying the flag of Palestine at Guildhalls? We have
residents from Palestine living in our community who have family in Gaza and
the West Bank which is currently occupied by Israeli forces. There has been
huge support for Palestine from the start of Israeli attacks in 2023 and over
the whole of 2024. Cambridge people have shown again and again that we oppose
the appalling Genocide of the people of Gaza [1]. Now Israeli
forces are openly attacking and occupying the West bank too. In June 2024 we
noticed that the City Council flew not only the Pride flag but also the Roma
flag (picture attached from June 10th). We commend this
act of solidarity and hope the City Council understands how powerful such a
simple act can be in bringing our communities together and pushing back against
hatred and demonisation of a minority group. This year we
have seen the rise of far-right hatred and Islamophobia in the UK. Cambridge,
however, has always pushed back against such hatemongering and on 10th August
there was a gathering on Donkey Common against Far Right hatred targeting
Muslims and Palestinians and other minorities. Cambridge residents and the
students of both universities stand against Far Right racist messaging dividing
our communities. Now is such an
important time for the City Council to be united with the people of the city. Earlier in 2024
our petition on change.org asking the City Council to Fly the Flag of Palestine at Guildhalls
got 2767 signatories. 203 of these are
Cambridge residents. I have attached the spreadsheet of the Cambridge
signatories. The petition can be viewed at Petition · Fly Palestine Flag at Guildhalls · Change.org We ask the City
Council once again to set a date to fly the flag of Palestine in solidarity
with those struggling to survive a Genocide and commemorate all the Palestinian
men, women and children that have been killed. The
ruling issued by the Internation Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered six provisional
measures including for Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide
convention, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide,
and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of
humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza [2]. In
light of this, we ask the Cambridge City Council to join the local and
international community in standing in solidarity with Palestine. Facebook Cambridge Stop The War Coalition Instagram cambridgestopthewar Twitter @CamStopTheWar
Rumble Cambridge Stop The War (rumble.com) YouTube Cambridge StoptheWar - YouTube National Website
http://stopwar.org.uk/ The Leader
responded: i.
The City Council
had a statutory duty to promote community cohesion and the safety and wellbeing
of all residents. ii.
The Council did
not fly the Israeli flag, as advised by the previous government, and for this
same reason did not intend to fly the Palestinian flag. iii.
The Council had
opted for other means of support that were unambiguous and not open to
misinterpretation. iv.
To demonstrate
solidarity with the people of Gaza, the Council passed a motion on 23 May 2024.
This was the fourth statement about the conflict in the Middle East made by the
Council or by the Mayor and leaders of political groups since October 7 2023. v.
The Council also
had a webpage to encourage donations to organisations that provide medical aid
and humanitarian relief for people in Gaza: Support for Gaza -
Cambridge City Council vi.
The Council
would continue to condemn all forms of Islamophobia and Antisemitism and work
to champion Cambridge a City of Sanctuary and a city free from hate. The speaker
made the following supplementary points: i.
Actions by
Central Government and the City Council meant the speaker felt like she had
blood on her hands.
ii.
Took issue with
the City Council flying the Ukrainian flag but not Palestinian
flag.
iii.
The Council had
a building and offices called Mandela
House. Mandela was once called a terrorist and now we champion him as the
architect who got rid of apartheid in South Africa.
iv.
Please
reconsider the decision not to fly the flag of Palestine to show that the
Council was in solidarity with the people around the world (specifically in
Palestine) that were not able to get aid because they were oppressed. The Leader
responded with the following: i.
Noted comments
by the speaker. ii.
Referenced a
number of historic and current motions such as calling Central Government to
stop selling arms to Israel. iii.
Would review the
policy on when flags (specifically the Palestinian flag) could be flown. iv.
Cambridge City
Council had a flag flying protocol. This was agreed at the Civic Affairs
Committee in February 2024. It includes established national and international
events, such as the Kings Birthday, Pride month and United Nations
day. v.
The only other
national flag the City Council had flown other than the union jack was the
Ukrainian flag to celebrate Ukrainian Independence Day, most recently over the
weekend of the 24/25th August. vi.
Flying the
Ukrainian flag did not pose a risk to community cohesion. It had a clear,
unambiguous and non-sectarian significance. Question
2 The East West
Rail Company aim to construct a new railway from Bedford to Cambridge (EWR
CS3). While ordinarily one might expect a railway to bring positive benefits to
Cambridge residents in terms of modal shift away from roads, reduced congestion
and lower CO2 levels, EWRCo’s proposals will have exactly the opposite effect.
There is no business case for EWR CS3, and the current proposals will cause
massive environmental damage and severe disruption to both local residents and
local businesses. EWRCo’s plans will facilitate massive green-field housing
development at Tempsford and at Cambourne. East West Rail Company’s own
estimates show that growth on the projected scale at Tempsford and Cambourne
would lead to a huge rise in road journeys with only a minority of journeys
being by rail. Furthermore,
EWRCo’s plans, set out in their own documents, will mean lengthy periods of
partial and full shutdown of Cambridge Station lasting several months, as well
as the closure of Long Road bridge for a minimum of 13 weeks. These proposals
will mean huge disruption for Cambridge residents who work in London, have
family there or make leisure journeys. The closure of Long Road will impact
patients, visitors and emergency vehicles accessing Addenbrookes Hospital,
students attending Long Road and Hills Road Colleges, as well as thousands of
everyday business, family and leisure journeys. I am therefore
asking: · What mitigations are the Council putting in place,
should EWR CS3 proceed, in view of the massive negative impacts these proposals
will have for Cambridge, in terms of increased traffic congestion, modal shift
away from rail, and lengthy closedown periods for both Cambridge Station and
Long Road? · What representations have you made, or will you
make, to the Secretary of State for Transport and to the Rail Minister to make
them fully aware of the negative impact of EWRCo’s current proposals on
Cambridge residents and businesses? The Executive
Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:
i.
Acknowledged
extending East West Rail from Milton Kings to Cambridge would cause disruption,
but believed the longer term gains for residents, businesses and local tourism
would be significant, and the environmental impact would be temporary. ii.
Trains were now
running between Oxford and Bicester with significant shifts from road to rail
while the countryside around the route which had been restored. iii.
Compare rail
work with the upgrade to the A241 between Caxton Gibbet and the black
roundabout which took considerably more land than the adjacent railway and
would move fewer people or loads. iv.
Responsibility
for highways and transport disruption caused during construction lay with the
Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority plus Cambridge County Council;
and was not something the City Council had control over. v.
Mitigation for
the disruption of railway services was the responsibility of Network rail, it
was up to Highways at the County Council and Network Rail to plan for any
closure of Long Road bridge relating to work on the railways. City and Ward
Councillors were notified in advance of works and diversions so they could
comment and help to notify residents of the work being done to create a more
integrated transport system for the city. vi.
As for
representations, was a City Councillor for infrastructure, who had the
opportunity to discuss transport and infrastructure in many forums and would
raise issues there. Specifically: a. Emphasise
the need for a joined up transport system and our Ambitions to make Cambridge
the best transport city in Europe. b. Some
residents were strongly opposed to the east-west rail development. The
speaker made the following supplementary points:
i.
Environmental
impacts were not temporary they're permanent so East West rail says 80% of the
residents in Cambridge and Cambourne would quintuple and 60% of the residents
in Tempsford which was a new town being built in a flood plain close to where
flooding occurred for most of the last fortnight.
ii.
80% in Cambourne
would come into Cambridge to work by car this would mean modal shift away from
rail and onto road.
iii.
The station,
which was one of the ten busiest routes in the whole of Network Rail (Cambridge
to Kings Cross) was going to be closed for a minimum of four months and was
afraid it's going to come back on this city.
iv.
Council
residents cannot work out what the Mayor and local authorities did. This was of
no concern to them. They were concerned Long Road would be closed for thirteen
weeks and wondered how people would get into Cambridge and Addenbrookes
Hospital. The Executive
Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded with the
following:
i.
Cambridge
station was incredibly important to the city.
ii.
Would liaise
with relevant agencies when more details were known such as expected delays. Question
3 How will you, as
a Council committed to proper public engagement, help ensure that the creeping,
opaque privatisation, begun at East Barnwell Health Centre, does not become the
norm? We are very
concerned about the recent surrender of their services contract by the
long-standing GPs at East Barnwell surgery in Abbey ward and the re-tendering
of the contract by our Integrated Care Board (ICB). The GPs at this
surgery were well loved, knew everyone by name over generations of families and
were highly regarded professionally for their excellent quality standards. They had raised difficulties over a long period
about the insufficiency of funds offered for their services and building
maintenance for their City/NHS? owned premises. We know the 2 new bidders for
the contract were actually offered a better deal, with increased payments per
patient. We know also that the ICB had been delaying improving matters for the
original providers at this practice and thus undermining them, pushing for
‘another approach’. We suspect this was
all about lowering standards, in a non-evidenced attempt to reduce costs. (see
1 below) We think this is
the first instance of our ICB progressing a privatisation agenda in general
practice. We note that where corporate organisations have taken over surgeries
elsewhere then inefficiency and staff turnover increase while continuity of
care and standards can deteriorate rapidly, as resources are stripped for
profit. What we have been warning about for years is coming to fruition. (See 2
below) You, the
Council, have used the example of Abbey ward in your aims for a ‘new approach
to a fairer Cambridge’, that is, ‘enabling local communities to have a greater
say and influence over decisions, services, and amenities affecting their
lives.’ (See 3 below). The ‘community
consultation’ with East Barnwell patients was a mess, badly carried out. People
who wanted to contribute to the selection of GP provider (including one of us
putting this question) were not properly enabled to do so. In the end, only 2
patients took part in choosing between 2 bidders, about which we and all the
patients involved knew nothing. The whole process was opaque. Commercial
interests were cited for this lack of transparency. Although the
City Council has no direct oversight over the ICB, our councillors in the Abbey
ward are having to deal with their patients’ warranted concerns. This cannot be
left to individual ward councillors - the ICB’s poor move will have potential
impact on all wards. How will you, as
a Council committed to proper public engagement, help ensure that this
creeping, opaque privatisation, begun at East Barnwell Health Centre, does not
become the norm? 1.https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/guest-opinion/the-very-last-resort-handing-back-our-contract/
2.https://keepournhspublic.com/primary-care-and-gps/ 3.Cambridge
Matters magazine, autumn edition 2024, page 7. The Executive
Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing responded: i.
The East Barnwell Health
Centre was owned and maintained by the local NHS. ii.
As referred to
in your question, primary care services were going
to be provided by Maling Health. That specific procurement exercise was undertaken by the NHS so was not
something the Executive Councillor could comment on. iii.
Recognised the
transition was something that may be difficult for many patients, so the City
Council was trying to get various parties to liaise. iv.
Council officers
also worked closely with all the local Primary Care networks and the integrated
care system on health and well-being services including budgets resources and
plans for developing preventative health initiatives across the city. The speaker
made the following supplementary points:
i.
How were you
going to help ensure the quality standards of the Staffing?
ii.
Was concerned
Maling would employ Associates who were not qualified doctors. The Executive
Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing responded with the
following: i.
Appreciated that
people were concerned and would pass these onto primary care providers.
ii.
Re-iterated the
City Council was not directly involved. Question
4 Given the
Government's plan to continue supporting the growth of Cambridge, what are the
systems and processes available to the City Council to designate a second urban
centre for Cambridge under the existing development plans system, mindful that
in the mid-1970s Professor John Parry Lewis recommended such a concept in his
report on the Cambridge Sub-Region which made provision for the expansion of
Cambridge to 200,000 people by the Millennium. Given that Cambridge is already
at 150,000 and with growth set to continue, is now the time to start making
provision for this - perhaps on the Cambridge Airport Site as I wrote at https://cambridgetownowl.com/2024/09/13/cambridge-needs-to-designate-the-site-for-second-urban-centre/ with new civic anchor buildings and institutions
at its heart, and provision for evening and night time entertainment away from
colleges and residential areas? The
Mayor understood the question had been deferred and a return response would be
provided to the question. Question
5 Several
large planning applications have recently been given consent despite major
concerns on the part of the Environment Agency, the City Environmental Health
Team, environmental NGOs, and many objections by local residents. The National Planning Policy framework
requires development to be ‘sustainable’, and in line with its environmental
objective which is: “to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic
environment; including making effective use of land,” and (and I wish to
emphasise these final points) “improving biodiversity, using natural
resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and
adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.” We
understand the pressure being put on the City Council by the recent Ministerial
Statements relating to water, housing and science centres. We also recognise the conflict between these
and the NPPF’s environmental objective; and we acknowledge the risk of
developers going to appeal.
Nevertheless, we feel that in a city like Cambridge, with a strong
aspiration to be a leader in environmental issues, the Planning Committee and
the planning officers should, in these major cases: a. produce clear
explanations of the rationale for their decisions for the benefit of local
residents and all those with concerns about the proposals; b. introduce
sufficiently stringent conditions, to ensure that developments do not go ahead
if they will have adverse impacts on the environment and the health of local
communities; c. work with
relevant agencies to ensure that monitoring and scrutiny of the conditions are
done appropriately. Could
the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure
provide some reassurance that these recommendations will be considered? If not,
does this not call into question the purpose of the Planning Committee?” The Executive
Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:
i.
Agreed with the
commitments the speaker asked for. These issues were already considered
carefully by both officers and Members of the Planning Committee in sometimes
delicate balancing that was required when assessing some of the more complex
schemes that came to committee. ii.
Was confident the shared planning service and
Councillors on Planning Committee took their obligations to residents and the
environment seriously. iii.
Recognised the
significant public interest in planning matters and would continue to try and
find ways of better explaining how and why decisions were made. Was also
exploring ways to improve the way Planning Committee worked to make the complex
planning process more understandable to residents. iv.
The objectives
outlined by the speaker were already central to council processes. The speaker
made the following supplementary points:
i.
The purpose of
planning, as opposed to conditions, was to ensure that a development was viable
and had no unacceptable impacts which later conditions may be unable to
resolve.
ii.
Conditions
accepted that a viable outline design existed that would not create
unacceptable impact. The conditions ensure that a detailed design was informed
by any further studies and then adhered to during construction and operation.
iii.
So conditions
dealt with how a development would be achieved, planning dealt with if a
development could be achieved. It seemed the council was using planning
conditions to enable planning applications to go ahead when there were still
serious issues outstanding that it may not be possible to resolve.
iv.
Would the
council ensure that in future developers would be required to submit detailed
evidence to demonstrate that the design could be achieved within the site
constraints without unacceptable impacts on our local environment in advance of
planning approval? The Executive
Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded with the
following: i.
The Planning
Committee would always like to minimise the number of conditions and also to be
assured as much as possible about what could be achieved. ii.
Would like
details upfront from applicants and would always try to work towards that, but
there were situations where conditions were unavoidable. Question
6 Council are
referred to my question to the council at their meeting of July 18th
concerning the S106 agreement entered into by the Council and Grosvenor
Developments at Parkside Place Cambridge. Can the Council
please give a detailed and comprehensive answer to the question raised on July
18th as noted in the minutes of that meeting and now give a full
response to the specific points a), b), c) of that question of July 18th. For info - Question from 18 July Council meeting Question on behalf of council tax payers and
leaseholders of Parkside Place Cambridge for the meeting of Cambridge City
Council in the Council Chamber, The Guildhall Cambridge on Thursday 18th
July 2024 at 6pm. Background Parkside Place is an estate developed in 2012/2013
in the centre of Cambridge by Grosvenor Developments Ltd, a company that is
part of Grosvenor Estates, the family company of the Duke of Westminster. The
development is a mixed development comprising private apartments, Affordable Housing
Units (AFUs) and Cambridge Fire Station. In gaining planning consent for
the development, Grosvenor entered into a S106 agreement with Cambridge City
Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and The Fire Authority. Under this
agreement Grosvenor were obliged to ensure that the service charges of the AFUs
did not increase annually by a figure in excess of retail price index (RPI). Grosvenor, by seemingly calculated alteration of
the final leases entered into with the residential leaseholders and the Fire
Authority, (without any transparency or prior agreement), placed the obligation
to pay any excess charge over RPI for the AFUs on the residential leaseholders
and the Fire Authority. To date the excess service charges for the AFUs
amounts to over £320,000 of which in excess of £50,000 had been borne by the
Fire Authority and therefore charged to council tax payers under the precept.
Residential leaseholders are taking legal action against Grosvenor - quite
clearly a civil matter. The question below is raised by council tax payers in
relation to the burden of additional costs on the Fire Authority. The Question a) Does the council feel it appropriate for council
tax payers to bear part of the costs of a developer’s obligation under a S106
agreement. (£50,000 to date and increasing annually) b) If it is felt that this is inappropriate
behaviour by the developer, will the council make representations to Grosvenor
on behalf of council tax payers. c) Should
Grosvenor feel that there is no obligation to recompense the Fire Authority and
therefore council tax payers, will the council acknowledge that this behaviour
should be taken into account in any future planning application by Grosvenor
Estates or their subsidiary companies. Connected questions were placed before the Fire
Authority at their meeting on June 20th 2024 at Shire Hall. The
Chief Fire Officer had indicated that legal advice is being taken on their
position. The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building
Control and Infrastructure responded on behalf of the Leader:
i.
The council
notes that the questions relate to the burden of additional costs on the Fire
Authority and that the Chief Fire Officer in a meeting on 20 June 2024
indicated they may be seeking legal advice on their position.
ii.
The Section 106
agreement offered some protection to occupiers of affordable dwellings (capped
to the retail price index ‘RPI’) but did not offer any protection to third
parties and it was not the place of a planning obligation to offer such
protection.
iii.
The service
charge to non-affordable leaseholders was a civil legal dispute and was not
controlled through the planning permission. It was not for the Local Planning
Authority to intervene in this matter notwithstanding how the charge may have
been derived.
iv.
There was no
identifiable planning breach.
v.
Had been
contacted on numerous occasions by groups of residents regarding leaseholders
and service charges. Noted the new Government had included a Draft Leasehold
and Commonhold Reform Bill. Hoped the injustice of leasehold estates would end
soon. Supplementary question:
i.
Agreed the
developer had satisfied the terms of the Section 106 Agreement in that they had
satisfied the issue of making certain that the affordable housing units did not
pay service charges that went up in excess of the RPI.
ii.
However, the
obligation had been moved to other parties; one being the leaseholders of
Parkside Place, which was a civil issue. Legal issues were on-going with the
developer regarding this.
iii.
The Fire
Authority was the other party that the liability had been moved to and they had
incurred £50,000 of additional costs, which was passed onto council taxpayers
under the precept.
iv.
Whilst they
accepted that the developer had not breached the terms of the Section 106
Agreement, they had transferred their obligation to other parties. The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building
Control and Infrastructure responded:
i.
Noted the
comments which had been made by the public speaker. The Leader would note the
comments. It may be necessary to speak with the Fire Authority to get further
information and to see whether the Council was able to respond more
comprehensively. The Executive
Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:
i.
The payment of
service charges for individual properties was a matter outside of the remit of
the planning function of the local planning authority because it did not relate
to a planning policy objective such as affordable housing and housing
affordability as defined in the Local Plan. ii.
It was also
inappropriate for the Councillor to comment on the historical property
transactions made by the Fire Authority and any subsequent liabilities on them
or council taxpayers. iii.
Earlier
responses had made clear that there was no breach of the s106 or planning
permissions for this site. It would not be appropriate to consider the
Applicant's approach to this development in any future planning applications
made by them. To give significant weight to this issue as a matter of course
would extend beyond the remit of the material planning considerations
appropriate to apply to an application of an individual or company where
permission itself runs with the land not the applicant. This point had been
debated nationally by government in the past. The speaker
made the following supplementary points:
i.
Expressed
concern the section 106 agreement (and how it was entered into) was costing
council taxpayers money not benefiting them ie the fire authorities costs were
transferred to council taxpayers, which was an obligation of the developer
under the section 106 agreement.
ii.
Suggested the
section 106 agreement was not properly adhered to. A clause in the s106
agreement indicated there had to be an affordable housing scheme document
approved by the council before the development could commence. That was not
done. The Executive
Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded with the
following: i.
This matter had
been ongoing for several years.
ii.
Requested the
speaker sent in details if there's more information they would like to bring to
the attention of Officers and the Executive Councillor. Question
7 Would the
council please explain their current policy and approach towards citizens of
colour within the Cambridge community. With specific reference to anti-racism
tolerance policy and what steps they have in place to address examples of
subtle, back-door racism. Please note do not respond with a link to your
out-of-date simplistic webpage which I am fully versed on. The Executive
Councillor for Communities responded: i.
Cambridge City Council’s Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity
Policy [PDF, 0.2MB] outlined
our commitment as an employer, as a service provider, and as a community leader
to challenge discrimination and promote equality of opportunity in all aspects
of our work. ii.
The Black Lives
Matter Council Motion (July 2020) further set out the Council’s commitment to
tackling structural inequality and discrimination. In this, the Council
expressed its solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and welcomed its
duty as a public leader to actively tackle racism locally. iii.
October was
Black History Month, which the Council annually supported, which provided
opportunity to learn about and celebrate each other’s cultures and promote
community cohesion. Support from the council included funding partners
who run some of the events, providing grants to support the work being done, or
by colleagues providing logistical support to the programme. iv.
In relation to
support that Cambridge City Council provides to citizens to directly tackle
racism, it: a. Ran a Racial
Harassment Service to offer advice and help to anyone living in or visiting
Cambridge suffering racial harassment. The Racial Harassment Service would find
out what support the person needs and assesses the danger of further incidents.
The Racial Harassment Service would also try to contact any witnesses and
alleged perpetrators. It did this only with the consent of the victim. If
consent was given, it would want to obtain statements from all parties
concerned. Findings of any inquiry were considered by the Racial Harassment
Service who decide on the best way for the council to respond to what had
happened. b. Provided
community grants to voluntary and community sector organisations tackling
economic and social exclusion, including those supporting different ethnic
communities. For instance, the council contributes funding to the Cambridge
Ethnic Community Forum to support it. The speaker
made the following supplementary points: i.
Queried what
percentage of people of colour were working within the council currently and
had that percentage increased since the 2020 motion was passed?
ii.
Asked for
written evidence of what steps had been taken to address this imbalance (if
there was an imbalance) and future plans. The Executive
Councillor for Communities undertook to provide further information to the
supplementary public questions. Post meeting note: Cambridge City Council collect and monitor data
relating to staffing and protected characteristics. Our Equality in
Employment Workforce Report was published
annually (2023/24 pending) and provides a profile of the Council’s workforce as
at 31st March each year. Since 2020 there has been a steady increase in the
representation of staff who declare themselves as from an ethnic minority, as
detailed in the table below:
One of our actions for 2024/25 was to increase our target
of ethnic minority staff representation in our workforce to 20% to align more
with the most recent census data
(23.3% in Cambridge). The Single Equality Scheme Strategy Report (published in 2021)
outlines the approach to help increase representation: § “Making
employment opportunities more visible within BAME communities by showcasing the
organisation and our roles during key equality and diversity events. § Continuing
to advertise our roles through networks, groups, and contacts with far reaching
and diverse audiences (including local groups supporting BAME communities). § Advertising
our commitment to increasing representation of BAME people in our workforce
within our recruitment information. § Making
our roles appear more accessible by advertising training opportunities relating
to particular roles and/ or services. § Encourage
equality of opportunity for all by making the recruitment application process
more accessible and less prescriptive.” To develop this further, this year we have
monitored our ethnicity pay gap for the first time. Our mean pay gap shows that our employees who
declare they were from an ethnic minority were paid 0.65% less than those who
declare they were not from an ethnic minority. Our median pay gap was in favour of those who
declare they were from an ethnic minority group with employees not from an
ethnic minority being paid 4.96% less than the median employee who declares
they were from an ethnic minority group. Additionally, recent highlights and achievements
include: § Developed
a new People and Culture strategy 2024 – 2027 with a heavy focus on equality
and inclusion. § Working
with organisations who support individuals who were seeking/ looking to remain
in work (such as REED, DWP). § Continued
activity and support of key events during the calendar, for example Gypsy, Roma
& Traveller History Month, Armed Forces Day, Srebrenica Memorial Day, Black
History Month, Anti-Slavery Day, Inter-Faith Week, Diwali, Hannukah, Lunar New
Year, Nirvana Day, Ramadan, Holi and Easter. We have also continuous work
on our list of dates that we mark in support of our Equality, Diversity,
Inclusion and Belonging commitments, inviting colleagues to contribute and
feedback on events and celebrations that should be marked. § We
have launched our new Values and Behaviours: Accountable, Collaborative,
Courageous, Compassionate. § We
were awarded Bronze at the Employers Network for Equality & Inclusion
(ENEI) annual Talent Inclusion and Diversity Evaluation (TIDE) awards. § Continued
accreditation with the Real Living Wage Foundation. § Partnered
with Diversity Jobs Group to engage and attract job seekers to our roles. § We
have remodelled our recruitment process and designed and built a new
e-recruitment system that was user friendly for both candidates and recruiting
managers, allowing greater flexibility throughout the process and a desirable
part of our whole branding and offer. § We
have reviewed our performance review process and introduced a brand-new
appraisal process called ‘My Conversations’ which was a continuous
conversational based approach. This incorporates one to one’s and appraisals
and was more inclusive with a strong focus on wellbeing. § We
had devised ‘Flexible Bank Holiday’ guidance which provides individuals with
greater flexibility and choice (where service requirements allow) when it comes
to Bank Holidays and will be launching this in November. § Undertaken an
all-Staff survey, the first for several years at the Council (currently live).
This includes questions around belonging and inclusivity and the results of
this would be analysed to inform the People and Culture action plan. Future plans include: § Exploring
the requirements of Unison’s
Anti-Racism Charter and what
involvement may look like for us as an organisation. § Encourage
candidates (and staff) to provide equality data for monitoring purposes.
Update our guidance to accompany the request and implement a regular update of
information by employees on our system(s). § Improve the exit
data that we receive. Design and implement stay interviews and undertake
a deep dive into turnover and identify any trends and subsequent actions. § Review, enhance
and relaunch our employee benefits package. § Plan actions to
ensure that the Equality and Diversity aspects of the People & Culture
Strategy were prioritised and we create a culture that was truly inclusive. § Review
our reporting categories to make them more relevant and meaningful. Question
8 South
Cambridgeshire District Council recently refused to give permission for 18
Gypsy and Traveller homes off Chesterton Fen Road, despite planning official’s
acknowledgment of the “clear” need for more homes for Gypsy and Traveller
families in the area.[1] The section of
Fen Road where Gypsy and Traveller homes are currently located is within a
non-contiguous part of South Cambridgeshire. However, the rest of Fen
Road—which is the only vehicle access route for Gypsy and Traveller families—is
in East Chesterton. De Facto, these families are a part of the East Chesterton
community. They are customers at Chesterton high street businesses; their
children attend East Chesterton community schools; they are baptised, married
and have funerals at East Chesterton churches. I have lived in
the Fen Road area my whole life, and it saddens me that the most basic needs of
a community right next to me, who face an enormous amount of prejudice, so
often go unmet. What can
Cambridge City Council do to help meet the housing requirements of Gypsy and
Traveller families on Chesterton Fen Road, in the face of South Cambridgeshire
District Council’s policy of inaction? [1] https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/plans-urgently-needed-gypsy-traveller-29897362 The Executive
Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:
i.
Agreed more
space was needed for homes for Gypsy and Traveller communities and we want to
provide them. It was South Cambs District Council that rejected the application
of Chesterton Fen Road and so could only refer the speaker to the application
decision notice and delegated report on the planning portal for their
explanation of the refusal. ii.
Residents would
use the services and facilities that were convenient and appropriate to them
and for those on Fen Road. This was likely to be those provided within
Cambridge given the proximity of Chesterton Fen Road to East Chesteron and
providing the right facilities was a responsibility for the whole Community. iii.
The Council had
committed to finding a permanent stopping site for Gypsy and Traveller
communities. Consultants had been
commissioned to prepare and accommodation needs assessment of Gypsies,
Travellers and traveling show people for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. It
would identify how many additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches and traveling
show people plots were needed by 2041 within the greater Cambridge to meet
needs. This assessment was due to be published shortly. iv.
The
accommodation needs assessment would feed into the new Greater Cambridge Local
Plan. The local plan would set out the pitch and plot requirements for the area
and show how the needs would be met. It was not a fast process but it should
provide a long-term solution that would meet people's needs. Question
9 1. During the most
recent Herbicide-Reduction Working Group in March 2024 (1), it was agreed that
working group meetings would continue on a regular basis. Since March we have
been trying repeatedly to schedule a follow-up meeting, including Public
Questions to the 27 June Environment and Community Scrutiny meeting (2) to no
avail. Can the council confirm please whether there are still plans to continue
the Working Group and when the next meeting will be held? There are a number of
urgent action points from the last meeting which remain stalled, and on which
we would like an update please. 2. It was agreed
that the City Council would launch an effective communications plan to inform
residents about the dangers of personal use of pesticides, how this might
conflict with current policy; how residents and businesses should not, for
instance, be using pesticides on the pavement or road outside private
properties (not only does this compromise the Herbicide Reduction Plan (HRP),
it is also, in our understanding, illegal); and to share information about non[1]synthetic
alternatives. The comms plan also included plans for signage/information boards
on selected unsprayed verges to explain and celebrate the HRP, so as to avoid
potential negative feedback of the kind that led to the reversal of the County
Council's own herbicide-free policy earlier this year. Can the council clarify
what is happening with the Comms plan and whether Pesticide-Free Cambridge
will, as agreed, be offered the opportunity to collaborate on this? Again, we
have been asking about this for months, and are concerned that the majority of
Cambridge residents and stakeholders are unaware of the council's shift to
herbicide-free methods, and of the rationale for this shift. 3. Further to what
was agreed at the March meeting, has the City Council communicated with other
stakeholders such as the County Council, the County Highways Green Team,
University of Cambridge Colleges, and contractors from energy firms and so on?
We are extremely concerned that herbicides and other pesticides such as
insecticidal sprays and powders continue to be used by stakeholders across the
city. Will the council commit to taking a lead in encouraging a phase-out such
practices that are devastating for biodiversity and human health alike. 4. In March, the
City Council announced that they had approved the budget for the purchase of
new machinery with which to better manage vegetation on roads and pavements in
a range of environments (3). Has this equipment been purchased and will it be
implemented this autumn around the city? In this regard, it is notable that
throughout the summer, large quantities of vegetation, including some big
plants, were building up on major roles across the city. This does little Page
15 Page 15 to inspire confidence in the HRP, especially in the absence of a
coherent comms plan. References: 1. 2022-23: PFC / Local
Authority meetings & correspondence 3. Press Release following
Cambridgeshire County Council's return to use of herbicides This question
was not asked in the meeting. A written response would be sent afterwards. [CT1]This in capitals - should City Council referenced throughout the question above be in capitals? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the recommendations of the Executive for adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Lee joined the meeting before this item
was considered. Resolved
(by 24 votes to 0 with 14 abstentions) to:
i.
Approve proposals for changes in existing housing
capital budgets, as introduced in Section 9 and detailed in Appendix F of the
document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H.
ii.
Approve proposals for new housing capital budgets,
as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document,
with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H.
iii.
Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of
the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use
of Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance and HRA
borrowing, as summarised in Appendix H. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Lokhmotova joined the meeting
before this item was considered. Councillor Carling
left the meeting as this item was considered. The Mayor decided
that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on
and recorded separately. Resolved (by 23 votes to 5 with 9 abstentions) to:
i.
Approve the Council’s General Fund Medium Term
Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2025/26-2034/35, as per Appendix A. Resolved (by 32
votes to 4 with 1 abstention) to:
ii.
Approve the 2024/25 capital bid of an additional
£487,000 for essential repairs of the riverbank at Jesus Green, as set out at
page 19 of the MTFS.
iii.
Note the other changes to the capital plan approved
under delegated powers since approval of the Budget Setting Report, as set out
in section 5 of the attached MTFS.
iv.
Set the General Fund reserve Prudent Minimum
Balance at £6.541 million, and the target level at £7.849 million, as
recommended by the Chief Finance Officer. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To deal with oral questions Minutes:
Councillor Hauk
to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services Could the Executive Councillor please explain why
the children's play area between Hobson Square and the skatepark is still not
open to the public? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The children's
play area between Hobson Square and the skatepark was not yet open to the
public due to a combination of factors related to ongoing construction, safety
inspections, and necessary approvals. Both the Active Recreation Area and the
NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play) were still under a maintenance and
defects process, which would only be triggered once the certificates of
completion were issued. Currently, these areas were not considered complete.
ii.
Countryside (the
developer) was working with sub-contractors to bring these areas to a state of
completion. Once complete, the areas would undergo an independent inspection to
ensure safety, which was essential before the certificates of completion could
be issued and the temporary fencing removed. Streets and Open Spaces would not
issue these certificates until this inspection was satisfactorily completed.
iii.
Further delays
had also been caused by factors such as wet ground conditions, the pandemic,
and the temporary loss of vehicular access. Officers from Streets and Open
Spaces were in discussions with Network Rail regarding safe vehicular access,
which was required to finish the remaining work. While practical completion was
expected by spring 2025, there was potential for parts of the play area to open
earlier, but this would require agreement with Countryside, who retains control
of the site. Officers continue to press for early completion.
iv.
In summary, the
delays were due to construction and safety processes, environmental factors,
and external dependencies like access issues, with the primary focus being on
ensuring the area's safety before opening to the public, and Officers continue
to work with Countryside to ensure early delivery and access. Question 2 Councillor
Todd-Jones to the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and
Infrastructure What is the
status of the Design Code Trial in north Cambridge, and how is this going to be
taken forward? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
Hoped the Design
Code Trial would soon get into the public domain.
ii.
The Design Code Trial was being renamed.
iii.
It would cover
Arbury, King's Hedges and the west part of West Chesterton. Hoped it could
include all other city wards in future.
iv.
The Planning
Team were in the process of preparing the necessary documents for a formal
public consultation. This would include the habitat regulation assessment
screening, which had not been completed yet so was holding up the finalization
of the trial before it goes out to consultation.
v.
Prior to
consultation, the Executive Councillor, the Chair and Spokesperson of the
Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee would be able to review the trial.
After the consultation a report would be brought to the March 2025 Planning and
Transport Scrutiny for consideration and hopefully final sign-off. Question 3 Councillor Howard to the Executive Councillor for Communities Many residents and their pets find traditional
fireworks loud and distressing. Displays based on lasers, drones, and LEDs,
with or without music, offer an exciting alternative to these shows. Will the
Executive Councillor commit to investigating these options so that our events
can be enjoyed by a wider range of residents in future years? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
Would endeavour
to seek alternative ways to celebrate this event and keep the event suitable
for audiences and residents but currently the costs of this technology were
much higher than fireworks.
ii.
Believed that by
hosting one large, free, city-wide, pre-organised fireworks display; the number
of spontaneous back garden amateur fireworks across the neighbourhoods on and
before 5th November would be reduced and thereby reduce disturbance. The Council
received great support from the Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service and
other civil authorities who also sponsored the event as it reduced the number
of fires and other incidents across the city. Question 4 Councillor Gardiner-Smith to the Executive Councillor for Planning,
Building Control and Infrastructure How has the
Shared Planning Youth Engagement Service been working with schools in our City?
How many schools and children have been engaged? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The youth
engagement service links a building project with a local school and includes
two full days of visits. It included discussions and workshops with children,
parents, builders, developers, consultants, officers and councillors.
ii.
In the last
Civic year, the service conducted four youth engagement workshops in Cambridge.
The Youth Engagement Team worked with 419 students. Question 5 Councillor
Divkovic to the Executive Councillor for Communities Can the
Executive give an update on work that is being done with young people in the
city in line with our upcoming Youth Strategy? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The Youth
Strategy recognised we needed to: a.
Listen to young
people and support their views so they could be widely heard. b.
Act as an
advocate for change in response to their concerns to empower our city’s young
people and work alongside them to put in place what they need to thrive.
ii.
More than one in
ten young people were living in poverty and Cambridge ranked fifth in the
attainment gap between young people from well-off and less well-off households,
which impacted on their social mobility. Had launched the city’s first Youth
Assembly to hear their voices and feedback to decision makers to improve
outcomes for young people. Question 6 Councillor
Pounds to the Executive Councillor for Housing In early
September, the City Council joined over 100 of England's Council landlords to
call on the government to save council homes. Please can the Executive
Councillor explain the campaign and the key demands? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The campaign
stemmed from an urgent need to reform to England's council housing model.
Financial pressures and policy changes led to an unstainable financial model that could see councils
facing £2.2 billion deficits in their housing budgets by 2028, and was already
causing new social housing schemes across the country to be postponed or
cancelled.
ii.
Without urgent
action most council landlords would struggle to maintain their existing homes
or meet the need to improve them and to build new homes for social rent.
iii.
The Campaign set
out detailed plans to reform the five areas: 1.
A new
sustainable housing revenue account model including an urgent one off injection
of £644 million plus long-term guaranteed rent and debt agreements. 2.
Reforms to right
to buy policy. 3.
Remove red tape
on existing funding. 4.
A new long-term
green and decent home program. 5.
Urgent action to
restart building projects that had been postponed or cancelled.
iv.
The above aimed
to restore lost income and unlock local authority capacity enabling councils to
continue to fund their social housing both improving their existing homes and
build new ones. Question 7 Councillor
Robertson to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources When can
residents expect the public consultation for the budget to begin and how long
will this run for? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The consultation
was due to commence on the 23rd of October for six weeks to the 4th of
December.
ii.
Encouraged
residents and businesses and all other stakeholders in the city to take part
and find out for themselves the care the Council was taking to protect staff,
serve residents the city and its environment, whilst balancing the budget. This
was an important thing to do as it demonstrates to Central Government that this
Council was one to be trusted and one to invest in. Question 8 Councillor
Porrer to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services Could the
Executive Councillor please update council on the progress of remediation works
to restore the relevant area of Parker's Piece after the removal of the
Observation Wheel? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
Had seen
Parker's Piece get used over the years. It had been damaged and then repaired.
ii.
If this example
was another case of that, suggested the big picture was that it gave a lot of
people a lot of joy to have events on Parker Piece.
iii.
Remedial works
have been carried out by City Services to the footprint after departure. The
works included aeration and overseeding; this work was at the expense of the
Wheel Operator. Further renovation would take place after the departure of the
Christmas in Cambridge event which included the Observation Wheel.
iv.
The placement of
the Wheel at this event, whilst on a different orientation, would utilise as
much as possible the previous footprint to further mitigate against damage to
the park. Question 9 Councillor
Lokhmotova to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services How frequently
do litter enforcement officers patrol Trumpington Meadows? The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
Trumpington
Meadows included both the country park and the new build estate.
ii.
The country park
was managed by the Wildlife Trust, and the Council did not have any involvement
in litter enforcement activities on this land.
iii.
While the
Council did not have a specific "litter enforcement team", it had a
Public Realm Enforcement Team responsible for addressing issues such as stray
dogs, littering, abandoned vehicles, fly-tipping, and other environmental
concerns.
iv.
The Council did
not operate with fixed patrol routes. Instead, officers respond to requests for
service as they arise.
v.
Over the past
twelve months, no service requests related to littering or environmental crime
had been made for the Trumpington Meadows area. For this reason, it was not
possible to provide a specific frequency of visits to the area by enforcement
officers.
vi.
Officers
covering Trumpington Ward also managed approximately one-third of the city's
wards, balancing all of their duties across this wide area. Question 10 Councillor
Dryden to the Leader Following the
general election result on 4th July, can the Leader of the Council give us an
update on how the Council will be working with the new Labour government and
local partners to further support our work in the City? The Leader responded:
i.
Since the
general election the Council had worked
with civil servants and ministers at both officer and member level. They
committed to working with the city to improve growth. They see Cambridge as
vital in terms of the renovation of the
country.
ii.
Cambridge was a
prime site for investment in homes and jobs.
iii.
The Joint
Director of Greater Cambridge Shared Planning and Councillor Thornburrow (as
Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure) were
making sure there was sufficient water in the system to deliver what Cambridge
required. A full list of oral questions including those not
asked during the meeting could be found in the Information Pack, which was
published on the meeting webpage Agenda for Council
on Thursday, 10th October, 2024, 6.00 pm - Cambridge Council. [CT1]Should this be a, b, c as you have done above? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the following notices of motion, notice of which has been given by: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Young - Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital Council notes: · the dire state of public finances left by the outgoing Government. · the unfulfilled promise to build 40 new hospitals across the country. ·
the new Government’s announcement of a reset of
the new hospitals scheme which could jeopardise progress on the Cambridge
Cancer Research Hospital at Addenbrooke’s. Council believes the new hospital is essential, recognising
the deficit of health facilities across Greater Cambridge, the importance of
Greater Cambridge as a regional centre for healthcare and the international
importance of our area’s life sciences sector. Council resolves: · to direct the leader to write to the Secretary of State underlining this Council’s view that the government should not abandon the commitment to developing this hospital. · To direct the leader to write to the new MP for the area of the proposed Cancer Research Hospital, expressing our support for her recent efforts to secure the future funding for it and to request she work further with MPs across the area it would serve to secure funding for the Hospital and other local health facilities. Minutes: Councillor Young
proposed and Councillor Flaubert seconded the following motion: Council notes: · the
dire state of public finances left by the outgoing Government. · the
unfulfilled promise to build 40 new hospitals across the country. ·
the new Government’s announcement
of a reset of the new hospitals scheme which could jeopardise progress on the
Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital at Addenbrooke’s. Council believes
the new hospital is essential, recognising the deficit of health facilities
across Greater Cambridge, the importance of Greater Cambridge as a regional
centre for healthcare and the international importance of our area’s life
sciences sector. Council resolves: · to
direct the leader to write to the Secretary of State underlining this Council’s
view that the government should not abandon the commitment to developing this
hospital. · To
direct the leader to write to the new MP for the area of the proposed Cancer
Research Hospital, expressing our support for her recent efforts to secure the
future funding for it and to request she work further with MPs across the area
it would serve to secure funding for the Hospital and other local health
facilities. Councillor Thornburrow proposed and
Councillor Davy seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck
through and additional text underlined): Council notes: · the dire state of public finances left by the · the last Government’s unfulfilled,
unfunded promise to build · · The importance of the planned Cambridge Cancer
Research Hospital to Greater Cambridge’s position as a regional centre of
healthcare and the continued development of the vitally important life sciences
sector in the region.
Council welcomes the progress made to date on the
development of the hospital and notes that the project falls under the recently
announced review of the New Hospital Programme to be undertaken by the
Department of Health and Social Care since it does not yet have full business
case approval for the main build phase. Council expresses its full confidence in the
project and notes that the full business case is expected to be submitted in
2025, that the project has been given full planning permission by this council,
and that pre-construction works are planned to begin on site in the coming
months, putting the project on track to deliver the hospital by 2029. Council therefore resolves to: Ask the Director of Planning to write to the
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care reiterating the council’s full
support for the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital and offering to work with
Director for Delivery, Performance and Assurance in the DHSC New Hospital
Programme sponsor team, who is leading the NHP review, to provide any
assistance needed during the review to secure the delivery of this vital
facility. The amendment was
carried by 23 votes to 13. Resolved (by 26 votes to 0) that: Council notes: ·
the dire state of
public finances left by the last Government. ·
the last Government’s
unfulfilled, unfunded promise to build forty new hospitals across the country. ·
The Labour
Government’s welcome announcement to reset the building programme for new
hospitals within a clearly defined financial package, based on regional and
national priorities ·
The importance of the
planned Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital to Greater Cambridge’s position as a
regional centre of healthcare and the continued development of the vitally
important life sciences sector in the region. Council welcomes the progress made to date on the
development of the hospital and notes that the project falls under the recently
announced review of the New Hospital Programme to be undertaken by the
Department of Health and Social Care since it does not yet have full business
case approval for the main build phase. Council expresses its full confidence in the
project and notes that the full business case is expected to be submitted in
2025, that the project has been given full planning permission by this council,
and that pre-construction works are planned to begin on site in the coming
months, putting the project on track to deliver the hospital by 2029. Council therefore resolves to: Ask the Director of Planning to write to the
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care reiterating the council’s full
support for the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital and offering to work with
Director for Delivery, Performance and Assurance in the DHSC New Hospital
Programme sponsor team, who is leading the NHP review, to provide any
assistance needed during the review to secure the delivery of this vital
facility. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Payne - Cutback of Winter Fuel Payment Though many agree
that universal Winter Fuel Payments are not necessary for them, Council is
deeply concerned that many pensioners on lower and middle incomes who need the
payments will now not receive them. Across England and Wales
the number of people eligible for winter fuel payments will fall by 10 million
(from 11.4 million to only 1.5 million). In Cambridge the
number of pensioners affected by the change in eligibility criteria is 13,468.
That means 89.7% of pensioners currently eligible for winter fuel payments will
no longer be able to claim the payment from this winter onwards. Council believes
that the Labour Government has set the threshold at which pensioners do not
qualify for Winter Fuel Payments far too low. Only those receiving a pension of
less than £218.15 a week (or £332.95 a week for couples) are eligible for
pension credits. This is significantly lower than the Living Wage. Council is also
concerned by the low take up of Pension Credit with only 63% of those eligible
nationwide receiving it – and over 880,000 pensioners not doing so. Council
recognises the role we as a local authority have to
play to increase awareness of benefits such as Pension Credit to ensure people
get access to the support they are entitled to. Council further
notes that the Energy Price Cap is due to rise by 10% in October, which,
combined with the removal of Winter Fuel Payments, will push thousands of local
pensioners into fuel poverty. Council resolves
to: · Request the Leader write to both MPs covering Cambridge outlining our position in favour of halting the changes to the Winter Fuel Payment eligibility. · Request all group leaders within the council sign a joint letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling for the cutback in Winter Fuel Payment to be suspended and reviewed, and also to consider what support can be given to help people reduce their energy bills and consumption. · Urgently commence a significant awareness campaign to maximise uptake of pension credits, including using the Low-Income Families Tracker (LIFT) to identify those who are eligible. Minutes: Councillor Payne proposed and Councillor Blackburn-Horgan
seconded the following motion: Council notes the recent announcement by the Labour
Government to end universal winter fuel payments and restrict eligibility to
only those in receipt of Pension Credit and other benefits.
In Cambridge the number of pensioners affected by the change
in eligibility criteria is 13,468. That means 89.7% of pensioners currently
eligible for winter fuel payments will no longer be able to claim the payment
from this winter onwards. Council believes that the Labour Government has set the
threshold at which pensioners do not qualify for Winter Fuel Payments far too
low. Only those receiving a pension of less than £218.15 a week (or £332.95 a
week for couples) are eligible for pension credits. This is significantly lower
than the Living Wage. Council is also concerned by the low take up of Pension
Credit with only 63% of those eligible nationwide receiving it – and over
880,000 pensioners not doing so. Council recognises the role we as a local
authority have to play to increase awareness of benefits such as Pension Credit
to ensure people get access to the support they are entitled to. Council further notes that the Energy Price Cap is due to
rise by 10% in October, which, combined with the removal of Winter Fuel
Payments, will push thousands of local pensioners into fuel poverty. Council notes that · A claim can still be made for pension credit (or
other “gateway benefits for Winter Fuel Payment) before 21 December 2024 and
backdated for 3 months · In addition to the 880,000 pensioners who are
eligible for pension credit and have not made a claim, there is an unknown
number of pensioners who have not claimed the attendance allowance they are
entitled to have. This can make a pensioner whose income is slightly above the
normal pension credit threshold able to make a claim · So there is still time for low income pensioners to
secure the payment Council resolves to: · Request the Leader write to both MPs
covering Cambridge outlining our position in favour of halting the changes to
the Winter Fuel Payment eligibility. · Request all group leaders within the
council sign a joint letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling for the
cutback in Winter Fuel Payment to be suspended and reviewed, and also to
consider what support can be given to help people reduce their energy bills and
consumption. · Urgently commence a significant
awareness campaign to maximise uptake of pension credits, including using the
Low-Income Families Tracker (LIFT) to identify those who are
eligible. Councillor Wade proposed and Councillor Nestor
seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and
additional text underlined): The Council is deeply concerned by the financial failures of the last
Conservative government which has resulted in a £22bn black hole in our
nation’s finances. Council notes the recent announcement by the Labour
Government to end universal winter fuel payments and restrict eligibility to
only those in receipt of Pension Credit and other benefits. In addition, the council acknowledges that the decision to
award the winter fuel payment to pensioners receiving pension credit was a
difficult decision that nobody wanted to make. Though many agree that universal Winter Fuel Payments are
not necessary for them, Council is deeply concerned that many pensioners on
lower and middle incomes who need the payments will now not receive them.
Across England Wales the number of people eligible for winter fuel payments
will fall by 10 million (from 11.4 million to only 1.5 million). In Cambridge the number of pensioners affected by the change
in eligibility criteria is 13,468. That means 89.7% of pensioners currently
eligible for winter fuel payments will no longer be able to claim the payment
from this winter onwards. The council welcomes the government’s commitment to protect
the most vulnerable in our society by delivering the £150 Warm Home Discount
for low-income households from October, extending the Household Support Fund
with £421 million, to ensure local authorities can support vulnerable people
and families, ensuring around 1.3 million households in England Wales will
continue to receive up to £300 in Winter Fuel Payments.
Council resolves to:
The amendment was
carried by 22 votes to 15. Resolved (by 35 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions)
that: The Council is
deeply concerned by the financial failures of the last Conservative government
which has resulted in a £22bn black hole in our nation’s finances. Council
notes the recent announcement by the Labour Government to end universal winter
fuel payments and restrict eligibility to only those in receipt of Pension
Credit and other benefits. In addition, the council acknowledges that the decision to
award the winter fuel payment to pensioners receiving pension credit was a
difficult decision that nobody wanted to make. Though
many agree that universal Winter Fuel Payments are not necessary for them,
Council is deeply concerned that many pensioners on lower and middle incomes
who need the payments will now not receive them. Across England Wales the
number of people eligible for winter fuel payments will fall by 10 million
(from 11.4 million to only 1.5 million). In
Cambridge the number of pensioners affected by the change in eligibility
criteria is 13,468. That means 89.7% of pensioners currently eligible for
winter fuel payments will no longer be able to claim the payment from this
winter onwards. The
council welcomes the government’s commitment to protect the most vulnerable in
our society by delivering the £150 Warm Home Discount for low-income households
from October, extending the Household Support Fund with £421 million, to ensure
local authorities can support vulnerable people and families, ensuring around
1.3 million households in England Wales will continue to receive up to £300 in
Winter Fuel Payments. Council
resolves to: · Continue
the Council’s partnership work with Citizen’s Advice Bureau to send out
personal letters to local pensioner households, those claiming housing benefit
and/or Council Tax reductions to maximise uptake of pension credits. · Highlight
the national DWP campaign to promote Pension Credit over the next few months,
targeting 120,000 of the estimated 850,000 pensioners not claiming, and call on
the government to increase the number of people targeted to the full 850,000. · Offer
all tenants in sheltered accommodation the opportunity to meet with the
Independent Living Service to conduct an income maximisation check,
particularly for tenants who don’t currently access Council support services. · Share
all the relevant information with other stakeholders in the city including
landlords and GP surgeries. · Continue
developing support for residents over the winter period, including through the
provision of warm spaces in the winter and emergency food support. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Holloway - Lithium-ion battery safety motion Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly common in many
household products, including e-bikes and e-scooters, but they can pose a
significant fire risk. The recent increase in fires caused by lithium-ion
batteries demands that proactive steps are taken to address these risks and
ensure the safety of our community. This Council notes: 1.
Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly prevalent
in a range of household products, including e-bikes, e-scooters, smartphones
and laptops. 2.
The number of fires in the UK caused by
lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes has increased by four times
since 2020. 3.
In July 2023, three people tragically lost their
lives in a fire at Sackville Close, which was likely caused by a faulty e-bike
battery. 4.
Battery fires in waste disposal are at record
levels, with over 1,200 fires at UK waste sites and bin lorries in 2023,
an increase of 71% from 2022. 5.
As of the beginning of August 2024, there had
been seven bin lorry fires in Greater Cambridge in 2024, likely caused by
batteries or electrical products. 6.
In September 2023, Cambridge City Council wrote
to the government requesting an increased focus on the dangers of
lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters, advocating for improved
legislation, safety guidelines, and a public awareness campaign. 7.
Cambridge City Council continues to work with
the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service to raise awareness of the risk of,
and prevent, battery fires. This Council issues the following advice to residents in
relation to battery safety: -
Always use manufacturer approved chargers and
follow the manufacturer’s instructions for charging, storage and maintenance -
Charge batteries while awake and at home -
Do not overcharge batteries -
Store e-bikes and e-scooters in a safe, cool
place with a closed door and a smoke alarm if possible -
Buy e-bikes and e-scooters from reputable
dealers, and check they meet British or European standards -
Check batteries for signs of damage and replace
if damaged -
Do not dispose of batteries in household waste
or normal recycling -
Do not attempt to extinguish a fire caused by a
lithium-ion battery but get out, stay out, and phone 999. This Council resolves: 1.
To write to Electrical Safety First and Lord Ron
Foster to express its support for The
Safety of Electric-Powered Micromobility Vehicles and Lithium Batteries Bill,
introduced to the House of Lords by Lord Ron Foster. This Bill is promoted by
Electrical Safety First, and supported by, among others, the National Fire
Chiefs Council, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and the Royal Society for Public
Health. 2.
To work through the Community Safety Partnership
to gain a deeper understanding of data relating to fire risks from lithium-ion
batteries in Cambridge, and to use this understanding to work together to
mitigate risks. 3.
To develop comprehensive safety guidance for
Cambridge City Council staff on battery safety, including guidance on the safe
use, storage, and disposal of lithium-ion batteries. 4. To work with the ... view the full agenda text for item 24/89/CNL Minutes: Councillor Robertson left the Committee before this item was
considered. Councillor Holloway altered his motion under
Council Procedure Rule 26.1 with the consent of Council so that it incorporated
the amendment detailed on page 31 of the information pack. Councillor Holloway proposed and Councillor
Gardiner-Smith seconded
the following motion: Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly common in
many household products, including e-bikes and e-scooters, but they can pose a
significant fire risk. The recent increase in fires caused by lithium-ion
batteries demands that proactive steps are taken to address these risks and
ensure the safety of our community. This Council notes: 1. Lithium-ion batteries are
increasingly prevalent in a range of household products, including e-bikes,
e-scooters, smartphones and laptops. 2. The number of fires in the
UK caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes has increased by
four times since 2020. 3. In July 2023, three people
tragically lost their lives in a fire at Sackville Close, which was likely
caused by a faulty e-bike battery. 4. Battery fires in waste
disposal are at record levels, with over 1,200 fires at UK waste sites and
bin lorries in 2023, an increase of 71% from 2022. 5. As of the beginning of
August 2024, there had been seven bin lorry fires in Greater Cambridge in 2024,
likely caused by batteries or electrical products. 6. In September 2023, Cambridge
City Council wrote to the government requesting an increased
focus on the dangers of lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters,
advocating for improved legislation, safety guidelines, and a public awareness
campaign. 7. Cambridge City Council
continues to work with the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service to raise
awareness of the risk of, and prevent, battery fires. This Council issues the following advice to
residents in relation to battery safety: -
Always use manufacturer approved chargers and follow
the manufacturer’s instructions for charging, storage and maintenance -
Charge batteries while awake and at home -
Do not overcharge batteries -
Store e-bikes and e-scooters in a safe, cool place with
a closed door and a smoke alarm if possible -
Buy e-bikes and e-scooters from reputable dealers, and
check they meet British or European standards. Remember that private
e-scooters are currently illegal to ride on public roads and footpaths. -
Check batteries for signs of damage and replace if
damaged -
Do not dispose of batteries in household waste or
normal recycling -
Do not attempt to extinguish a fire caused by a
lithium-ion battery but get out, stay out, and phone 999. This Council resolves: 1. To write to Electrical
Safety First and Lord D 2. To work through the
Community Safety Partnership to gain a deeper understanding of data relating to
fire risks from lithium-ion batteries in Cambridge, and to use this
understanding to work together to mitigate risks. 3. To develop comprehensive
safety guidance for Cambridge City Council staff on battery safety, including
guidance on the safe use, storage, and disposal of lithium-ion batteries. 4. To work with the Greater
Cambridge Shared Waste Service to run an awareness campaign focused on the safe
disposal of batteries, particularly lithium-ion batteries. 5. To continue to disseminate
to residents information on safe practice relating to lithium-ion batteries
through Cambridge Matters, Open Door, and the Council’s website and
social media channels. 6. To work with Council tenants
to, wherever possible, provide them with safe spaces for charging e-bikes and
e-scooters. Notes Electrical Safety
First's Battery Safety Campaign: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/battery-breakdown/battery-safety-campaign Full list of supporters of Electrical Safety
First’s campaign as of May 2024: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/pjxh54wy/supporters-may-2024.pdf House of Lords Debate 5 September 2024 on
Lithium-Ion Battery Safety: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-09-06/debates/738EAE4C-F67B-4AF5-AA7A-94759672C9D0/details Cambridge City Council's Work on Battery Safety: https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2023/09/14/council-appeals-to-government-to-raise-awareness-around-risks-of-e-bike-battery-fires Research on Battery
Fires in Waste Sites: https://www.materialfocus.org.uk/press-releases/over-1200-battery-fires-in-bin-lorries-and-waste-sites-across-the-uk-in-last-year/ Councillor Clough proposed and Councillor Tong seconded the
following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and additional text
underlined): Lithium-ion batteries are increasingly common in
many household products, including e-bikes and e-scooters, but they can pose a
significant fire risk. The recent increase in fires caused by lithium-ion
batteries demands that proactive steps are taken to address these risks and
ensure the safety of our community. This Council notes: 1. Lithium-ion batteries are
increasingly prevalent in a range of household products, including e-bikes,
e-scooters, smartphones and laptops. 2. The number of fires in the
UK caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes has increased by
four times since 2020. 3. In July 2023, three people
tragically lost their lives in a fire at Sackville Close, which was likely
caused by a faulty e-bike battery. 4. Battery fires in waste
disposal are at record levels, with over 1,200 fires at UK waste sites and
bin lorries in 2023, an increase of 71% from 2022. 5. As of the beginning of
August 2024, there had been seven bin lorry fires in Greater Cambridge in 2024,
likely caused by batteries or electrical products. 6. In September 2023, Cambridge
City Council wrote to the government requesting an increased
focus on the dangers of lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters,
advocating for improved legislation, safety guidelines, and a public awareness
campaign. 7. Cambridge City Council
continues to work with the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service to raise
awareness of the risk of, and prevent, battery fires. This Council issues the following advice to
residents in relation to battery safety: -
Always use manufacturer approved chargers and follow
the manufacturer’s instructions for charging, storage and maintenance -
Charge batteries while awake and at home -
Do not overcharge batteries -
Store e-bikes and e-scooters in a safe, cool place with
a closed door and a smoke alarm if possible -
Buy e-bikes and e-scooters from reputable dealers, and
check they meet British or European standards -
Check batteries for signs of damage and replace if
damaged -
Do not dispose of batteries in household waste or
normal recycling -
Do not attempt to extinguish a fire caused by a
lithium-ion battery but get out, stay out, and phone 999. This Council resolves: 1. To write to Electrical
Safety First and Lord Ron Foster to express its support for The Safety of Electric-Powered
Micromobility Vehicles and Lithium Batteries Bill, introduced to the House of
Lords by Lord Ron Foster. This Bill is promoted by Electrical Safety First, and
supported by, among others, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Association
of Ambulance Chief Executives, the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Accidents, and the Royal Society for Public Health. 2. To work through the
Community Safety Partnership to gain a deeper understanding of data relating to
fire risks from lithium-ion batteries in Cambridge, and to use this
understanding to work together to mitigate risks. 3. To develop comprehensive
safety guidance for Cambridge City Council staff on battery safety, including
guidance on the safe use, storage, and disposal of lithium-ion batteries. 4. To work with the Greater
Cambridge Shared Waste Service to run an awareness campaign focused on the safe
disposal of batteries, particularly lithium-ion batteries. 5. To continue to disseminate
to residents information on safe practice relating to lithium-ion batteries
through Cambridge Matters, Open Door, and the Council’s website and
social media channels. 6. To work with Council tenants
to, wherever possible, provide them with safe spaces for charging e-bikes and
e-scooters considering particularly the needs
of disabled tenants who are more likely to be dependent on battery powered
mobility equipment. 7. To consult with planning
service and building control officers to draw up guidance on best practice for
developers and consider appropriate amendments to the draft local plan as well
as model conditions and informatives. 8. To ensure that any guidance reflects the need to
make reasonable adjustments to ensure that residents who require to use battery
powered mobility equipment may continue to move freely about the city. as
advocated by the charity Wheels 4 Wellbeing 9. To reflect that the high
cost of commercial EV charging points combined with cost of living pressures
encourages unsafe charging practices
and consider a pilot for products
such as Kerbocharge which permit safe charging on the user’s own supply The amendment was
lost by 13 votes to 23. Resolved (by 36 votes to 0) that: Lithium-ion
batteries are increasingly common in many household products, including e-bikes
and e-scooters, but they can pose a significant fire risk. The recent increase
in fires caused by lithium-ion batteries demands that proactive steps are taken
to address these risks and ensure the safety of our community. This Council
notes: 1.
Lithium-ion batteries
are increasingly prevalent in a range of household products, including e-bikes,
e-scooters, smartphones and laptops. 2.
The number of fires
in the UK caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-scooters and e-bikes has
increased by four times since 2020. 3.
In July 2023, three
people tragically lost their lives in a fire at Sackville Close, which was
likely caused by a faulty e-bike battery. 4.
Battery fires in
waste disposal are at record levels, with over 1,200 fires at UK waste
sites and bin lorries in 2023, an increase of 71% from 2022. 5.
As of the beginning
of August 2024, there had been seven bin lorry fires in Greater Cambridge in
2024, likely caused by batteries or electrical products. 6.
In September 2023,
Cambridge City Council wrote to the
government requesting an
increased focus on the dangers of lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and
e-scooters, advocating for improved legislation, safety guidelines, and a
public awareness campaign. 7.
Cambridge City
Council continues to work with the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service to
raise awareness of the risk of, and prevent, battery fires. This Council
issues the following advice to residents in relation to battery safety: -
Always use
manufacturer approved chargers and follow the manufacturer’s instructions for
charging, storage and maintenance -
Charge batteries
while awake and at home -
Do not overcharge
batteries -
Store e-bikes and
e-scooters in a safe, cool place with a closed door and a smoke alarm if
possible -
Buy e-bikes and
e-scooters from reputable dealers, and check they meet British or European
standards. Remember that private e-scooters are currently illegal to ride on
public roads and footpaths. -
Check batteries for
signs of damage and replace if damaged -
Do not dispose of
batteries in household waste or normal recycling -
Do not attempt to
extinguish a fire caused by a lithium-ion battery but get out, stay out, and
phone 999. This Council
resolves: 1.
To write to
Electrical Safety First and Lord Don Foster to express its support for The Safety of
Electric-Powered Micromobility Vehicles and Lithium Batteries Bill, introduced to the House of Lords by Lord Don Foster. This Bill is
promoted by Electrical Safety First, and supported by, among others, the
National Fire Chiefs Council, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives,
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and the Royal Society for
Public Health. 2.
To work through the
Community Safety Partnership to gain a deeper understanding of data relating to
fire risks from lithium-ion batteries in Cambridge, and to use this
understanding to work together to mitigate risks. 3.
To develop
comprehensive safety guidance for Cambridge City Council staff on battery
safety, including guidance on the safe use, storage, and disposal of
lithium-ion batteries. 4.
To work with the
Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service to run an awareness campaign focused on
the safe disposal of batteries, particularly lithium-ion batteries. 5.
To continue to
disseminate to residents information on safe practice relating to lithium-ion
batteries through Cambridge Matters, Open Door, and the Council’s
website and social media channels. 6.
To work with Council
tenants to, wherever possible, provide them with safe spaces for charging
e-bikes and e-scooters. Notes Electrical Safety First's Battery Safety Campaign: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/battery-breakdown/battery-safety-campaign Full list of
supporters of Electrical Safety First’s campaign as of May 2024: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/pjxh54wy/supporters-may-2024.pdf House of Lords
Debate 5 September 2024 on Lithium-Ion Battery Safety: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2024-09-06/debates/738EAE4C-F67B-4AF5-AA7A-94759672C9D0/details Cambridge City
Council's Work on Battery Safety: https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2023/09/14/council-appeals-to-government-to-raise-awareness-around-risks-of-e-bike-battery-fires Research on Battery Fires in Waste Sites: https://www.materialfocus.org.uk/press-releases/over-1200-battery-fires-in-bin-lorries-and-waste-sites-across-the-uk-in-last-year/ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 questions and answers that had
been placed in the information pack circulated around the Chamber. |
PDF 297 KB