Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Gilderdale, Martinelli, Sheil and Wade.

 

Apologies for lateness were provided by Councillors Howard and A.Smith.

 

Recent events the Mayor had attended:

i.    On the 9 November the city council arranged a commemorative service at Great St Mary’s Church and hosted a civic event at the Guildhall to remember the 87,000 fallen heroes of the Indian Army that gave their lives in the First and Second World Wars.

ii.  Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Christian faith leaders attended, along with numerous guests including the Lord Lieutenant, cadets, High Sheriffs from Cambridgeshire and from Bedford, several local mayors, High Commissioners and other diplomatic representatives from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Zambia, and a guard of honour.

iii. On the 10 November the Mayor led a service for Remembrance Sunday.

iv.On the 11 November the Mayor attended the Armistice event outside the Guildhall.

v.  Advised that the Chevin Sermon would take place on 19 January 2025. 

 

Eva Hartree:

i.               Was elected as the first woman Mayor in 1924.

ii.             Was born in Stockport and, although in those days could not graduate, attended Girton College. 

iii.            Was a suffragist and dedicated to public and civic service and improving the wellbeing of people. 

iv.           It is thought that born to a Manchester doctor, she accompanied him on his work and gained an understanding of factory life and social inequality. 

v.             Although she suffered family tragedy, losing a son and her husband,  and had Graves’ Disease, this did not stop her dedication to public service, including working on public health, welfare and a great many other community and public organisations in Farnham, Guildford, Falmouth, Cambridge and London.

vi.           She was Honorary Secretary to the British Red Cross Society for the Borough and for Chesterton Petty Sub-Division of the County, organised and ran first aid and nursing courses and was Commandant of the Trumpington Voluntary Aid Detachment.

vii.          She was a voluntary county organiser of the Women’s Institutes, Honorary Secretary of the Cambridge Women’s Housing Association and Honorary secretary of the NCW Eastern Counties Standing Committee. She served as Secretary of the Cambridge branch of the League of Nations.

viii.        After her husband died in 1943, she resigned from the council and moved to London.

ix.           Nationally Hartree was elected President of the National Council of Women (NCW) of Great Britain from 1933-5.

x.             Councillors will be holding a celebration on International Women’s Day in March 2025 where we can celebrate the importance and impact of our first female mayor and the many women contributing to our society.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Robertson	24/93/CNL	Personal: With reference to public question 4 – had family who lived on Davy Road.
Councillor Tong	24/96/CNL	Personal: Had undertaken volunteering work at the Cambridge Museum of Technology.

 

Question 1

At the June meeting of the Employment (Senior Officer) Committee, the leader of the council asked the head of paid service and monitoring officer to respond to concerns about contraventions of the Equality Act in regard to disability discrimination.

 

While I appreciate that certain steps may have been taken to make limited changes to council practices, more than 5 months later, the substantive concerns raised at the June meeting still have not been addressed. 

 

Will the leader of the council ask the head of paid service to meet with the individuals affected to discuss how the council can better monitor compliance with its obligations under the Equality Act?

 

The Leader’s response:

i.               Advised that further information needed to be provided before the allegations could be investigated.

ii.              The Council has a comprehensive Equality and Diversity policy which outlined its commitment as an employer, service provider and community leader, promoting diversity equality and inclusion and all legal obligations under the Equality Act.

iii.             The Policy was reviewed on a regular basis.

 

The Member of the public thanked the Leader for their support and commented that they believed had reasonable adjustments been implemented that the issue could have been resolved 5 months ago. 

 

Question 2

In principle, public statues in Station Square are to be welcomed. It’s an otherwise rather bleak and hostile environment, surrounded by characterless office blocks and car parks. However, the statue created by Gavin Turk surely only serves to emphasise the bleakness and hostility with the addition of a tortured and demeaned woman.

 

That the sculptor selected for Brookgate’s Section106 public art installation is Turk is interesting, given that he claims to be inspired by the painter di Chirico - master of the urban landscape emptied of people. He has sold the City the figure of a woman bundled in cloth, bound with cord and dumped. That the artist, commissioners, developer, city council officers, and city councillors who sit on the planning committee did not see that this would most likely be interpreted as a bound woman is mystifying.

 

Space is important - it affects how we feel and act. Thoughtless or hostile design can contribute to people feeling vulnerable. Most public sculpture ignores women, unless they are decorative (and often naked), but a sculpture of a bound woman - even if that was not the artist’s intention - takes this hostility to another level.

 

Cambridge prides itself on being a City of Sanctuary for those seeking asylum from torture, a point reinforced by the Mayor in February 2024. But a recent conversation I had with a woman refugee outside the station revealed the traumatic reminder of her torture this statue invoked for her. But it’s not just refugees, according to a recent needs assessment of the county, 26,000 females were victims of domestic violence in 2021/22, and 12,000 females were sexually assaulted. How do you think a public statue depicting a bound and wrapped female form might affect all those who have experienced fear or violence?

 

Our question to the city council is:

Are you satisfied, given the outpouring of concern that ‘Ariadne Wrapped’ is misogynistic and sadistic, that any consultation that did take place was sufficiently wide-ranging and adequate, and that this is an appropriate image to welcome a broad range of people with different life experiences and vulnerabilities to a ‘city of sanctuary’. Moreover, would the City be prepared to negotiate a removal of this offensive statue and replace it with a more pleasing art work which is welcoming to visitors?

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:

i.               ‘Ariadne Wrapped’ was not a statue of a bound woman unless the observer saw it as such.

ii.             The artist advised it was a statue of a statue wrapped for transportation in an abstract shape. Art was open to interpretation.

iii.            Noted that a similar question had been asked by a councillor; the written response to this question was included within the Information Pack.

iv.           The sculpture itself does not depict a woman in distress. Instead, it portrays a sculpture of a classical sculpture, wrapped in a dustsheet for transportation as is commonplace in galleries and museums, and it symbolises change, history, classical culture, context and time.

v.             There was no current plan to replace it.

vi.           If observers found the art difficult to cope with; it was appropriate to ask questions about it.

vii.          Referred to the ‘Allison Lapper Pregnant’ sculpture which was in Trafalgar Square in 2005 and noted that some people may have found that sculpture difficult to cope with.

 

 Supplementary Question:

        i.       The sculpture appeared to be a sexist and misogynist sculpture completed by a male artist.

      ii.        Believed the features and expression on the face indicated distress. Believed the expression could be clearly seen on the face and breasts could be seen. How the statue was interpreted mattered.

    iii.        Questioned why the above interpretation was not raised during the consultation process.

    iv.       The sculpture reinforced the bleak and hostile environment of the station square. Questioned if the location of the sculpture was appropriate.

      v.       Referred to the Public Art Manifesto and commented that the sculpture contravened the aspirations set out in the Manifesto.

    vi.       Asked for a response regarding the inconsistency of the sculpture with the Public Art Manifesto and objections which had been raised to the sculpture.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:

        i.       Referred to the response given to the primary question.

      ii.        Advised that there were no current plans to replace the sculpture.

    iii.        Would look at the equality statement for the process of commissioning public art in relation to the points made regarding the sculpture and the Public Art Manifesto.

 

Question 3

The codes of practice, or protocols, for many local authority Planning Committees are publicly available on the internet, and examples of those with best practice can be found on the Local Government Association’s website.  The 2019 LGA's “Probity in Planning: Advice for councillors and officers making planning decisions” is, I am sure, used by the City Council’s Planning Committee.  However, the actual protocol followed by the City Council’s Planning Committee does not appear to be publicly available. Given the recent concerns about several planning applications that have received approval despite substantial objections, it would be helpful and reassuring for people to know the code of practice that is adhered to by Planning Committee members. Would the Council consider publishing this?

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:

i.    The Planning Code of Good Conduct was already published on the council’s website within Part 4 of the Constitution.

ii.  A link to the Constitution: Constitution - Cambridge City Council

 

Supplementary Question

        i.       Had not been able to find the document.

      ii.        Asked that the document was published separately and noted that other Council’s published the document separately.

    iii.        Referred to a Local Government Association’s guidance document which stated that ‘it should be remembered that the public had a stake in the planning process and were entitled to understand how decisions are reached’.

    iv.       Believed local residents did not understand how the Planning Committee had approved applications where there were substantial local objections.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:

        i.       Had taken on board comments made about residents not understanding the planning application / decision process. Would take this away and see if further guidance (videos) could be produced to assist with this.

 

Question 4

In Item 13 of the Public Pack of documentation for the latest Housing Scrutiny Committee meeting on Tuesday 17^th September this year, named ‘Redevelopment of 2-28b Davy Road, including associated land and garages – Equality Impact Assessment’ on page 4, the following is written:

 

To date, consultation on the proposals has been with residents directly affected by          potential          redevelopment only.  This has been via letter-drop notifications, in-person          door-knocking and formal consultation events to introduce the proposal to all residents. 

 

In terms of evidence of actual consultation of our Davy Road residents, on p.9 of the Minutes of this meeting, we can see: “residents were asked their views on the estate in a survey in July 2024” (vi).  And further: “The above examples of lived experiences from residents of the estate provide a compelling argument for redevelopment” (vi). 

 

How compelling is this information, though?  Is compelling the right word to use when only 15 of the 42 households responded to the paper survey?   This is little more than a third of all the households that will all be irrevocably affected by the redevelopment.  This paper survey posted through residents’ letterboxes comprised the real ‘consultation’ during the whole Cambridge City Council communication process. 

 

Why has the main data-gathering mechanism been merely a piece of paper posted through residents’ doors?  Why has there been almost nothing else that can meaningfully be described as ‘consultation?  Surely it is better to carry out the really meaningful surveying process during the face-to-face contact that Cambridge City Council has said it has invested time in and paid staff hours for?   This would ensure full participation as interviews are conducted at a time that suits the residents.  During a development of this sort, a project that is presently commonplace in the city of Cambridge, don’t those whose lives Cambridge City Council intend to change forever each deserve a face-to-face consultation?  After all these views form part of the evidence that the Housing Scrutiny Committee uses to inform its approval or rejection of the development: shouldn’t Cambridge City Council ensure that the views of all the households affected are carefully collected? 

Could the Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness please explain why the really important part of the consultation was reliant on tenants and leaseholders returning a piece of paper?  Why has the Development Team not considered that a face-to-face survey would be more meaningful, more effective and more reliable, and indeed more compelling, at revealing to us what all the tenants’ and leaseholders’ opinions are with regard to the redevelopment of their homes?

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded:

i.               In January officers wrote to residents to explain the estate was being considered for redevelopment. This was followed up by officers knocking on every resident’s door to ask if residents had any questions.

ii.             13 meetings were arranged with households to discuss the process in more detail.

iii.            In June, Officers wrote to residents to advise that two in-person consultation events would take place. Further door knocking took place to remind residents that the in-person consultation events were taking place.

iv.           The purpose of these events was to present key information about the Council’s proposals, and to speak with resident’s face to face. 

v.             Paper surveys were also sent to residents so they could respond after viewing the consultation material. Just over one third of the households responded which was consistent with responses from other redevelopment consultations.

vi.           Next year there would be pre-application consultation with residents from a wider area outside the estate.

vii.          There will also be a statutory consultation organised by the Planning Team where residents can make their views known online ahead of a Planning Committee.

 

Supplementary question:

i.               Referred to p9 of the 17 September 2024 Housing Scrutiny Committee minutes which stated, ‘There are many people in need of a new home in the city, and by redeveloping we can significantly increase the number of homes on the site as we approach 3,000 people on the housing register’.

ii.             Asked how many households on the register would be able to afford a new home at the new proposed Davy Road site given there was proposed to be only 5 socially rented homes, which was a decrease from 32. Noted that this was 5 more than the Council designated for Fanshawe Road.

iii.            Commented that the mixed tenure provision for citizens comprised:

a.    market sale properties 50% of the newly built stock;

b.    two affordable rent properties at 80% of market rent

c.    three affordable rents properties at 60% of market rent

d.    four social rent properties (40% market rent)

iv.           Asked how many households were on the housing register that day and of that number how many were waiting for a socially rented home in the city.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded:

i.               Advised there were over 3000 people on the Housing Register.

ii.             Support was offered to those experiencing homelessness; provision was available during the winter months.

iii.            Following redevelopment work at Davy Road, Tenants could return there if they wanted to. 

 

Question 5

The report on the future of local government noted the very limited social media commentary on the future of local government - to the extent officers chose not to analyse it. Furthermore, other events advertised on social media by local government, the wider public sector, and local groups and organisations seems to be having far less impact than in the 2010s.

 

Given the major policy announcements coming up - and that may have already happened by the time the item is discussed, please could the city council consider working with existing community organisations, charities, campaigning organisations and the various private sector organisations for a series of shared conversations throughout 2025 about the future of our city.

 

In particular such events should enable participants to cross examine the proposals and requests from large institutions in face-to-face conversations, and also have enough variety to enable people who don't normally participate in such events to do so - and familiarise themselves with the essentials of how their city functions/local democracy.

 

The Leader responded:

i.               It was important to encourage and enable residents to participate actively in democratic life. The Council worked closely with partners to facilitate this.

ii.             Use of social media was an important part of the Council’s approach to informing and engaging local communities, but it was not the only tool to do so. The future of local government engagement exercise last summer made use of social media alongside:

a.    an article in Cambridge Matters magazine;

b.    news releases;

c.    publicity on the home page of the council’s website;

d.    email notifications to people subscribed to our engagement platform;

e.    posters and digital screens across Cambridge;

f.     getting councillors and staff to encourage local residents and groups to take part.

iii.            Raising awareness was undertaken in lots of different ways.

iv.           There were over 500 survey responses, boosted by targeted social media campaigns.

v.             Around sixty people in total took part in two 90-minute public events held at the Guildhall on a midweek evening in late July and on the last Saturday morning in August.

vi.           Also received a handful of emails, letters and questionnaires filled in by hand.

vii.          The Council recently partnered with the County Council to commission the city’s first Youth Assembly, to ensure that the issues of most concern to young people are known and heard.

viii.        On the future of local government, feedback would be discussed later in the evening.

ix.           Was aware that the Government was due to publish a Devolution White Paper, which was also expected to give a steer on this.

 

Question 6

I am John Preston, I have been a customer of the market for over 50 years, a resident of Cambridge for over 40, and I worked for Cambridge City Council for over 20 years, latterly as Historic Environment Manager.  Based in the Guildhall, I was professionally engaged with all the buildings and spaces in and around the Civic Quarter. I have practical experience of organising events including exhibitions, concerts and lectures in the Guildhall. I was involved over many years in heritage and environmental education initiatives including the RIBA Cambridge Architecture Centre, Cambridge Heritage, the Cambridgeshire Architecture Workshop, and Shape Cambridge, none of which were able to establish a permanent presence. I have been advising market traders and the CMTA since 2016; I wrote a report for the application to list the setts.  I have taken part in all the City Council’s consultation stages. My 2020 article “Significance and heritage protection at Cambridge market” was published in the Institute of Historic Building Conservation’s journal “Context” https://ihbconline.co.uk/context/165/20/.

 

My wife and I put public questions (7 and 8) to last week’s Strategy and Resources Committee, supported by a document dated 19 November which was circulated by Democratic Services to all Councillors. We could not attend the meeting, but have since viewed the recording.

 

QUESTION

I welcome the Council’s commitment to the future civic and cultural potential of the Civic Quarter, and the potential involvement of the Museum of Cambridge. But have the discussions also involved the Cambridge Room?  If the Museum and Room can work together, this could combine the past and future to the mutual benefit of both Cambridge residents and visitors.

But (very big but) far too many elements of the evolving vision and proposals urgently need firming up before the project goes any further. 

 

The recommendations in 1.5.1 of the officer’s report are both premature and inadequate, in the absence of publicly stated and agreed visions for

2)   what the market is to be and how it will be promoted, and

2)   events within the Guildhall, Corn Exchange and Market Square.

 

The officers talk about balance of trade, but where is the vision for the market? For years, traders have been moving away due to lack of promotion and pro-active management. The project has mistakenly taken the current lowest ebb as its baseline, and compounded this by topping up with demountable stalls which won’t work for the traders. The Council started a consultation on markets just this week, but what the Council should be consulting on now is a feasibility-tested vision for Cambridge market, building on previous consultations, and including balances between fresh produce, general market, and hot food.  This is about much more than balance of trade, it is about the whole character of the market.   

For events, a cultural report was mentioned 2 years ago but has still not been published. Nothing has yet been provided in terms of a programme for events with their servicing requirements, to establish how these could be accommodated within the space and time limitations, and without detriment to other existing and proposed uses.  And as Camcycle pointed out, the project hasn’t yet got even basic data on cycle provision and demand.

 

The officers’ description of the project as having passed RIBA 2 (Concept Design) is wrong and misleading.

 

Before passing RIBA 1, let alone 2, there remains a fundamental challenge – to establish whether all the proposals can be accommodated on the site, given its limitations in terms of space and time.

 

You can’t pass RIBA 1 without establishing that there is a demountable market stall fit for Cambridge conditions. But the only trial carried out so far was a failure.

 

You can’t pass RIBA 1 without establishing that all proposed activities and their competing servicing demands can be accommodated, within the limited public spaces and potential times available. This requires analysis, and choices between competing demands, which have not been presented to you.

 

None of the key issues raised in our questions to Strategy and Resources and the supporting document have yet been answered.

 

Which is why I ask you to defer proceeding to detailed design until after publication of, and further public consultation on, visions for both the market and proposed events, and their associated requirements.  These should then feed into a revised brief which recognises and resolves the competing demands.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded:

        i.       Cambridge Room were approached ahead of the consultation, and would be approached again before the next consultation in Spring next year. Discussions with the Museum of Cambridge were continuing and it is open to Cambridge Room to contact the Museum directly to explore possible collaborations.

      ii.        What is the market to be, how is it to be promoted? The market will continue to be a market in the market square. During the next stage, a business plan will be prepared which will include proposals for the balance of trade and terms and conditions. It will set out proposals for how the market will be promoted, curated and managed once the works are completed. There will be a package of support during any relocation to a temporary trading location for the Market.

    iii.        The Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee report stated that there will be a business plan for the future operation of the Corn Exchange (including events at the Guildhall) and the Market Square which also include possible events).

    iv.       Evidence to establish occupancy and servicing requirements. The various design reports outline current occupancy and potential future occupancy for The Guildhall, Corn Exchange and the Market. The Commercial Appendix also modelled costs and revenue based on the RIBA 2 designs.

      v.       Survey data recycling provision and forecast demand. In the Transport Consultant report (Schedule 8) it outlines current cycle provision and recommendations for future cycle provision and further detailed work that is required.

    vi.       Accommodation of all proposals on Market Square and choices between the competing demands. In Appendix 2 of the LDA report on the market, there is a description at pages 32-43 on how the current proposals for the market can expand to 91 stalls contract to fewer stalls across a week and seasons. It also shows that with 61 stalls there could an outdoor cinema or stage that seats 380-500 people. In other words, the professional team have considered the competing demands for that space.

  vii.        Fit for purpose demountable stalls and storage The current market stalls are demountable. Such stalls are used at markets across the country: at York, Leeds, and in London. The design team will work with traders and market operations team on the various options.

 viii.        With over 900 pages of design work providing historical context, surveys and design proposals and all of this accessible to the public. The consultants have confirmed to the council that RIBA 2 has been completed.

 

Supplementary Question:

        i.       Was not happy with the market square project where it had leaped ahead of RIBA stage 1 where a brief should be agreed and established it can be accommodated on the site.

      ii.        In this case there are many competing uses including the market; proposals for events, proposals for the Guildhall including servicing thereof, events taking place in the small hall and large hall all of which would generate their own traffic.

    iii.        Asked to what extent these requirements had been plotted together over time. BDP in the feasibility study (4 years ago) had started to look at these issues. What would be entailed in having an evening event and a market. To take things down after an event would either disturb people late at night or impact the trading market the following day.

    iv.       This issue needed to be considered so that options could be presented. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources advised that RIBA stage 3 would consider the transport strategy.

 

Question 7

I am very worried about the market re development plan.

The new plan for the market only gives 27 fixed stalls the rest demountable. ( no good example has been given of this).

This last weekend because of the wind lots of markets have been cancelled.

Please can the Council give reasoning for this.

Can my questions about this be raised at the meeting of Thursday.

 

The Executive Councilor for Finance and Resources responded:

        i.       The current market uses demountable stalls. The current design proposals include 91 stalls with 27 permanent and 64 demountable stalls with no loss of space.

      ii.        The traders have been clear on their feedback that stalls must be robust and fit for purpose.  The design team will work with traders and market operations team on the various options and stalls will be subject to testing before any decisions are made.

    iii.        Cambridge market was not cancelled last weekend

 

Question 8

 

I am aware that some progress is now going on at a glacial pace regarding a transit site, for which we are thankful. I also understand that the Council have now received the latest GTANA though we have yet to hear what it may offer. We have always argued that a GTANA was unnecessary in the face of the continuing unauthorised encampments and evictions, when the Council has nothing to offer Travellers in the way of legal alternatives. There seems to be a deep misunderstanding of Traveller communities for whom travelling is not a ‘lifestyle’ choice but a defining cultural way of life. Seen correctly in this light, the use of evictions is a form of cultural genocide or ethnocide. The Council must be well aware that in the face of evictions Travellers will move on, particularly with the additional powers given under The Police Bill, which allow for the confiscation of their vehicles with their children taken into care. Intentional or not, this is a violent act against an impoverished community which suffer from racist abuse by the settled community, manifesting itself, for example, in the very high rates of suicide amongst young Traveller men. Over the last four years, we have been waiting for the Council to wake up to this and adopt a sense of urgency and an action plan.

Question: How many more weeks, months, years do we have to wait until, at the very least, one transit site is provided and, in the meantime, a policy of negotiated stopping is adopted?

 

The Leader responded:

i.    The GTANA has now been circulated and states there is a clear and vital need for a transit site for negotiated stopping places within the city. 

ii.  Officers were looking into where the transit site could be located and where there was land which could be used for negotiated stopping. This process would take time and acknowledged the time it had taken to reach the current point. It wasn’t possible to provide a timeline but once a site was identified a timeline could be prepared which would advise when the work would be completed.

iii. Engaged with the Gypsy Roma Traveller community and noted there was a weekly drop in every Friday at the Brownfield Community Centre.

 

Supplementary question:

i.               Acknowledged that conversations had begun with interested parties, Councillors and Officers.

ii.             Felt this issue could have been resolved some years ago and had been raising this issue since 2020.

iii.            Believed a site could have been found during that time.

iv.           Noted the weekly drop in sessions but did not feel this was dealing with the difficulties the Gypsy Roma Traveller community faced.

 

The Leader responded:

i.    Advised that when he worked at the County Council as an officer he coordinated the Gypsy Roma Traveller Liaison Forum and this was an issue he felt passionately about.

ii.  Acknowledged that the Gypsy Roma Traveller Community suffered discrimination and that this needed to be tackled.

iii. Saw this issue as a priority for the city.

 

Question 9

 

Hello and thank you for letting me speak.

 

I speak regarding our much loved Central Market.

 

It is plainly visible to one and all that our once thriving, eclectic and vibrant 7 day a week market has been relentlessly neglected and run down. 

This has been and continues to be hugely distressing to all who use, see and work on the market. 

 

Certainly Covid did not help a situation in which there had been a lack of even basic on-going management of the market.  It is only very recently that there has been some restoration of the basic hands-on daily management of the market.  But this has been within the context of continuous shrouds of uncertainty surrounding the future of the market.  An undermining uncertainty that has now been going on for over 6 years. 

 

Market traders are demoralised.  A factor being that they are still putting forward exactly the same practical questions which have remained un-answered for these past 6 years.  And that they are at the centre of a market that is no longer the vibrant space that it was; one which is certainly not an  inviting space for new traders. 

Many of us from market customers and traders, as well as residents and just plain visitors to Cambridge feeling, seeing and perceiving that our market has already been desecrated. 

 

The current proposals – continue to have a complete lack of fundamental practical detail, including an absence of demonstrably viable demountable stalls.  The proposal also contains a meagre and totally unsustainable mere 27 permanent stalls – continuing the relentless message to all of us that it is the indisputable project of this Council to destroy our market – Once and for all.

 

This city was founded upon its market.

 

Across the country our markets are increasingly been recognised as being central to the revival of our towns and cities – a boost to our failing High Streets.  As Dr Annie Gray (illustrious Food Historian) has very recently observed – it is the diversity of our central spaces, including thriving markets that bring people into our High Streets. 

 

There have also been very recent, and highly unfavourable comparisons of Cambridge with Oxford and with York.  The latter both being cited as having busy vibrant central spaces and High Streets.  It is no accident that both Oxford and York have thriving markets at their heart. 

 

Please –  do not destroy our market.  And for the sake of our heritage and thriving city centre give our market a real chance to thrive.   

 

Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources provided the following written response after the meeting as the 30 minute public question time had been exceeded:

        i.       The current market uses demountable stalls. There are no permanent stalls on the market. The current design proposals include 91 stalls with 27 permanent and 64 demountable stalls with no loss of space.

      ii.        The National Association of British Markets has surveyed the state of markets from 2005 and found falling numbers of traders and occupancy rates. It is widely reported that the growth in on line shopping is leading to the decline of high street and market shopping. This Council is not seeking to destroy the market. This Council is seeking to create better conditions for the market and that will require to changes to make the market more attractive to shoppers. Standing still is a prescription for decline.

    iii.        Market traders have asked the Council to look at markets that have undergone successful change. Such markets include Oxford and York where improved layouts and balance of trade has made these markets more attractive destinations to visit, shop and eat.

    iv.       We need to start by making the market accessible for all. The market is a very difficult place to navigate for wheelchair users, having crossed the market in a wheelchair last week I found out how difficult this is.

      v.       Residents have asked the Council to make the market square a safer place at night-time, free of anti-social behaviour and place for events. During the day they want a greener space with less traffic and places to drink, eat and relax. 

    vi.       The next stage if approved will progress detailed designs to reflect the voices we have heard from the consultation.

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

i.    Approve the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2024/25 to 2027/28 (Appendix A).

Appendix 3 and its associated schedules to the report relate to information which following a public interest test the public is likely to be excluded by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972 because it contains detailed cost reports that may impact a future procurement process and commercially sensitive information on existing business models.

 

Public appendices can be found here Cambridge Civic Quarter: Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee - Cambridge City Council

 

Resolved (by 30 votes in favour to 6 votes against) to:

 

i.    Note the indicative capital cost budget of £55m as set out in 8.3 and approve an allocation of £3m from the existing Civic Quarter reserve for stage 3 design costs and associated on-costs.

Question 1 - Cllr Gawthrope Wood to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Could the Executive Councillor for Housing let us know how successful she feels the new council housing on Campkin Rd in King's Hedges has been in terms of integrating new council tenants with the local community?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.      Morello Place is a new development in Campkin Road.

ii.    Sought to create a diverse community which integrated with the existing community.

iii.   A Local Lettings Policy had been put in place for the new homes.

iv.  A community event had been held in September with partners including the Police and Fire Service to engage with the community.

v.    The new community centre was well used and offered a range of activities.

 

Question 2 Cllr Baigent to the Executive Councillor For Open Spaces and City Services

 

Could the Executive Councillor update the Council on steps being taken to promote our work on herbicide reduction both to Cambridge residents and more broadly in order for other local authorities to share in what we've learnt?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.               Was pleased that that the Council had been implementing its Herbicide Reduction Plan, which ensured environmental sustainability and public safety.

ii.             There had been significant investment in advanced machinery such as mechanical weed rippers and hot air systems to effectively manage weeds without herbicides.

iii.            Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles had been adopted, which emphasised sustainable and preventative practices.

iv.           The aim of the IPM was to promote a healthier environment and support healthy plant growth.

v.             The "Happy Bee Street" scheme, empowered residents to create herbicide-free zones and promote biodiversity and responded to the Council’s declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency.

 

Question 3 Cllr Griffin to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

With new council houses being built with exciting new technology such as air source heat pumps, how are we ensuring that new tenants are supported to understand the new technology when they move into their new homes?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    Tenants were provided with a resident’s manual which provided basic guidance on the types of systems installed in their homes.

ii.  The Lettings Officer would also discuss the basic operation of the systems and the setting up of payment accounts with tenants.

iii. The Development Team offer a drop-in session usually 4-6 weeks after occupancy to discuss any concerns. The sub-contractors who installed the systems often attend these drop-in sessions too.

iv.Links to guidance videos were also provided on the Council’s website.

v.  QR codes were also to be placed on equipment moving forward to provide direct links to user guides/information.

 

Question 4 Cllr Gardiner-Smith to the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure     

 

How is the development of Cambridge South Station going and how will it improve resident and workers' travel in and out of the city?

 

Executive Councillors response:

i.    Construction started in early 2023 and was on target to open in 2025.

ii.  The benefit of the station would be the reduced use of cars by workers and visitors to the Biomedical Campus.

iii. The station should connect 65 other train stations to the Biomedical Campus.

 

Question 5 Cllr Bennett to the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure  

 

Will the Executive Councillor provide an update on the Water Scarcity Group?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    The Water Scarcity Group was chaired by a former Chief Executive of the Environment Agency and current Chair of Water Resources East.

ii.  The group met monthly.

iii. Attendees included representatives from the Water Industry, the Water Regulator, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, DEFRA and officers from the Greater Cambridge Planning Service.

iv.Addressing water scarcity in Greater Cambridge: update on government measures - GOV.UK

 

Question 6 Cllr Howard to the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure  

 

Cambridge Airport is currently subject to aviation safety requirements such as the need to minimise bird strike. This means that although the airfield looks green, it is a large biodiversity dead spot. The airport was built on green belt land. Yet there does not appear to have ever been any consideration of returning it to that state when the airport is closed in 2029. What steps does the Executive Councillor take to ensure that the remaining green belt is protected in the new local plan?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    The airport started in 1938, and the inner boundaries of the Cambridge Green Belt were defined in 1965 to include the airport.

ii.  Green Belt land was not just about biodiversity it was about safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Over 65% of green belt land was agricultural land.

iii. The airport site was identified for release from the green belt in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan in 2003 and formally released by the Cambridge East Area Action Plan in 2008 and was allocated as a new urban quarter for Cambridge. The green corridor linking to Coldham’s Common was retained as green belt.

iv.The current Local Plan 2018 safeguarded the non-green belt parts of the airport for longer term development if / when the airport was relocated.

 

Question 7 Cllr Pounds         to the Executive Councillor for Communities

 

The City Council has committed to take on a community wealth building approach to its work. Can the Executive Councillor highlight ways in which the Council is developing this work?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    Community wealth building was an approach to tackle poverty which moved away from a one size fits all approach.

ii.  The implementation stage of the Community Wealth Building Strategy started in June 2024.

iii. Focus had been given to where there could be the greatest impact and using the new dedicated resource for new initiatives. For example, social procurement – a social value framework had been created. The council had started working with anchor organisations to prioritise social procurement.

iv.Community grants had been reviewed and changes had been introduced for example multiyear funding. Application processes for low value grants had also been streamlined.

 

Question 8 Cllr Carling to the Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment   

 

The Council has recently published its annual climate change strategy and carbon management report. Please can the Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment highlight some of the council's key achievements in this area?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    The Council had achieved a 10% reduction in its carbon emissions; some examples of how this had been achieved included investment in the decarbonisation of the council’s swimming pools and the use of hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) as fuel for vehicles.

ii.  The Climate Change Strategy had 5 key themes, and the council was taking action across all of them. This had been recognised by accreditations and awards the council had received including: being rated as a global A list city by the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Council being rated the second greenest city in the UK and achieving the Gold Sustainable Food Places award in March.

iii. Cambridge Folk Festival achieved the Greener Festival ‘Outstanding’ Certification due in part to the reduced use of plastics, the repair/recycling café and the use of HVO to run the generators.

iv.The Council had won the British Parking Association EV Evolution Award 2024 for the installation of EV chargers in car parks.

v.  The Housing Team had been working hard to invest in retrofitting existing council homes so that they were brought up to EPC level C.

 

Question 9 Cllr Nestor to the Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing   

 

With the festive season approaching, what is being done to keep people safe in our night-time economy?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    The Council was part of the Purple Flag partnership, which included Cambridge Business Innovation District (BID), Cambridge Business Against Crime, the Police and other local organisations, which focussed on creating a safe and vibrant night-time economy for Cambridge.

ii.   The Purple Flag standard aimed to broaden the appeal of city centres between 5pm and 5am. The Council had held the Purple Flag accreditation since 2018.

iii. The partnership had a variety of initiatives to help keep people safe including: taxi marshals, open space guardians, CCTV, and the support of St Johns Ambulance on key nights of the year which made a significant impact on community safety and wellbeing in the night-time economy.

iv.Taxi’s licensed by the City Council had a green stripe along the side of the taxi so there was a visual sign that they were safe for people to use.

 

Question 10 Cllr Tong to the Executive Councillor For Open Spaces and City Services    

 

Historic England recently updated its Heritage at Risk Register for 2024, revealing that all three historic sites under threat in Cambridge - The Leper Chapel, Old Cheddar’s Lane Pumping Station, and the Church of St. Andrew the Less - are located in Abbey. What is being done to protect the cultural heritage of this important ward?

Executive Councillor response:

i.    The Leper Chapel was owned by Cambridge Past Present and Future.

ii.  St Andrews Church the Less was within ecclesiastical ownership.

iii. The Old Cheddar’s Lane Pumping Station was a charity, which had received grant funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England.

iv.Being on the ‘At Risk Register’ meant that owners could apply for grant funding. 

v.  The Council wouldn’t usually intervene but did monitor the ‘At Risk Register’. The Local Planning Authority would have an enforcing role if the asset deteriorated beyond irreversible decay. 

 

Question 11 Cllr Porrer to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services    

 

Please can the Executive Councillor for City Services offer any reassurance to members of the public that the Council will use its powers to ensure that the broken lift to the Grand Arcade carpark is fixed as a matter of urgency?

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    The shopping centre lift had been out of service for approximately 18 months. Noted there were three other lifts which serviced every car park level but noted at this time of year that this wasn’t sufficient.

ii.  The lift serving the Grand Arcade car park, and the shopping centre was owned and maintained by the Grand Arcade management and was not the responsibility of the Council.

iii. The Council had an obligation to contribute towards repairs and replacements through a contract agreement.

iv.The Council understood the inconvenience this issue caused to members of the public and Officers continued to liaise with the Grand Arcade management to encourage a swift resolution for this and all future scenarios.

v.  The Grand Arcade owners had a refurbishment program, which was due to start in January 2025, and would take around 9 months to complete

 

Question 12 Cllr Bick to the Leader

 

Last month the Regulators of the water industry published a combined letter to Cambridge Water on its performance, indicating serious concerns with the company’s security of supply and risk to the environment - describing it as a poorly performing company. What are the Leader’s reactions to what he has read? https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/OFF-SEN-AR24-JRL-letter-Cambridge-Water-Final.pdf.  

 

Executive Councillor response:

i.    Was disappointed with the content of the letter.

ii.  Did not believe the letter raised any new issues, and it was distressing that the issues continued.

iii. The Water Scarcity Group was helping to coordinate the efforts to resolve the water supply issues, including all the points raised in the October letter. 

 

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, 28th November, 2024, 6.00 pm - Cambridge Council.

The Council notes:

·      The significant increase in need for emergency food in Cambridge, with Cambridge City Foodbank providing more than 17,000 emergency food parcels in the last 12 months, a 74% increase on the same period in 2020/21.

·      That for the first time in its history, the majority of people Cambridge City Foodbank supports with emergency food will be repeat rather than one-off visitors, demonstrating that a higher proportion of people who experience food security in Cambridge now continue to experiencing hunger and hardship on an ongoing basis.

·      That around 5 in 6 low income households on Universal Credit are going without at least one essential like food, a warm home or toiletries[1],  which shows that the social security system is not providing people with enough to afford the essentials.

·      That 9.3 million people in the UK face hunger and hardship, meaning their household is more than 25% below the Social Metrics Commission poverty line. This represents one in seven people in the UK, and one in five children. Without action, a further 425,000 people are projected to face hunger and hardship by 2026/27[2].

 

The Council resolves:

·      To support the promotion of the campaign by Cambridge City Foodbank, Trussell and Joseph Roundtree Foundation to introduce an Essentials Guarantee[3] , a law which would ensure that the basic rate of social security support is always enough to afford the essentials that we all need to live.

·      To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Chancellor and Secretary to the Department for Work and Pensions in favour of the introduction of an Essentials Guarantee.

·      To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to Daniel Zeichner, MP for Cambridge and Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs, Ian Sollom, MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and Pippa Heylings, MP for South Cambridgeshire, to request that they write to the Chancellor and Secretary to the Department for Work and Pensions in favour of the introduction of an Essentials Guarantee.

 

 

Councillor Tong proposed and Councillor Bennett seconded the following motion: 

 

The Council notes:

·      The significant increase in need for emergency food in Cambridge, with Cambridge City Foodbank providing more than 17,000 emergency food parcels in the last 12 months, a 74% increase on the same period in 2020/21.

·      That for the first time in its history, the majority of people Cambridge City Foodbank supports with emergency food will be repeat rather than one-off visitors, demonstrating that a higher proportion of people who experience food security in Cambridge now continue to experiencing hunger and hardship on an ongoing basis.

·      That around 5 in 6 low income households on Universal Credit are going without at least one essential like food, a warm home or toiletries[1],  which shows that the social security system is not providing people with enough to afford the essentials.

·      That 9.3 million people in the UK face hunger and hardship, meaning their household is more than 25% below the Social Metrics Commission poverty line. This represents one in seven people in the UK, and one in five children. Without action, a further 425,000 people are projected to face hunger and hardship by 2026/27[2].

 

The Council resolves:

·      To support the promotion of the campaign by Cambridge City Foodbank, Trussell and Joseph Roundtree Foundation to introduce an Essentials Guarantee[3], a law which would ensure that the basic rate of social security support is always enough to afford the essentials that we all need to live.

·      To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Chancellor and Secretary to the Department for Work and Pensions in favour of the introduction of an Essentials Guarantee.

·      To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to Daniel Zeichner, MP for Cambridge and Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs, Ian Sollom, MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and Pippa Heylings, MP for South Cambridgeshire, to request that they write to the Chancellor and Secretary to the Department for Work and Pensions in favour of the introduction of an Essentials Guarantee.

 

Councillor Nestor proposed and Councillor Moore seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined):

 

The Council notes:

·      The City Council was one of the founding members of the Food Justice Alliance (formerly Food Poverty Alliance), formed in 2017.

·      As a result of this partnership work, the Labour-led council funds and facilitates work to deal with the demand for affordable food and campaign for food justice and has passed a motion declaring Cambridge a right to food city.

·      Most recently, partnership work with Cambridge Sustainable Food and the City Council resulted in Cambridge achieving a ‘Gold Sustainable Food City’ accreditation. This signals that local work is ‘at the forefront of national and international initiatives, instigating transformative change within local food systems’.

·      The significant increase in need for emergency food in Cambridge, with Cambridge City Foodbank providing more than 17,000 emergency food parcels in the last 12 months, a 74% increase on the same period in 2020/21.

·      That for the first time in its history, the majority of people Cambridge City Foodbank supports with emergency food will be repeat rather than one-off visitors, with approximately 80% visiting less than 4 times, demonstrating that a higher proportion of people who experience food security in Cambridge now continue to experiencing hunger and hardship on an ongoing basis.

·      That as a result of austerity policies by the previous government around 5 in 6 low-income households on Universal Credit are going without at least one essential like food, a warm home or toiletries,^[4] which shows that the social security system inherited by the Labour government has is not been providing people with enough to afford the essentials.

·      As a result of the ‘Essentials Guarantee’ campaign by national organisations including the Trussell Trust and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Labour government took positive steps to address the issues raised in their Autumn Budget. The Trussell Trust noted following the budget that ‘it’s a welcome relief to see the UK government make a first step towards a more supportive social security system, introducing what it’s calling a Fair Repayment Rate in Universal Credit’. This is a significant change, capping debt repayments to 15% (previously 25%) to allow more households to keep more of their financial support.

·      This has been welcomed by national organisations as an important step towards the Essentials Guarantee, alongside various other commitments for social security including increasing the Carer’s Allowance threshold, additional funding for the Household Support Fund and an increase in the minimum wage to make it a ‘genuine living wage’. The Trussell Trust have additionally pointed to other positive measures brought in by the Labour government to turn the tide on poverty and inequality, including long-term investment in social housing and reforms to Right to Buy.

·      That Cambridge MP, Daniel Zeichner has welcomed the steps the Labour Government is taking to address this issue, stating that ‘The previous Government’s decisions, such as the damaging mini-budget of September 2022, significantly worsened the situation, harming the most vulnerable in our society, and I want to see an end to widespread reliance on emergency food parcels’, while highlighting that the steps outlined in the recent budget ‘will help transform people’s lives for the better.’

·      That 9.3 million people in the UK face hunger and hardship, meaning their household is more than 25% below the Social Metrics Commission poverty line. This represents one in seven people in the UK, and one in five children. Without action, a further 425,000 people are projected to face hunger and hardship by 2026/27.^[5]

 

The Council resolves:

·      To support the Labour party with their commitment to review Universal Credit, tackle poverty and ‘end mass dependence on emergency food parcels which is a moral scar on society’, as well as their work to improve social security in line with the issues raised by the Essentials Guarantee campaign.

·      To continue to support the transition of food hubs in the City to Social Supermarkets, a more sustainable model which is based on the principle of dignity and choice to users; complimenting and supporting the local emergency food banks.

·      To continue to support the Food Justice Alliance, which this council helped to fund, to continue to tackle food poverty with local organisations and our statutory partners.

·      To convene a food justice conference in February 2025, to explore how food can drive real change in building stronger communities and tackling poverty; building on years of collaborative efforts with Cambridge Sustainable Food and other partners, that the Labour-led council both fund and have supported since 2015.

·      To support the promotion of the campaign by Cambridge City Foodbank, Trussell and Joseph Roundtree Foundation to introduce an Essentials Guarantee^[6], a law which would ensure that the basic rate of social security support is always enough to afford the essentials that we all need to live.

·      To instruct the Leader of the Council alongside the Labour MP for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner, to write to the Chancellor and Secretary to the Department for Work and Pensions to support the steps already taken by the Labour Government in line with the Essentials Guarantee and outline the Council’s support of the in favour of the introduction of an Essentials Guarantee.

·      To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to Daniel Zeichner, MP for Cambridge and Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs, Ian Sollom, MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, and Pippa Heylings, MP for South Cambridgeshire, to request that they write to the Chancellor and Secretary to the Department for Work and Pensions in favour of the introduction of an Essentials Guarantee.

 

The amendment was carried by 29 votes in favour to 4 against with 2 abstentions.

 

Resolved (unanimously) that:

 

The Council notes:

·      The City Council was one of the founding members of the Food Justice Alliance (formerly Food Poverty Alliance), formed in 2017.

·      As a result of this partnership work, the Labour-led council funds and facilitates work to deal with the demand for affordable food and campaign for food justice and has passed a motion declaring Cambridge a right to food city.

·      Most recently, partnership work with Cambridge Sustainable Food and the City Council resulted in Cambridge achieving a ‘Gold Sustainable Food City’ accreditation. This signals that local work is ‘at the forefront of national and international initiatives, instigating transformative change within local food systems’.

·      The significant increase in need for emergency food in Cambridge, with Cambridge City Foodbank providing more than 17,000 emergency food parcels in the last 12 months, a 74% increase on the same period in 2020/21.

·      That for the first time in its history, the majority of people Cambridge City Foodbank supports with emergency food will be repeat rather than one-off visitors, with approximately 80% visiting less than 4 times, demonstrating that a higher proportion of people who experience food security in Cambridge now continue to experiencing hunger and hardship on an ongoing basis.

·      That as a result of austerity policies by the previous government around 5 in 6 low-income households on Universal Credit are going without at least one essential like food, a warm home or toiletries,[7] which shows that the social security system inherited by the Labour government has not been providing people with enough to afford the essentials.

·      As a result of the ‘Essentials Guarantee’ campaign by national organisations including the Trussell Trust and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Labour government took positive steps to address the issues raised in their Autumn Budget. The Trussell Trust noted following the budget that ‘it’s a welcome relief to see the UK government make a first step towards a more supportive social security system, introducing what it’s calling a Fair Repayment Rate in Universal Credit’. This is a significant change, capping debt repayments to 15% (previously 25%) to allow more households to keep more of their financial support.

·      This has been welcomed by national organisations as an important step towards the Essentials Guarantee, alongside various other commitments for social security including increasing the Carer’s Allowance threshold, additional funding for the Household Support Fund and an increase in the minimum wage to make it a ‘genuine living wage’. The Trussell Trust have additionally pointed to other positive measures brought in by the Labour government to turn the tide on poverty and inequality, including long-term investment in social housing and reforms to Right to Buy.

·      That Cambridge MP, Daniel Zeichner has welcomed the steps the Labour Government is taking to address this issue, stating that ‘The previous Government’s decisions, such as the damaging mini-budget of September 2022, significantly worsened the situation, harming the most vulnerable in our society, and I want to see an end to widespread reliance on emergency food parcels’, while highlighting that the steps outlined in the recent budget ‘will help transform people’s lives for the better.’

·      That 9.3 million people in the UK face hunger and hardship, meaning their household is more than 25% below the Social Metrics Commission poverty line. This represents one in seven people in the UK, and one in five children. Without action, a further 425,000 people are projected to face hunger and hardship by 2026/27.[8]

The Council resolves:

·      To support the Labour party with their commitment to review Universal Credit, tackle poverty and ‘end mass dependence on emergency food parcels which is a moral scar on society’, as well as their work to improve social security in line with the issues raised by the Essentials Guarantee campaign.

·      To continue to support the transition of food hubs in the City to Social Supermarkets, a more sustainable model which is based on the principle of dignity and choice to users; complimenting and supporting the local emergency food banks.

·      To continue to support the Food Justice Alliance, which this council helped to fund, to continue to tackle food poverty with local organisations and our statutory partners.

·      To convene a food justice conference in February 2025, to explore how food can drive real change in building stronger communities and tackling poverty; building on years of collaborative efforts with Cambridge Sustainable Food and other partners, that the Labour-led council both fund and have supported since 2015.

·      To instruct the Leader of the Council alongside the Labour MP for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner, to write to the Chancellor and Secretary to the Department for Work and Pensions to support the steps already taken by the Labour Government in line with the Essentials Guarantee and outline the Council’s support of the Essentials Guarantee.

 

 

 

Council notes:

a. The lack of street lighting on Nuns Way Recreation Ground and on the Pulley play area of Kings Hedges Recreation Ground 

 

b. Widespread community concerns about this lack of street lighting, which has left residents feeling unsafe and led to increased concerns around and incidents of anti-social behaviour, particularly in winter months when there are more hours of darkness.

 

c. The appalling arson attack on the new Pulley play area and equipment in September 2024, which was recently installed with £163,000 of council money and £75,000 wooden castle was burnt.

 

d. Office for National Statistics data shows that four out of five women and two out of five men feel unsafe walking alone after dark in a park or other open space.

 

e. Research has identified a consistent correlation between higher light levels on pedestrian paths and greater public confidence in using said paths.

 

f. A review of evidence by the College of Policing found that improved street lighting reduced violent and property crime by 21% on average

 

Council calls on:

a. The Director of City Services to conduct a feasibility review and explore the installation of street lighting at Nuns Way Recreation Ground and the Pulley play area, as well as parks and open spaces throughout the city where issues with lighting have been identified and for the for this feasibility review to be reported back to the relevant committee.

 

b. The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services to urgently develop a policy to address issues of safety and anti-social behaviour in the aforementioned areas in conjunction with the local community, including a feasibility review of installing street lighting, and to subsequently report this policy and findings to the Council .

 

Notes:

BBC News, ‘Arson investigation under way after play park fire’, 1 October 2024, link

Office for National Statistics, ‘Perceptions of personal safety and experiences of harassment, Great Britain: 2 to 27 June 2021’, link

Fotios, S. and Castleton, C., (2016), ‘Specifying Enough Light to Feel Reassured on Pedestrian Footpaths’, Leukos, 12(4), link

College of Policing, ‘Street Lighting’, link

 

 

 

Under Council Procedure Rule 26.1 with the consent of Council Councillor Hossain proposed and Councillor Clough seconded the following altered motion (additional text underlined): 

 

Council notes:

a. The lack of street lighting on Nuns Way Recreation Ground and on the Pulley play area of Kings Hedges Recreation Ground 

 

b. Widespread community concerns about this lack of street lighting, which has left residents feeling unsafe and led to increased concerns around and incidents of anti-social behaviour, particularly in winter months when there are more hours of darkness.

 

c. The appalling arson attack on the new Pulley play area and equipment in September 2024, which was recently installed with £163,000 of council money and £75,000 wooden castle was burnt.

 

d. Office for National Statistics data shows that four out of five women and two out of five men feel unsafe walking alone after dark in a park or other open space.

 

e. Research has identified a consistent correlation between higher light levels on pedestrian paths and greater public confidence in using said paths.

 

f. A review of evidence by the College of Policing found that improved street lighting reduced violent and property crime by 21% on average

 

Council calls on:

a. The Director of City Services  to conduct a feasibility review and explore the installation of street lighting at Nuns Way Recreation Ground and the Pulley play area, as well as parks and open spaces throughout the city where issues with lighting have been identified and for the for this feasibility review to be reported back to the relevant committee.

 

b. The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services to urgently develop a policy to address issues of safety and anti-social behaviour in the aforementioned areas in conjunction with the local community, including a feasibility review of installing street lighting, and to subsequently report this policy and findings to the Council.

 

c. In carrying out the obligations listed in points a and b above, the council requires the Director and Executive Councillor to make use of low level solar lighting such as bollards and solar studs and consider motion sensitive solar lighting where appropriate. It further requires the Director and Executive Councillor to ensure that the lighting is of a suitable spectrum to minimise the impact on biodiversity.

 

d. By imposing the requirements in point c, the council wishes to minimise ongoing lighting costs, control emissions and minimise any adverse impact on biodiversity while meeting the safety objectives of the lighting scheme.

 

e. The Director and Executive Councillor are also required to liaise with officers of the Greater Cambridge Planning Service to ensure that the lighting scheme can be considered for any relevant s106 funding.

 

Notes:

BBC News, ‘Arson investigation under way after play park fire’, 1 October 2024, link

Office for National Statistics, ‘Perceptions of personal safety and experiences of harassment, Great Britain: 2 to 27 June 2021’, link

Fotios, S. and Castleton, C., (2016), ‘Specifying Enough Light to Feel Reassured on Pedestrian Footpaths’, Leukos, 12(4), link

College of Policing, ‘Street Lighting’, link

 

Councillor Holloway proposed and Councillor Gardiner-Smith seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined):

Council notes:

a. The lack of street lighting on Nuns Way Recreation Ground and on the Pulley play area of Kings Hedges Recreation Ground 

 

a.   The Council manages 37 lights on King’s Hedges Recreational Ground (including the Pulley Park area) and 11 lights on Nuns Way Recreational Ground, making 48 lights in total.

 

b. Widespread community concerns about this lack of street lighting, which has left residents feeling unsafe and led to increased concerns around and incidents of anti-social behaviour, particularly in winter months when there are more hours of darkness.

 

b. There is no known evidence that there are widespread community concerns about lighting. During the past 11 months since January 2024 there has been 1 report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the Pulley Park and 1 report on Nuns Way, making 2 reports of ASB in total.

 

c. The appalling arson attack on the new Pulley play area and equipment in September 2024, which was recently installed with £163,000 of council money and £75,000 wooden castle was burnt.

 

c. The alleged arson attack on the new Pulley play area is not pertinent to this motion as this tragic event occurred during daylight hours.

 

d. Office for National Statistics data shows that four out of five women and two out of five men feel unsafe walking alone after dark in a park or other open space.

 

e. This Council has recently funded a research project by Women in Sport to look at girls’ perceptions and experiences of parks and open spaces in the city. The report highlighted barriers to accessing parks, including feelings related to safety.

 

f.e Research has not identified a consistent correlation between higher light levels on pedestrian paths and greater public confidence in using said paths.

 

g.f A review of evidence by the College of Policing found that improved street lighting reduced violent crime and property crime by 21% on average

Council calls on:

a. The Director of City Services  to conduct a feasibility review and explore the installation of street lighting at Nuns Way Recreation Ground and the Pulley play area, as well as parks and open spaces throughout the city where issues with lighting have been identified and for the for this feasibility review to be reported back to the relevant committee.

Council calls for:

a. A feasibility review to explore the installation of various possible lighting treatments on all or part of Nuns Way Recreation Ground and the Pulley Park area and for this review to be reported back to councillors.

 

b. The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services to urgently develop a policy to address issues of safety and anti-social behaviour in the aforementioned areas in conjunction with the local community, including a feasibility review of installing street lighting, and to subsequently report this policy and findings to the Council .

Notes:

BBC News, ‘Arson investigation under way after play park fire’, 1 October 2024, link

Office for National Statistics, ‘Perceptions of personal safety and experiences of harassment, Great Britain: 2 to 27 June 2021’, link

Cambridge City Council, ‘Women in Sport’, ‘Access to Nature for Teenage Girls in Cambridge’, Insight Report, October 2024

Fotios, S. and Castleton, C., (2016), ‘Specifying Enough Light to Feel Reassured on Pedestrian Footpaths’, Leukos, 12(4), link

College of Policing, ‘Street Lighting’, link

The amendment was carried by 20 votes in favour to 6 votes against and 9 abstentions.

 

Resolved (by 26 votes in favour to 0 votes against and 9 abstentions) that:

Council notes:

a.    The Council manages 37 lights on King’s Hedges Recreational Ground (including the Pulley Park area) and 11 lights on Nuns Way Recreational Ground, making 48 lights in total.

b.    There is no known evidence that there are widespread community concerns about lighting. During the past 11 months since January 2024 there has been 1 report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the Pulley Park and 1 report on Nuns Way, making 2 reports of ASB in total.

c.    The alleged arson attack on the new Pulley play area is not pertinent to this motion as this tragic event occurred during daylight hours.

d.    Office for National Statistics data shows that four out of five women and two out of five men feel unsafe walking alone after dark in a park or other open space.

e.    This Council has recently funded a research project by Women in Sport to look at girls’ perceptions and experiences of parks and open spaces in the city. The report highlighted barriers to accessing parks, including feelings related to safety.

f.     Research has not identified a consistent correlation between higher light levels on pedestrian paths and greater public confidence in using said paths.

g.    A review of evidence by the College of Policing found that improved street lighting reduced violent crime and property crime by 21% on average

Council calls for:

a.    A feasibility review to explore the installation of various possible lighting treatments on all or part of Nuns Way Recreation Ground and the Pulley Park area and for this review to be reported back to councillors.

Notes:

BBC News, ‘Arson investigation under way after play park fire’, 1 October 2024, link

Office for National Statistics, ‘Perceptions of personal safety and experiences of harassment, Great Britain: 2 to 27 June 2021’, link

Cambridge City Council, ‘Women in Sport’, ‘Access to Nature for Teenage Girls in Cambridge’, Insight Report, October 2024

Fotios, S. and Castleton, C., (2016), ‘Specifying Enough Light to Feel Reassured on Pedestrian Footpaths’, Leukos, 12(4), link

College of Policing, ‘Street Lighting’, link

Council notes that

1.    The Post Office has proposed to close Cambridge’s city centre “Crown Office” on St. Andrew’s Street; 

2.    That a local campaign and representations succeeded in securing a withdrawal of an earlier such proposal;

3.    The current Post Office located in a prominent and accessible high street location close to public transport, is routinely busy and widely used by residents across the city as well as by its many visitors; 

4.    The Post Office is a wholly-owned government corporation, representing the nature of the public service that it provides and the social impact it makes.

Council believes that:

1.    It is a legitimate expectation that a growing city such as Cambridge, which includes a large tourist sector, continues to maintain a standalone Crown Office in its centre to complement the network of franchised postmasters serving neighbourhood areas and sparsely populated areas, who combine their service with other businesses; 

2.    That the alternative, as proposed in the previous exercise, to integrate the main post office as a subordinate activity of a corporate retailer, will not be acceptable on grounds of visibility, accessibility or trusted public service ethos;

3.    The withdrawal of this public service provider operating in its own right from the city centre would be a regrettable erosion of diversity on the high street, removing an important ingredient of many people’s wider purpose in going there.  

Council resolves to make representations against the proposed closure in Cambridge and authorises the Chief Executive to communicate these within the appropriate Post Office consultative channels and to urge the two MPs representing the city to intercede directly with the government to support these representations.      

 

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Young seconded the following motion: 

 

Council notes that

1.    The Post Office has proposed to close Cambridge’s city centre “Crown Office” on St. Andrew’s Street; 

2.    That a local campaign and representations succeeded in securing a withdrawal of an earlier such proposal;

3.    The current Post Office located in a prominent and accessible high street location close to public transport, is routinely busy and widely used by residents across the city as well as by its many visitors; 

4.    The Post Office is a wholly-owned government corporation, representing the nature of the public service that it provides and the social impact it makes.

Council believes that:

1.    It is a legitimate expectation that a growing city such as Cambridge, which includes a large tourist sector, continues to maintain a standalone Crown Office in its centre to complement the network of franchised postmasters serving neighbourhood areas and sparsely populated areas, who combine their service with other businesses; 

2.    That the alternative, as proposed in the previous exercise, to integrate the main post office as a subordinate activity of a corporate retailer, will not be acceptable on grounds of visibility, accessibility or trusted public service ethos;

3.    The withdrawal of this public service provider operating in its own right from the city centre would be a regrettable erosion of diversity on the high street, removing an important ingredient of many people’s wider purpose in going there.  

Council resolves to make representations against the proposed closure in Cambridge and authorises the Chief Executive to communicate these within the appropriate Post Office consultative channels and to urge the two MPs representing the city to intercede directly with the government to support these representations.    

 

Councillor Davey proposed and Councillor Swift seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined):

 

Council notes that

1.  The Post Office has proposed to close 115 branches in the UK, including Cambridge’s city centre “Crown Office” on St. Andrew’s Street; 

2.  That a local Labour-led campaign in October 2018 condemning proposals to move Cambridge’s main Post Office into WH Smith and including representations from Labour MP Daniel Zeichner, trade unions and labour councillors succeeded in securing a withdrawal of an earlier such proposal;

3.  The current Post Office located in a prominent and accessible high street location close to public transport, is routinely busy and widely used by residents across the city as well as by its many visitors; 

4.  The Post Office is a wholly-owned government corporation, representing the nature of the public service that it provides and the social impact it makes.

5.  That the Communications Workers Union (CWU) has condemned the closure plans which will put about 2,000 jobs at risk, stating that ‘CWU members are victims of the Horizon scandal and for them to now fear for their jobs ahead of Christmas is yet another cruel attack.’ Additionally, Labour MPs have expressed concern about the proposed closure of the branches and called for the Post Office to preserve its community presence.

6.  Cambridge’s Labour MP Daniel Zeichner has continued to be outspoken to support the local Cambridge branch, stating that ‘News of its potential closure raises concerns about service continuity, accessibility on their plans and urging them to prioritise the needs of our community in their decision-making.’

7.  Daniel Zeichner has been in touch directly with the Post Office who have confirmed that no decisions have yet been made regarding its Directly Managed Branches and agreeing to a meeting where he will continue to advocate for the interests of Cambridge residents and businesses.

Council believes that:

1.  It is a legitimate expectation that a growing city such as Cambridge, which includes a large tourist sector, continues to maintain a standalone Crown Office in its centre to complement the network of franchised postmasters serving neighbourhood areas and sparsely populated areas, who combine their service with other businesses; 

2.  That the alternative, as proposed in the previous exercise, to integrate the main post office as a subordinate activity of a corporate retailer, will not be acceptable on grounds of visibility, accessibility or trusted public service ethos;

3.  The withdrawal of this public service provider operating in its own right from the city centre would be a regrettable erosion of diversity on the high street, removing an important ingredient of many people’s wider purpose in going there.  

Council resolves to make representations against the proposed closure in Cambridge and authorises the Chief Executive to communicate these within the appropriate Post Office consultative channels, alongside local Cambridge MP Daniel Zeichner in his ongoing conversations with the Post Office and government.  and to urge the two MPs representing the city to intercede directly with the government to support these representations.      

 

The amendment was carried by 19 votes in favour to 11 votes against and 4 abstentions.

 

Resolved (by 34 votes in favour to 0 votes against) that:

 

Council notes that

1.  The Post Office has proposed to close 115 branches in the UK, including Cambridge’s city centre “Crown Office” on St. Andrew’s Street; 

2.  That a local Labour-led campaign in October 2018 condemning proposals to move Cambridge’s main Post Office into WH Smith including representations from Labour MP Daniel Zeichner, trade unions and labour councillors succeeded in securing a withdrawal of such proposal;

3.  The current Post Office located in a prominent and accessible high street location close to public transport, is routinely busy and widely used by residents across the city as well as by its many visitors; 

4.  The Post Office is a wholly-owned government corporation, representing the nature of the public service that it provides and the social impact it makes.

5.  That the Communications Workers Union (CWU) has condemned the closure plans which will put about 2,000 jobs at risk, stating that ‘CWU members are victims of the Horizon scandal and for them to now fear for their jobs ahead of Christmas is yet another cruel attack.’ Additionally, Labour MPs have expressed concern about the proposed closure of the branches and called for the Post Office to preserve its community presence.

6.  Cambridge’s Labour MP Daniel Zeichner has continued to be outspoken to support the local Cambridge branch, stating that ‘News of its potential closure raises concerns about service continuity, accessibility on their plans and urging them to prioritise the needs of our community in their decision-making.’

7.  Daniel Zeichner has been in touch directly with the Post Office who have confirmed that no decisions have yet been made regarding its Directly Managed Branches and agreeing to a meeting where he will continue to advocate for the interests of Cambridge residents and businesses.

Council believes that:

1.  It is a legitimate expectation that a growing city such as Cambridge, which includes a large tourist sector, continues to maintain a standalone Crown Office in its centre to complement the network of franchised postmasters serving neighbourhood areas and sparsely populated areas, who combine their service with other businesses; 

2.  That the alternative, as proposed in the previous exercise, to integrate the main post office as a subordinate activity of a corporate retailer, will not be acceptable on grounds of visibility, accessibility or trusted public service ethos;

3.  The withdrawal of this public service provider operating in its own right from the city centre would be a regrettable erosion of diversity on the high street, removing an important ingredient of many people’s wider purpose in going there.  

Council resolves to make representations against the proposed closure in Cambridge and authorises the Chief Executive to communicate these within the appropriate Post Office consultative channels, alongside local Cambridge MP Daniel Zeichner in his ongoing conversations with the Post Office and government. 

 

 

 

 

Council notes:

·      That the River Cam at Sheep’s Green received Bathing Water Designation in May 2024, following a Labour motion at Full Council in July 2023.

·      That a main goal of the application was to provide information on pollution levels to help swimmers to swim safely and to create a ‘Driver’ to increase efforts by Anglian Water and the Environment Agency to improve water quality.

·      Serious concern over the Environment Agency’s monitoring during the 2024 bathing season (15 May to 30 September 2024) has recorded E. coli levels ranging from 980-6400 colonies/100ml at Sheep’s Green and that this gives a strong indication the water classification will be “Poor”.

·      That once the Environment Agency’s classification is available, the City Council will display a notice at Sheep’s Green showing the classification.

·      That if, as anticipated, the classification is ‘Poor’, notice will include advice against bathing.

·      That Anglian Water has allocated £4.6m for a study and subsequent upgrades to Haslingfield Water Treatment Works under its 2025-2030 AMP8 business plan, subject to receiving Bathing Water Designation and subsequent approval by Ofwat (link: https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/siteassets/household/about-us/pr24/anh01-our-plan-2025-2030.pdf).

 

Council resolves:

·      To write to the Environment Agency and Anglian Water once the bathing water assessment is made available, welcoming the increased availability of information about the quality of water and its suitability for bathing.

·      If the result of the assessment is ‘poor’, to use that letter to express concern at the indications of unacceptable levels of faecal pollution revealed by the monitoring and to highlight the risk this poses to the health of swimmers and other recreational water users on the river Cam.

·      At the same time as expressing concern, the letter should demand that agencies involved take urgent action to investigate and address the causes of pollution, as required by the Bathing Water Act 2013, and that they keep this Council informed on progress with a report to the Chief Executive every six months.

The Council should request that their investigations must include:

·      The adequacy of the performance of Haslingfield Water Treatment Works and Foxton Water Treatment Works, and the unacceptable frequency of storm overflows.

·      The frequency and impact of overflows from sewage pumping stations in Harston, Hauxton, Haslingfield and Grantchester.

·      The frequency and impact of bursts in the Rising Mains connecting Haslingfield, Harston, Hauxton and Grantchester to Haslingfield Water Treatment Works.

·      Potential misconnections into surface water drains flowing into Hobsons Conduit, Vicars Brook and Paradise Local Nature Reserve, which then flow into the River Cam just upstream of Sheep’s Green.

·      The murky (turbid) water in the River Cam, and whether this may be impeding the natural action of sunlight which would otherwise help by degrading faecal bacteria released upstream.

 

Background

The 2024 bathing water season, with weekly monitoring by the Environment agency at Sheep’s Green, has now finished for the year. The resulting classification won’t be released until sometime in November, but from the results already available online it’s obvious that, as expected, the classification will be “Poor”.

 

This classification is what we all expected,  ...  view the full agenda text for item 24/102/CNL

Council notes:

 

That HMOs provide an important, positive first step for many Cambridge residents to move into and find work and start their journey on the housing ladder;

 

That dwellings being converted to HMOs for over 6 people must obtain planning permission for change of use to HMO usage  (a sui generis use) and that HMOs for five or more persons not forming a single household must obtain a licence from the City council, enabling conditions to be inspected and enforced;

 

That smaller dwellings, with three or four persons forming two or more households, count as an HMO but do not require planning permission (as they fall under Permitted Development)  or a licence to operate;

 

That conditions in some HMOs are not acceptable, particularly in those smaller units which do not require planning permission or a licence and which have been converted and may lack the necessary health and safety adaptations;

 

That our Enforcement teams already work hard to identify smaller HMOs in poor condition, but without a central register of such properties, this is very challenging;

 

That currently, many tenants are afraid to complain about poor conditions for fear that they may then be evicted and lose a reference for a future rental, though we note that the proposed reforms to evictions would assist in strengthening tenants' rights in this area, which is very welcome;

 

That the proposed Renters' Reform bill may include a requirement for landlords and properties to be registered on a national database, which we also strongly welcome;

 

That because demand for HMOs exceeds supply, there is a risk that more poor quality HMO provision will be available and tenants will have little choice but to accept this, despite very high rents.

 

Council Believes:

 

That increased council intervention in the standards of planning and operation of HMOs is appropriate, particularly so long as Cambridge is experiencing an overall shortage of housing, and that the council must optimise and apply the range of power that it has, and may gain in the future, across its services in order to secure a fairer deal for tenants.

 

Council Resolves:

 

To ensure that the emerging local plan requires that all HMO properties that require planning permission for construction and/or for change of use are considered under the emerging new policy covering HMOs;

 

To ask officers to prepare a report on the case for and feasibility of one or more Article 4 directions within the city boundaries, which would remove Permitted Development rights for smaller HMOs (currently Use Class C4) and instead require planning permission for all new builds and for change of use for existing housing stock to be used as HMOs for more than two people;

 

To ensure that all HMOs that require planning permission meet minimum space standards and that a record is kept of such properties.

 

Subject to proper consideration through the current plan making process, seek to retain the measures already in place in Policy 48 regarding positive HMO development in the new local plan;  ...  view the full agenda text for item 24/103/CNL

This council notes;

·      Wildlife charity Butterfly Conservation has declared a national ‘Butterfly Emergency’, with results of this summer’s Big Butterfly Count showing a marked and hugely concerning decline in numbers.

·      Overall, participants spotted just seven butterflies on average per 15-minute Count, a reduction of almost 50% on last year’s average of 12, and the lowest in the 14-year history of the Big Butterfly Count. The majority of species (81%) showed declines in the number seen this year compared with 2023.

·      Butterflies are increasingly being recognised as valuable environmental indicators, both for their rapid and sensitive responses to subtle habitat or climatic changes and as representatives for the diversity and responses of other wildlife.

·      Insects are the largest proportion of terrestrial wildlife (more than 50% of species), so it is crucial that we assess the fate of insect groups to monitor the overall state of biodiversity. Being typical insects, the responses seen in butterflies are more likely to reflect changes amongst other insect groups, and thus the majority of biodiversity, than established indicators such as those based on birds.

·      The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world (ranked 189 out of

·      218) and Cambridgeshire is one of the most nature depleted counties in the UK. Almost 15% of all species in the UK are at risk from extinction.

·      The Council declared a Biodiversity Emergency in 2019.

·      The Cambridge Biodiversity Strategy and associated Park Biodiversity Tool Kit contain many actions that benefit butterflies, moths and other invertebrates in formal and informal parks and open spaces. Different species have diverse lifestyles and habitat requirements, and it is important to consider all of these, not solely nectar sources, when promoting their conservation.

·      The Cambridge City Herbicide Reduction Plan has discontinued herbicide use across all council owned sites, including parks, car parks and housing areas.

·      The use of butterfly and bee killing neonicotinoid pesticides were repeatedly approved for emergency use under the previous government, so this council welcomes the new government’s pledge to ban them in the Countryside Protection Plan and thanks the Cambridge MP Daniel Zeichner for his vital work on this.

This council will;

·      Review the council’s Biodiversity Strategy in 2025 aligning with the emerging Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

·      Work with our partners on the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Local Nature Recovery Strategy steering group to ensure the maps and priorities align with the existing Cambridge Nature Network.

·      Create Butterfly friendly Areas by providing a range of butterfly food sources and habitats in our open spaces, with planting and leaving areas uncut or with reduced cutting.

·      Establish The Cambridge Butterfly Trail, by signposting to the Butterfly Areas and register these ‘Wild Places’ on the Butterfly Conservation Wild Spaces website Let's Create Wild Spaces - Wild Spaces , aligning with the Cambridge Nature Network.

·      Invite Cambridge residents to join the Butterfly Conservation Wild Spaces network with their own Butterfly friendly Areas, which can be as small as a flowerpot or window ledge.

 

Butterfly Square — Biophilic Cities

Butterfly  ...  view the full agenda text for item 24/104/CNL

Background

On Thursday 23 May 2024, Cambridge City Council unanimously approved a motion on Palestine and Israel. This followed three separate statements made by the Mayor and personal statements from the three political group leaders.

In addition, the city council has posted links to the main charities providing support for Gaza here https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/support-for-gaza

As part of this motion, the council wrote to the then government calling upon them to:

a.    Press for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, Israel and the rest of Palestine and to make every effort to resume the peace process. 

b.    Work to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld and that civilians are protected in accordance with those laws. 

c.    Work to ensure that civilians have access to humanitarian support, including unfettered access of medical supplies, food, fuel and water. 

d.    To immediately revoke all licences for arms exports to Israel and suspend arms sales to Israel. 

Active Motion

This council notes that currently 73 countries are subject to a non-financial sanction under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It notes that 38 of these include a direct arms embargo.  Israel is not one of the countries subject to a UK sanction.

The council notes that since the recent change in government a new country, Belarus, has been included in the list of countries subject to a UK arms embargo on 31 October 2024. Israel has not been added to that list.

The council notes that the government has changed since it wrote its original letter and resolves to write again to the new secretary of state for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the Rt Hon David Lammy to repeat its requests.

This council also notes that the United Nations International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is commemorated annually on November 29. The council therefore resolves to mark this solemn occasion by flying the Palestine flag at the Guildhall at the first convenient date.

Notes

The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed by the United Nations on or around 29 November each year, in accordance with General Assembly mandates contained in resolutions 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, 34/65 D of 12 December 1979, and subsequent resolutions adopted under agenda item “Question of Palestine.”

On that day in 1947, the General Assembly adopted resolution 181 (II), which came to be known as the Partition Resolution. That resolution provided for the establishment in Palestine of a “Jewish State” and an “Arab State”. Of the two States to be created under this resolution, only one, Israel, has so far come into being.

The Palestinian people, who now number more than eight million, live primarily in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem; in Israel; in neighbouring Arab States; and in refugee camps in the region.

The International Day of Solidarity is an opportunity for the international community to focus its attention on the fact that the question of Palestine remains unresolved and that the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 24/105/CNL

Members were asked to note the written questions and answers that had been placed in the information pack circulated around the Chamber.

 

Resolved (by 29 votes in favour to 0 votes against) to:

        i.       Agree that the Leader discusses the findings with the Leaders of other relevant authorities and other public services such as health, including the potential scope for more effective place based and joint working and that officers follow-up on opportunities;

      ii.        Agree that the Leader and officers engage Ministers and civil servants in relation to the findings of the public engagement, and, develop insights into the potential costs-benefits and models of provision for adults and children’s social care; and,

    iii.        Agree that following those discussions and early evidence gathering, the Leader reports to the relevant committee about appropriate next steps in summer 2025, or earlier depending on proposals in the English Devolution White Paper.

 

 

The appointment of Lynne Miles as Director of Economy and Place was noted.