Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the Meeting held on 21 July 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor. 

1.          APOLOGIES

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Pogonowski and Stuart.

 

 

2.          OPEN CAMBRIDGE WEEKEND

 

It was noted that the City had collaborated with the University of Cambridge in the Open Cambridge weekend and groups of visitors had visited the Guildhall on Friday 9^th and Saturday 10^th September.

 

 

3.          MAYOR’S DAY OUT

 

It was noted that the annual outing for senior citizens to Great Yarmouth on 1^st September had gone very well and the Mayor thanked those Councillors that had helped with stewarding.   

 

It was also noted that a group of older people from Great Yarmouth had made a return visit to Cambridge on 29^th September.

 

 

4.          CRUSE WINE TASTING EVENT

 

The Mayor thanked those Councillors who had supported the wine tasting event in aid of Cruse Bereavement Care on 19 October. It was noted that £3500 had been raised by the event.

 

 

5.          REMEMBRANCE

 

Councillors were reminded that 2 minutes silence would be observed from the main entrance of the Guildhall on Friday 11^th November at 11am. All Councillors were encouraged to attend and the Deputy Mayor would be laying a wreath on behalf of the City at the American Cemetery.

 

It was noted that on Sunday 13^th November, the Deputy Mayor would be leading the civic procession to Great St. Mary’s Church for the Remembrance Sunday Service. The Mayor would also be attending the service, and laying a wreath, at the City’s War Memorial.

 

Details of the service had been circulated to all Councillors and their support was encouraged.

 

 

6.          NATIONAL TAKEOVER DAY

 

It was highlighted to Councillors that National Takeover Day gave children and young people the chance to work with adults for the day and be involved in decision-making.

 

This year’s event had deliberately been planned to coincide with Armistice Day so that young people would be encouraged to incorporate remembrance activities into their programme.

 

It was confirmed that two young people would shadow the Mayor on Friday 11^th November and they would also be invited to stand alongside the Mayor during the observance of the 2 minutes silence on the steps of the Guildhall.

 

 

8.          WHITWORTH HOUSE

 

It was noted that, as one of the Mayors chosen charities, Whitworth House would be holding a ceilidh in the Guildhall on Friday 20^th January. All Councillors were encouraged to support the event.

 

 

9.          CHEVYN SERVICE

 

It was noted that the preaching of the Chevyn Sermon would take place at St. Andrew’s, Chesterton on Sunday 29^th January at 10am. Notices would be despatched immediately after the Christmas/New Year break and Councillors were encouraged to attend.

 

 

10. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Cantrill	11/54/CNL	Personal: Trustee of Winter Comfort
Price	11/55c/CNL	Personal: Conservator of the River Cam
Nimmo-Smith	11/55c/CNL	Personal: Conservator of the River Cam

None.  

The Medium Term Strategy (The Leader)

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0):

 

Revenue – General Fund

 

1)    To agree that New Homes Bonus uncommitted funding be held in an earmarked reserve (rather than added to general reserves) with a view to considering appropriate application at a later date [Section 5, pages 75 and 76 of the MTS refer].

 

2)    To agree budget provision for further grant funding in 2011/12 of £65,000 to The Junction CDC Ltd

 

3)    To agree the budget strategy and process for the 2012/13 budget cycle as outlined in Section 8 and Appendix A of the MTS document.

 

In particular:-

a) that the net General Fund budget (after use of reserves) be limited to £15,463,770 at this stage

 

b) that the adjusted gross expenditure, for the purpose of calculating committee cash limits, should exclude major in-term contractual / agreement obligations (Pools Service, Housing Repairs and ICT contracts)

 

4)    To agree the revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections as shown in Appendix E, and the associated decisions in Section 8, of the MTS document.

 

5)    To authorise the Director of Resources to calculate and communicate final cash limits or savings targets based on the decisions taken in the report, based on the method shown in Appendix I, of the MTS document.

 

Revenue – HRA

 

6)    To express support for the HRA budget process and strategy as outlined in Section 8 and Appendix F, of the MTS document.

 

Capital

 

7)    To agree inclusion in the Capital Plan of new items identified below, note additional funding to revised schemes approved by Executive Councillors, and approve the reschedule of works based on the latest timetables, namely:

 

(a) SC515 – Replacement CCTV cameras - £70,000 funded from Repairs & Renewals

 

(b) SC516 – Relocation of the Grand Arcade Car Park Control Room - £70,000 funded from Repairs & Renewals

 

(c) SC517 – Relining fuel tanks at Mill Road Depot - £30,000 funded from Repairs & Renewals

 

(d) SC518 – Improvements to Stage Lighting Equipment at the Corn Exchange - £25,000 funded from Repairs & Renewals

 

(e) SC519 – Wulfstan Way Art Project £45,000 – funded from Public Art Developer Contributions

 

(f) SC520 – Community Olympic Public Art Commission - £129,000, of which £99,000 will be funded from Public Art Developer Contributions and £30,000 from the Arts & Recreation Revenue Budget 2012/13

 

(g) PR001 Housing Capital Investment Programme - increase the funding in 2012/13 by £200,000

 

(h) PR020 ICT Infrastructure Programme - reschedule the programme extending the programme to 2015/16 and reduce the Repairs & Renewals funding by £217,000

 

(i) PR023 Admin Buildings Asset Replacement Programme - reschedule the programme and extend the programme to 2015/16 funded by additional £74,000 Repairs & Renewals

 

(j) PR024 Commercial Properties Asset Replacement Programme - reschedule the programme and extend the programme to 2015/16 funded by additional £240,000 Repairs & Renewals

 

(k) PR018 – Bus Shelters – increase funding in 2011/12 by £50,000 funded from Repairs & Renewals

 

(l) PR026 Community Development Grants Programme – approve a new capital programme, with the remit to improve a range of facilities across the East Area - £800,000 funded from Developer Contributions.

 

8)    To agree the revised Capital & Revenue Projects Plan, the Hold list and the Funding as shown in Section 6 and Appendix H of the MTS document

 

Treasury Management

 

9)    To approve the changes to the Council’s Counterparty List and lending limits. [Appendix J of the MTS refers].

 

10)                      To approve the changes to the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and changes to the Council’s Prudential and Treasury Management indicators [Section 7, pages 94 to 95 of the MTS refer].

Annual Review of the Strategic Partnerships of the Council (The Leader)

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

Agree a revised “Principles of Partnership Working” excluding reference to Joint Scrutiny Arrangements.

1. Councillor Herbert to the Leader

 

What will be the extra cost (a) for Cambridge City, and b) across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, of postponing the Police Commissioner elections from May to November 2012 and does she support this separate election date initiated by the Liberal Democrat's Home Affairs lead in the House of Lords?

 

The Leader confirmed that identifiable costs incurred of running the Police Commissioner elections would be met by the Home Office in the form of an advance bloc grant. This would cover the majority of the costs, with the rest being claimed back from the Home Office after the election had taken place.

 

The election would be run on a constabulary basis and the Returning Officer for the Cambridgeshire election would be the Chief Executive of East Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

It was noted that the rough estimate of running a separate election in the City next November would be £60,000-£70,000. This figure had been based on the costs in the three years since May 2009.

 

The Leader confirmed that at this very early stage the indirect costs, the impact on staff resource and on other parts of the organisation by holding an additional city wide election in a year could not be quantified.

 

It was difficult to quantify the cost to other parts of the County as running elections was the responsibility of the Returning Officer, usually the Chief Executive of the local district council. It was noted that costs would vary depending on geographical area, elector population etc.  However, it was noted that when the County Council elections were held in 2009, Cambridge City Council’s recharge to the County was at the low end compared to the other districts.

 

2. Councillor Moghadas to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

How are you addressing the clash of interests between meeting the functional housing requirement, balancing the council budget and ensuring the design of the Seymour Court site meets the full needs of the community and enhances the street landscape?

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing confirmed that officers would be working in partnership with house builders in an effort to minimise the cost outlay of the Council. At present costs of around £400,000 were expected but grants had been secured to cover this.

 

It was noted that an analysis of local need had been carried out and, due to its proximity to local shops and healthcare facilities, Seymour Court was deemed suitable for older people. It was also confirmed that 2 of the 21 council flats would be fully wheelchair accessible. 

 

3. Councillor Owers to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

What is the precise reasoning behind the ‘Gold Star’ bin scheme in terms of reducing household waste and increasing recycling?

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services confirmed that the gold stars applied to the small 140 litre black refuse bins were intended to:

 

1) Raise public awareness that other households in the locality had reduced the amount of non-recyclable waste they produced, thereby beginning to set a social norm for this behaviour, which was otherwise hidden.

 

2) Advertise the availability of the smaller bins and signpost residents to where they could get further information about downsizing their bin and how to reduce waste.

 

It was noted that this was a low cost, ‘drip-drip’ approach whereby the council could slowly alter public attitudes towards and perceptions of waste reduction behaviours. Whilst it was not expected that there would be an immediate drop in household waste, there were indications that the scheme had been successful in increasing the uptake of smaller refuse bins. In the 21 days before the press coverage about gold stars there had been 16 orders for small black bins, whereas in the 21 days afterwards there had been 40 orders. A total of 59 had now been

ordered, but some of these would be for new properties.

 

It was also noted that the Gold Star scheme was not aimed at increasing recycling.

 

4. Councillor Cantrill to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Council commits significant resources to supporting and helping the disadvantaged within Cambridge particularly those who are homeless and vulnerably housed. This is welcomed at a time of hardship for many people.

 

Could the Executive Councillor for Housing indicate what actions we are taking to help people progress towards a more stable life?

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing confirmed that, via grants and its own financial commitment, the Council undertook a lot of work to prevent homelessness within the city.

 

The City Council also provided and supported:

-         employment training

-         advice services through the Customer Service Centre

-         employment advice for the homeless

-         start up support for social enterprises

-         a dedicated rough sleeper outreach team 

 

5. Councillor Dryden to the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places   

 

In March 2008 I first asked the question to the Council if we could reinstate the Holy Trinity War Memorial so it could be brought back into use for residents and visitors to Cambridge. In June 2010 it was finally agreed by the City Council that there was money now available to carry out this work so the War Memorial could be open to the public. We are in October 2011, how near are we now to opening up the Holy Trinity War Memorial to the general public?  

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places confirmed that, whilst funding had been secured, the project was complicated by the war memorial’s close proximity to a red cedar tree.

 

It was noted that after considering all options it was recommended that the tree be felled and as a result a large public consultation was undertaken. At meetings of both the Planning Committee and the Community Services Scrutiny Committee the option to fell was supported and contact was then made with the church landowners.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that discussions were ongoing with the landowner concerning proposed conditions of the felling and the issue would be resolved as soon as possible.  

 

6. Councillor O’Reilly to the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health

 

Is the Executive Councillor concerned that ending the live monitoring of CCTV at certain times could see a rise in crime during those hours?

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health confirmed that, based on professional officer advice given at the Community Services Scrutiny Committee, he did not feel that this would result in increased crime.

 

7. Councillor Wright to the Leader

 

What did the Council expend on consulting the public in the Council year May 2010 - May 2011 and on which areas of Council activity? How is the effectiveness of such consultations assessed?

 

The Leader confirmed that the Council consulted the public in many different ways on many different issues over the course of a year. This could include large-scale consultation programmes on major projects down to very informal discussions with residents on very local issues.

 

In the time available, officers had estimated that in the municipal year 2010-11 the City Council had spent approximately £77,000 on specific consultation activity across a wide range of services. The bulk of this was statutory consultation on planning matters, including advertising costs. This figure did not include costs associated with consultation on conservation areas.

 

The remainder was made up of a range of consultation activity from a variety of services including open space management, arts and recreation and housing services. It was noted however, that this figure did not include the cost of staff time managing procurement exercises or undertaking a wide variety of the informal consultation that took place as part of officers’ normal duties.

 

Similarly, the effectiveness of such consultations were assessed in a wide variety of methods ranging from independent external verification, as with consultation with tenants, through to a simple assessment of the number of responses.

 

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

 

8. Councillor Bird to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources

 

1. Why does the city centre management not work better with City Councillors when they take issues to them?

 

2. I would like to ask what is happening to stop and prevent sprawling street cafes expanding so far that they block both pavements and A Boards, which causes problems for wheelchair/pushchair access.

 

9. Councillor Dryden to the Leader

 

As a result of a VAT audit in May 2010 it was discovered that VAT had been omitted from rental invoices to Legion Group Plc between the period 1st October 2005 and 31st March 2010. The rental was for office accommodation at Mill Road depot under the Local Authority Parking Enforcement agreement. 

 

Most commercial rents are exempt from VAT, however the Council has the option to make a decision to 'Opt to Tax'. The Council took the decision to 'Opt to Tax' this part of the depot in March 2004 due to the impending refurbishment works of the offices. The invoices raised by City Services to Legion Group Plc should have included VAT of £8,142.75, but were unable to establish why the invoices were specifically raised as Exempt (without VAT).

 

In May 2010 a VAT only invoice for £8,142.75 was sent to Legion Group Plc with a covering letter explaining the omission. Legion Group Plc contacted the Council to request payment in 3 equal instalments between June and August 2010 to which was agreed.  The first payment of £2,714.25 was received on the 25th June 2010 reducing the debt to £5,428.50. However, Legion Group Plc subsequently entered Administration before any further payments were made.

 

A proof of debt was submitted to the Administrator, has the Council received any further payments yet?      

 

10. Councillor Owers to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

Can you update Council on the progress and the details of the proposal to roll out weekend cover for City Rangers?

 

11. Councillor Herbert to the Leader

 

Does she support the stance of city LibDem Councillor Geoffrey Heathcock in voting for a 25% increase in Councillor allowances at the County Council?

 

 

 

 

The Council considers the draft National Planning Policy Framework and related Localism Bill changes to be a dangerous threat to the power of local councils, residents and local organisations to shape their own communities.

 

In particular, we object to the proposed skewing in the 'presumption in favour of development', and the risk that this Government direction will favour sub-standard speculative developments in and around Cambridge.

 

The Council asks the Chief Executive to write to both Cambridge MPs expressing our opposition to the Government imposing this presumption, and to seek support from them and South Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire County councils to prevent this national direction overriding local choice and local decisions.

 

The Council also supports the publication of a clear timetable for a well consulted and thorough update to the 2006 Cambridge Local Plan, developed in parallel with South Cambridgeshire's revised plan, with both identifying clear site selection criteria and new strategic sites for sufficient affordable housing, including to minimise any threat from speculative sub-standard sites.

 

Councillor Herbert proposed and Councillor Blencowe seconded the following motion: 

“The Council considers the draft National Planning Policy Framework and related Localism Bill changes to be a dangerous threat to the power of local councils, residents and local organisations to shape their own communities.

 In particular, we object to the proposed skewing in the 'presumption in favour of development', and the risk that this Government direction will favour sub-standard speculative developments in and around Cambridge.

 The Council asks the Chief Executive to write to both Cambridge MPs expressing our opposition to the Government imposing this presumption, and to seek support from them and South Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire County councils to prevent this national direction overriding local choice and local decisions.

The Council also supports the publication of a clear timetable for a well consulted and thorough update to the 2006 Cambridge Local Plan, developed in parallel with South Cambridgeshire's revised plan, with both identifying clear site selection criteria and new strategic sites for sufficient affordable housing, including to minimise any threat from speculative sub-standard sites.”

 

Councillor Ward proposed and Councillor Saunders seconded the following amendment:

 

“The Council considers the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and related Localism Bill changes to be a threat to the power of local councils, residents and local organisations to shape their own communities.

 

In particular, we consider that ambiguities between the draft framework and the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' give rise to a risk of sub-standard speculative developments in and around Cambridge.

 

The Council notes that officers have written to both Cambridge MPs expressing our objections to the draft NPPF as agreed by the Development Plan Scrutiny Subcommittee. The Council requests the Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport to work with South Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire County councils to prevent this national direction overriding local choice and local decisions.

 

Recognising that the best defence of the city's interest is in a robust, evidence based set of planning policies, the Council also notes that it has in place a clear timetable for a well consulted and thorough update to the 2006 Cambridge Local Plan, developed in parallel with South Cambridgeshire's revised plan, with both identifying clear site selection criteria and new strategic sites for sufficient affordable housing, including to minimise any threat from speculative sub-standard sites, and reaffirms its NPPF consultation responses to the effect that there should be a clear transition arrangement to avoid any policy gap before the new plans come into effect.”

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 24 votes to 16

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0) that::

 

The Council considers the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and related Localism Bill changes to be a threat to the power of local councils, residents and local organisations to shape their own communities.

 

In particular, we consider that ambiguities between the draft framework and the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' give rise to a risk of sub-standard speculative developments in and around Cambridge.

 

The Council notes that officers have written to both Cambridge MPs expressing our objections to the draft NPPF as agreed by the Development Plan Scrutiny Subcommittee. The Council requests the Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport to work with South Cambridgeshire and Cambridgeshire County councils to prevent this national direction overriding local choice and local decisions.

 

Recognising that the best defence of the city's interest is in a robust, evidence based set of planning policies, the Council also notes that it has in place a clear timetable for a well consulted and thorough update to the 2006 Cambridge Local Plan, developed in parallel with South Cambridgeshire's revised plan, with both identifying clear site selection criteria and new strategic sites for sufficient affordable housing, including to minimise any threat from speculative sub-standard sites, and reaffirms its NPPF consultation responses to the effect that there should be a clear transition arrangement to avoid any policy gap before the new plans come into effect.

The Council notes the extent of street drinking and drug-taking within Cambridge, and that it is a problem on the rise, particularly in the Mitcham's Corner area, on Norfolk Street, Mill Road, Burleigh Street, Barnwell Road but also at other locations across the city.

 

The Council endorses a balanced approach to this problem, which addresses the human cost, as well as public order aspects and the intimidatory effect that the behaviour of some street-drinkers and drug-takers can have on the public.

 

The Council calls upon the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health to bring a report to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee that outlines, in consultation with key sections of the community, measures to tackle the problem including:

 

-         effective policies to ensure that street-drinkers and drug-takers get the rehabilitation and wider support they need.

 

-         robust measures to ensure that local police have the powers and discretion to deal with the public order problems that arise from the problematic behaviour of some street drinkers and drug-takers. 

Councillor Owers proposed and Councillor Benstead seconded the following motion: 

“The Council notes the extent of street drinking and drug-taking within Cambridge, and that it is a problem on the rise, particularly in the Mitcham's Corner area, on Norfolk Street, Mill Road, Burleigh Street, Barnwell Road but also at other locations across the city.

The Council endorses a balanced approach to this problem, which addresses the human cost, as well as public order aspects and the intimidatory effect that the behaviour of some street-drinkers and drug-takers can have on the public.

The Council calls upon the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health to bring a report to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee that outlines, in consultation with key sections of the community, measures to tackle the problem including:

-         effective policies to ensure that street-drinkers and drug-takers get the rehabilitation and wider support they need.

-         robust measures to ensure that local police have the powers and discretion to deal with the public order problems that arise from the problematic behaviour of some street drinkers and drug-takers.  

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Smart seconded the following amendment:

“The Council notes the extent of street drinking and drug-taking within Cambridge, particularly in the Mitcham's Corner area, on Norfolk Street, Mill Road, Burleigh Street, Barnwell Road but also at other locations across the city.

The Council endorses a balanced approach to this problem, which addresses the human cost, as well as public order aspects and the intimidatory effect that the behaviour of some street-drinkers and drug-takers can have on the public.

The council notes that:

(1) a report on the work to support individuals away from a street life based on substance abuse on the part of the Council and other statutory and voluntary agencies has been recently presented to both West-Central and East Area Committees and equally can be taken to South and North Area Committees if requested;

(2) subsequent to this report the crucial position of Alcohol Community Psychiatric Nurse within the Street Outreach team has been secured from the Council's current budget; a new pilot project on Chronic Exclusion has begun and a new daytime assessment facility at Jimmy's will soon be opened - both enabled by Council investment;

(3) although there have been encouraging reductions in rough sleeping, positive impact from our Reconnections Policy and with the engagement of drinkers in detox programmes, this work does not lend itself to quick fixes and much of it will only bear long term results if supported and maintained consistently and steadfastly;
 

(4) the Council has taken firm control of alcohol licensing, using the Cumulative Impact powers under the Licensing Act;

(5) while this remains a serious problem which the council and others must continue to prioritise, the evidence from the Police and the Street Outreach Team does not support alarmist statements that it is increasing in total across the city beyond established seasonal fluctuation;

(6) that the Police possess significant powers to protect the public which have recently been complemented by s27 of the Violent Crime & Disorder Act. And that these can be further extended by evidence-based requests to the council for dispersal orders under s30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, which we have always agreed in the past, but for which no requests have been received since January 2010;

(7) that care is needed to apply Police powers to behaviour which equates to the actual commission of offences (such as intimidation) - which should be addressed robustly - rather than to judgemental views of different lifestyles or appearances.

The Council resolves:

(1) to continue our intensive and successful working at all levels with other agencies and specialist voluntary sector organisations, particularly the Police and the Street Outreach team, on the various aspects of this problem;

(2) to encourage the police to improve public reporting of incidents by increasing awareness of what constitutes an offence; and to consider reviews of licenses to sell alcohol where evidence supports and to work in closer collaboration with Licensing Authority;

(3) to call on members to take account of this issue in shaping neighbourhood policing priorities, the consideration of licensing applications and streetscape design; and to note the possibility that Safer City grants can assist residents’ groups in securing hidden areas;

(4) to highlight the availability to Ward Councillors of the services of our Community Safety Team to facilitate multi-agency conferences on specific locations of concern.

 

(5) to supplement ongoing Area Committee monitoring of streetlife issues by considering biennial reviews of the streetlife issues at the Community Resources Scrutiny Committee starting from autumn 2012.”

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 24 votes to 15

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0) that:

 

The Council notes the extent of street drinking and drug-taking within Cambridge, particularly in the Mitcham's Corner area, on Norfolk Street, Mill Road, Burleigh Street, Barnwell Road but also at other locations across the city.

The Council endorses a balanced approach to this problem, which addresses the human cost, as well as public order aspects and the intimidatory effect that the behaviour of some street-drinkers and drug-takers can have on the public.

 

The council notes that:

 

(1) a report on the work to support individuals away from a street life based on substance abuse on the part of the Council and other statutory and voluntary agencies has been recently presented to both West-Central and East Area Committees and equally can be taken to South and North Area Committees if requested;

(2) subsequent to this report the crucial position of Alcohol Community Psychiatric Nurse within the Street Outreach team has been secured from the Council's current budget; a new pilot project on Chronic Exclusion has begun and a new daytime assessment facility at Jimmy's will soon be opened - both enabled by Council investment;

(3) although there have been encouraging reductions in rough sleeping, positive impact from our Reconnections Policy and with the engagement of drinkers in detox programmes, this work does not lend itself to quick fixes and much of it will only bear long term results if supported and maintained consistently and steadfastly;
 

(4) the Council has taken firm control of alcohol licensing, using the Cumulative Impact powers under the Licensing Act;

(5) while this remains a serious problem which the council and others must continue to prioritise, the evidence from the Police and the Street Outreach Team does not support alarmist statements that it is increasing in total across the city beyond established seasonal fluctuation;

(6) that the Police possess significant powers to protect the public which have recently been complemented by s27 of the Violent Crime & Disorder Act. And that these can be further extended by evidence-based requests to the council for dispersal orders under s30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, which we have always agreed in the past, but for which no requests have been received since January 2010;

 

(7) that care is needed to apply Police powers to behaviour which equates to the actual commission of offences (such as intimidation) - which should be addressed robustly - rather than to judgemental views of different lifestyles or appearances.

 

The council resolves:

(1) to continue our intensive and successful working at all levels with other agencies and specialist voluntary sector organisations, particularly the Police and the Street Outreach team, on the various aspects of this problem;

 (2) to encourage the police to improve public reporting of incidents by increasing awareness of what constitutes an offence; and to consider reviews of licenses to sell alcohol where evidence supports and to work in closer collaboration with Licensing Authority;

(3) to call on members to take account of this issue in shaping neighbourhood policing priorities, the consideration of licensing applications and streetscape design; and to note the possibility that Safer City grants can assist residents’ groups in securing hidden areas;

 

(4) to highlight the availability to Ward Councillors of the services of our Community Safety Team to facilitate multi-agency conferences on specific locations of concern.

 

(5) to supplement ongoing Area Committee monitoring of streetlife issues by considering biennial reviews of the streetlife issues at the Community Resources Scrutiny Committee starting from autumn 2012.

The Council is committed to working to end the unacceptable hassling of residents and visitors in 2011 by swarms of punt touts, including on Market Square and King's Parade.

 

The Council asks the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources to bring a report to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee, in consultation with the Conservators of the River Cam following their recent initiatives, and the police, to propose a package of initiatives with the aim of

 

-         limiting touting in central Cambridge, including considering how to restrict it to only to the riverbank

-         ensuring any touts are trained in customer service and stop harassing people

-         using Anti Social Behaviour Orders to control touts who create a significant nuisance

-         ensuring effective joint working by the Council, Conservators, police and others to sort out this problem, and ensure that punting is once again a fun attraction for the city.

Councillor Price proposed and Councillor Moghadas seconded the following motion: 

“The Council is committed to working to end the unacceptable hassling of residents and visitors in 2011 by swarms of punt touts, including on Market Square and King's Parade.

The Council asks the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources to bring a report to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee, in consultation with the Conservators of the River Cam following their recent initiatives, and the police, to propose a package of initiatives with the aim of

-         limiting touting in central Cambridge, including considering how to restrict it to only to the riverbank

-         ensuring any touts are trained in customer service and stop harassing people

-         using Anti Social Behaviour Orders to control touts who create a significant nuisance

-         ensuring effective joint working by the Council, Conservators, police and others to sort out this problem, and ensure that punting is once again a fun attraction for the city.”

 

Councillor McGovern proposed and Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded the following amendment:

“The Council is committed to working to end the unacceptable hassling of residents and visitors in 2011 by swarms of punt touts, including on Market Square and King's Parade.

The Council notes the report that went to West Central Area Committee on 28^th April, and the progress report due to go to the committee on 3^rd November, which will report the work in hand by the council and with partners to limit touting including:

 

·        Assessing the degree to which punt touting on King’s Parade is detrimental to the visitor/resident experience.

·        Assessing whether the ownership of the land by Garrett Hostel Bridge, which is used for embarkation, can be identified.

·        Exploring with the County Council about how they might use any powers of control they have as a highway authority

·        Supporting the Cam Conservators in the development of new policies

·        Developing new ticket sales policies through Visit Cambridge, linked to a new code of conduct

·        Reviewing legal powers available to the Council to control touting

 

The Council warmly welcomes the Cam Conservators decision of the 29^th September that persons seeking to register hire punts must meet the requirements of working from a suitable site, so that businesses operating from Garret Hostel Lane will not be granted a commercial license.”

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 24 votes to 16

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0) that:

The Council is committed to working to end the unacceptable hassling of residents and visitors in 2011 by swarms of punt touts, including on Market Square and King's Parade.

The Council notes the report that went to West Central Area Committee on 28^th April, and the progress report due to go to the committee on 3^rd November, which will report the work in hand by the council and with partners to limit touting including:

 

·        Assessing the degree to which punt touting on King’s Parade is detrimental to the visitor/resident experience.

·        Assessing whether the ownership of the land by Garrett Hostel Bridge, which is used for embarkation, can be identified.

·        Exploring with the County Council about how they might use any powers of control they have as a highway authority

·        Supporting the Cam Conservators in the development of new policies

·        Developing new ticket sales policies through Visit Cambridge, linked to a new code of conduct

·        Reviewing legal powers available to the Council to control touting

 

The Council warmly welcomes the Cam Conservators decision of the 29^th September that persons seeking to register hire punts must meet the requirements of working from a suitable site, so that businesses operating from Garret Hostel Lane will not be granted a commercial license.

 

 

 

 

No discussion will take place on this item. Members will be asked to note the written questions and answers document as circulated around the Chamber.

 

Members noted the written questions and answers circulated around the Chamber.