Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Martin Whelan Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Mayor opened
the meeting with a minutes’ silence in memory of the late Margaret
Wright, who served as an Abbey Ward Councillor between 2008 and 2012. Members spoke in tribute to Margaret Wright. The Leader of the Council confirmed that a
member’s panel, made up of one member from each party, would be established to
agree a fitting memorial. Consultation would be undertaken with all members,
key officers and Margaret Wright’s family |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the Extra-Ordinary meeting held on 24 May 2012 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor. With minor
amendments to minute items 12/21/CNL, 12/22/CNL and 12/31/CNL (see attached at
appendix 1) the minutes of the Annual
Meeting held on 24 May 2012 were confirmed as a correct
record and signed by the Mayor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mayors Announcements Minutes: 1. Apologies Apologies were received from Councillors Bird, Hipkin and
Pogonowski. 2. Cambridge/Heildelberg/Montpellier
Youth Orchestra The Mayor confirmed that the 50th anniversary
of the Cambridge/Heidelberg/Montpellier Youth Orchestra would be celebrated in
Heidelberg over the weekend of 3/5 August 2012. 3. Mayor’s
Day Out The Mayor confirmed that the Mayor’s Day Out to Great
Yarmouth would take place on Monday 10th September 2012. Any Councillor wishing to steward a coach
should contact the Arts and Entertainments Team as soon as possible. 4. Cambridge
Open Weekend The Mayor confirmed that the City Council had again joined
with the University of Cambridge to participate in the Open Cambridge weekend.
The Council Chamber and civic suite would be open to the public on Friday 7th
and Saturday 8th September 2012 with a timed talk about the civic
insignia on both dates. 5. Harvest
Festival Civic Service The Mayor confirmed that the Harvest Festival Civic
Service would take place on Sunday 21st October at 9.30 a.m. at Great St.
Mary’s Church. 6. Fund
raising event for the Cambridge Women’s Resource Centre. The Mayor confirmed that she would be hosting a fund
raising event for the Cambridge Women’s Resource Centre at the Guildhall on
Wednesday 17 October 2012.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Questions Time Minutes: No questions were received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider recommendations of the Executive for Adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Treasury Management report 2011/12 (The Leader) PDF 11 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to:
i.
Approve the Annual Treasury Management Report 2011/12, which
included reporting of the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators
for 2011/12.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to:
i.
Agree carry forward requests, totalling £632,970, as detailed in
Appendix C of the officer’s report, subject to the final outturn position. Note: Appendix C of the officer’s report contained an item for £16,000 -
Food and Occupational Safety - which was incorrectly listed in the
Environmental & Waste Services portfolio. Therefore this carry forward will
be transferred to Community Development & Health budgets for 2012/13. ii.
Carry forward (net) capital resources to fund re-phased
capital spending of £8,872,000 as shown in Appendix D of the officer’s report -
Overview. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to: i. Approve a budget allocation for the proposed Joint Management Vehicle of up to £100k from 2027 onwards and that this be included in the Council’s Medium Term Strategy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider recommendations of Committees for Adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joint Meeting of Civic Affairs and Standards Committee - 27 June 2012 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recommendations in full PDF 33 KB Minutes: The Head of Legal Services introduced the item and responded to member’s questions. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notification and Declaration of Members Interests PDF 59 KB Minutes: Resolved (unanimously):
i.
That, pending the appointment of an “Independent
Person”, the Monitoring Officer is authorised to determine applications for
dispensations to speak and or vote from members with declarable pecuniary or
other Code of Conduct interests, subject to the Monitoring Officer first
consulting the Chair and Opposition spokesperson for Civic Affairs. ii.
That the Monitoring Officer shall consult the
Independent Person, when appointed, before determining applications for
dispensations, as well as the Chair and Opposition Spokesperson for Civic
Affairs (or appropriate alternative councillor if either is directly affected).
iii.
That the Monitoring Officer is authorised to deal with
applications for dispensations at short notice, where it is not practical to
consult the Independent Person, Chair or Opposition Spokesperson subject to the
decision being reported to members of Civic Affairs Committee thereafter. iv.
That the Civic Affairs Committee keeps this arrangement
under review. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adoption of a new Code of Conduct for Members PDF 42 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (by 28 votes to 0) to:
i.
Adopt the Code of Conduct set out in Appendix 1 of the
report to Civic Affairs Committee on 27 June 2012. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Appointment of an Independent Person PDF 50 KB Minutes: Resolved (unanimously) to:
i.
Appoint one
Independent Person and one deputy, and that the appointment process is
advertised in the press, as well as on the Council’s website. ii.
Agree that the
Independent Person is paid an annual allowance of £1,000 and that the Deputy is
paid an annual allowance of £500. iii.
Agree that the
appointments are made for a three year term but with appointments subject to
annual ratification at the Annual Meeting of the Council. iv.
Agree the
selection criteria and role description annexed to the report to Civic Affairs
Committee on 27 June 2012.
v.
Agree that a
member panel is appointed to recommend appointments to the Council.
vi.
Agree that the
Monitoring Officer is authorised to take such reasonable steps as he considers
necessary to implement these recommendations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Considering Complaints and Governance PDF 58 KB Minutes: Councillor Boyce proposed
the following amendment to recommendation iv. of the officer’s report: iv. Agree that the Civic Affairs Committee is invited to appoint Standards Sub-Committees (2 LD + 2Lab) to
consider complaints (as outlined in Appendix 2 of the officer’s report), On a show of hands this was
approved unanimously. Resolved (unanimously) to:
i.
Agree that a
direct replacement for the Standards Committee is not appointed and that the
Civic Affairs Committee is made responsible for promoting high standards of
conduct by members and officers, for overseeing the procedure for considering
complaints against councillors, and for any other aspect of promoting or
regulating standards in local government that do not fall within the remit of
the Executive or another regulatory committee. ii.
Agree that the Council
amends the terms of reference for the Civic Affairs Committee as set out in
Appendix 1 of the officer’s report to Civic Affairs Committee on 27 June 2012,
and that references to the Standards Committee are deleted. iii.
Agree that the procedure
for considering complaints against councillors set out in Appendix 2 of the
officer’s report is adopted as amended. iv.
Agree that the Civic
Affairs Committee is invited to appoint
Standards Sub-Committees (2 LD + 2Lab) to consider complaints (as
outlined in Appendix 2 of the officer’s report). v.
Agree that the
arrangements proposed are reviewed by the Civic Affairs Committee in 12 months’
time. vi.
Thank the external
members of the Standards Committee for their contribution to the work of the
Council in promoting and maintaining ethical standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Civic Affairs Committee - 27 June 2012 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Code of Corporate Governance 2012 PDF 17 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (unanimously) to: i.
Approve the
Code of Corporate Governance set out at pages 175 to 195 of the Council agenda. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To deal with Oral Questions PDF 401 KB Minutes: 1. Councillor Moghadas to the Executive Councillor for Arts,
Sport and Public Places Having made a big media splash on 13th July,
Cambridge Evening News, what assurances can the Executive Councillor provide to
the future funding and timescale of the Romsey Beach Resort? The Executive Councillor
responded that the City Council encouraged project ideas from the local
community and was committed to helping progress these projects where possible.
It was noted that the idea of a Romsey Beach Resort had been put forward by a
local resident and was a genuinely inspiring project idea. However issues such
as land ownership, health and safety concerns and the location of the wildlife
site meant it was a complex issue. The Executive Councillor stated
that, whilst the project was in the early stages of development, he hoped that
in the future residents would be enjoying a facility such as this. 2. Councillor
Pitt to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change Does the Executive Councillor join me in welcoming
the recent announcement from the Government that they are to simplify the
introduction of 20mph limits in urban areas? The Executive Councillor
responded that new government guidance released in July 2012 would assist the
Council to regulate 20mph zones in the City. The guidance offered more options
to local authorities and greater scope to control costs. 3. Councillor
Blackhurst to the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places Could the Executive
Councillor provide the Council with an update on developer contribution
projects in the southern part of the city? The Executive Councillor
confirmed that it was the strategy of the Council to provide developer
contribution projects across all 14 wards within the city. It was noted that
projects in the south of the City had included improvements to Nightingale
Recreation Ground and Cherry Hinton Hall. Current projects included improved
changing facilities at Cherry Hinton Village Hall at a cost of £65,000, and the
Trumpington ‘Electronic Play’ scheme at a cost of £35,000. 4. Councillor Hart
to the Executive Councillor for Housing Can the Executive
Councillor for Housing please state what was the annual budget for fencing
repairs in Abbey and citywide last year and this year? The Executive Councillor responded that the City wide budget for last year was £196,403, of which the value of fencing spent in Abbey Ward was £46,093.23. However, maintenance and investment budgets were not normally prepared on a ward basis. It was noted that the City wide budget for 2012-13 was £54,000. The Executive Councillor
confirmed that the Housing Asset Management Team were currently examining the
possibility of front loading the current year fencing programme by bringing
forward future years programmes so as to reflect increased levels of repairs
identified by expanding the scope of survey work undertaken prior to cyclical
redecoration. It was noted that fencing
did not form part of Decent Homes work and was therefore not captured by HHSRS
(Decent Homes) surveys. 5.
Councillor Herbert to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change Which
Executive Councillor(s) made the decision on the planned apportionment of
affordable housing on the University-led NW Cambridge development, and on what
date and how was the decision taken and reported to Councillors, and what were
the detailed proposed %s to be allocated to people in different categories of
housing need ahead of any planning application? The Executive Councillor
confirmed that as part of the pre-application process a number of briefings had
taken place. These had included housing specific sessions on both 8 October
2010 and 21 December 2010. It was noted that, whilst no
formal sign-off was required by an Executive Councillor, consultation had been
undertaken at the time with the Executive Councillor for Climate Change and
Growth and the Executive Councillor for Housing. The Executive Councillor
confirmed that the 50% allocation had been recommended by an independent consultant,
and formally agreed through the Environment Scrutiny Committee in 2009. 6. Councillor
Benstead to the Executive Councillor for Housing Does the Executive
Councillor agree that it is important to foster community spirit on the
estates, which the council has responsibility for? The Executive
Councillor responded that Community Development Officers worked in Council
owned estates in liaison with Housing Officers. Examples of this
work included: -
Hanover and Princes Court in Trumpington: work with residents to improve
the area and bring people together including planting schemes, jubilee events
and discussions about whether a small community facility could be delivered. -
Thorpe Way area in Abbey and Nuns Way area in Kings Hedges: ChYpPS
activities for local young people. 7. Councillor Kerr to the Executive
Councillor for Community Development and Health What progress have
officers made in investigating ways for the Council to enable more people in
Cambridge to access credit unions? The Executive Councillor
responded that, alongside Officers, he had met with the two Credit Unions
operating in the City - Rainbow Saver Anglia Credit Union (operating primarily
in Cherry Hinton as Cambridge Rainbow Savers) and Cambridge Credit Union
(operating primarily in the north of the City from City Homes North Office). It
was noted that both Credit Unions expressed a desire to raise their profiles
and make their services more accessible to Cambridge residents, and both had
suggested ways that the Council could assist them. The Credit Unions had also
expressed the willingness to work together so that resources could be shared
where possible. It was noted that Officers were
currently preparing a proposal for discussion with members of all parties and
the Credit Unions. This was likely to include things such as: ·
Help with promoting their services ·
Promotion of their services to staff and members ·
Help to encourage volunteers to come forward ·
Help with finding locations for them to operate ·
Considering whether the Customer Service Centre and City
Homes South are suitable locations The Executive Councillor
confirmed that the Head of Community Development was hoping to bring a detailed
report to Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January setting out any
formal proposals for approval. 8. Councillor
Kightley to the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places Does the Executive
Councillor believe that the Olympic Torch Relay was a success for Cambridge? The Executive Councillor
responded that the Olympic Torch Relay event had been a great success for
Cambridge. It had been the largest outdoor event ever held in the City with an
attendance of over 120,000, with no major incidents or arrests recorded. The
event had been voted one of the top 3 relay events in the country by LOCOG and
cost less that £1 for every person that had attended. The Executive Councillor
confirmed that the cost would be covered equally between the City Council and
the County Council. 9.
Councillor Dryden to the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places Could
you please give us the reasons why the Cherry Hinton members of the City
Council were not consulted this year concerning the new arrangements with the
Folk Festival when you publicly stated you had strong
political backing?
The Executive Councillor
confirmed that the City Council were committed to enhancing and promoting the
Folk Festival for both local residents and those from outside the area. It was noted that the Executive
Councillor had not issued a public statement regarding this year’s event, but
had simply responded to a request for a comment from the Cambridge Evening
News. The Executive Councillor
confirmed that sponsorship from both the Co-Op and BBC Television had been withdrawn
for this year’s event, and the only current media provider on offer was Sky
Arts. Whilst it was confirmed that
Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors had been consulted on extending the closure of
the park, it was acknowledged that further consultation could have been
undertaken on some of the wider issues. The Executive Councillor confirmed that
he had met with Ward Councillors on this issue and that further discussions
would take place. 10. Councillor
Price to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources In 2008 the Council used its enforcement
powers to end commercial punting from its land on Jesus Green. Will it now use
the same powers to prevent commercial punting from the slipway it now owns at
Garrett Hostel Bridge? The Executive
Councillor responded that whilst a decision had been taken by the Leader in
2008 to approve enforcement action at Jesus Green, ownership issues around
Garret Hostel Lane had caused complications. However in February 2012 the Land
Registry had recognised the City Council’s property rights by registering its
title. In September 2011
the Cam Conservators had decided only to register commercial punts operating
from authorised punt stations, and with the express permission of the riparian
owners. Garret Hostel Lane was not an authorised punt station and commercial
punts using it were in breach of the Conservators’ byelaws. However this had
failed to stop the use of Garret Hostel Lane and the punt trade had continued. The Executive
Councillor said that the City Council was taking legal advice with a view to
asserting its property rights over the Garret Hostel Lane site and stopping the
unauthorised use by punt operators. The following Oral Questions were
also tabled, but owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted, were not
replied to during the meeting. The Mayor asked Executive Councillors to supply
written responses to these questions: 11. Councillor McPherson to the Leader I hope the Council
will agree with me that road safety is of vital importance as much in our
county and City as it is across the rest of the country. Could I ask the
Leader therefore if he will join with me in using his considerable influence at
county level to ensure that the post of Casualty Reduction Officer for
Cambridgeshire is not reassigned as a 'staff position' (that is 'civilianised)
within Cambridgeshire Constabulary, as may well be the case at the next Police
Authority meeting. The influence on young divers and riders especially is far
greater when advised and instructed by a 'Warranted Police Officer' in this
role than is likely from someone in a civilian capacity however competent,
dedicated and able that person may be. 12. Councillor
Johnson to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources Can the Executive
Councillor for Customer Services and Resources explain why the proposed
Cambridge Business Improvement District plan by Love Cambridge failed to
properly consult with residents? The following response
was provided outside of the meeting and has been requested for inclusion: “Love Cambridge
secured the funding for the BID proposal but is not itself developing the
proposal, which is being led by a BID Development Manager and a taskforce. Some members of Love Cambridge are not part
of the BID area, while the task force includes businesses that are outside Love
Cambridge. The taskforce has
sought to consult widely with local businesses, as they would be liable for the
business levy should the BID ballot lead to the creation of a BID. While some task force members have spoken to
residents, they do not generally perceive a need to do so, precisely because as
this is a business initiative, as the name implies, and residents will not pay
the levy. However, to enhance transparency, I am happy to ask the BID taskforce
to find a way of sharing their plans with the public and getting feedback. In addition, I suggested at the last
Strategy and Resources meeting that there should be an extraordinary S&R
meeting to discuss the proposals when they are known.” 13. Councillor Reiner
to the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places What is the
Executive Councillor's view of the decision of the Heritage Lottery Fund not to
support the Jesus Green bid? 14. Councillor Boyce to the Executive
Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places Could the Executive Councillor comment on
the possibility of the City hosting the Tour de France? 15. Councillor Moghadas to the Executive Councillor for Arts,
Sport and Public Places As a third of the £129 000 spent on the Olympic Community
Arts Project was Council funds, can the Executive Councillor explain why there
was no secure storage provision for the giant puppets in Cambridge, resulting
in them being stored in Brighton? 16. Councillor McPherson to the Leader After the recent
publication over last weekend of the fiasco that has befallen G4S in attempting
to create a Security structure for the coming Olympic games: Can the Leader seek to reassure us that he
will use all means at his disposal to halt the plans by the Chief Constable of
Cambridge Constabulary to out-source many support posts and even front line
posts such as dog section to G4S and recognise that although savings must be
made this may not now be the most effective way of making them. 17.
Councillor Herbert to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and
Resources Will
the Executive Councillor ensure that the River Cam, Parker's Piece, Christ's
Pieces and all publicly owned spaces in the City Centre are deleted from the
area of responsibility of the proposed Business Improvement District? The following response was provided outside of the meeting and has been
requested for inclusion: “Like Councillor
Herbert and I, the BID development manager was present at the Strategy and
Resources Committee where members made clear their concerns about the area
covered, particularly the green open spaces and the River Cam. For the avoidance
of doubt, inclusion of a public space in a BID area would not privatise that space nor would it become the ‘responsibility’
of the BID. A BID can spend money to
augment existing amenities, but it must not, according to the legislation
introduced by the last Labour government, supplant the existing contribution of
the local authority; nor would the governance of the public space change. I did wonder
whether in order to benefit from any enhancements the open spaces and river
needed to be within the BID area. However, I have been informed that this is
not the case and am therefore very happy to write to the BID manager to request
that the river and the public open spaces be excluded from the BID. I do not, however, think that all publicly
owned spaces should by definition be removed from the BID area, the aim of
which, after all, is to improve an area and hence should be welcome.” |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the following Notices of Motion, notice of which has been given by: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Ward This
council agrees to sign up to the Local Government Association's Climate Local
commitment as the successor to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change to
which the council signed up in 2006: Our
commitment to taking action in a changing climate. We
recognise that our council has an important role to help our residents and
businesses to capture the opportunities and benefits of action on climate
change. These include saving money on energy bills, generating income from renewable
energy, attracting new jobs and investment in 'green' industries, supporting
new sources of energy, managing local flood-risk and water scarcity and
protecting our natural environment. We
will progressively address the risks and pursue the opportunities presented by
a changing climate, in line with local priorities, through our role as: - Community leader - helping local people and businesses to be smarter about their energy use and to prepare for climate impacts; - Service provider - delivering services that are resource efficient, less carbon intensive, resilient and that protect those who are most vulnerable to climate impacts; -
Estate manager - ensuring that our own buildings and
operations are resource efficient, use clean energy, and are well prepared for
the impacts of a changing climate. In
signing this commitment, we will: - Set locally-owned and determined commitments and actions to reduce carbon emissions and to manage climate impacts. These will be specific, measurable and challenging; - Publish our commitments, actions and progress, enabling local communities to hold us to account; - Share the learning from our experiences and achievements with other councils; and -
Regularly refresh our commitments and actions to ensure
they are current and continue to reflect local priorities. Minutes: Councillor Ward proposed
and Councillor Reid seconded the following motion: “This council agrees to sign up to the Local Government Association's Climate Local commitment as the successor to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change to which the council signed up in 2006: Our commitment to taking action in a changing climate. We recognise that our council has an important role to help our residents and businesses to capture the opportunities and benefits of action on climate change. These include saving money on energy bills, generating income from renewable energy, attracting new jobs and investment in 'green' industries, supporting new sources of energy, managing local flood-risk and water scarcity and protecting our natural environment. We will progressively address the risks and pursue the opportunities presented by a changing climate, in line with local priorities, through our role as: - Community leader - helping local people and businesses to be smarter about their energy use and to prepare for climate impacts; - Service provider - delivering services that are resource efficient, less carbon intensive, resilient and that protect those who are most vulnerable to climate impacts; - Estate manager - ensuring that our own buildings and operations are resource efficient, use clean energy, and are well prepared for the impacts of a changing climate. In signing this commitment, we will: - Set locally-owned and determined commitments and actions to reduce carbon emissions and to manage climate impacts. These will be specific, measurable and challenging; - Publish our commitments, actions and progress, enabling local communities to hold us to account; - Share the learning from our experiences and achievements with other councils; and - Regularly refresh our commitments and actions to ensure they are current and continue to reflect local priorities.” Resolved (unanimously) that the motion be agreed as set out above. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Herbert The Council considers that its decision-making processes
need updating, along with wider aspects of its Constitution. It therefore asks the Chief Executive to establish a Member
Review Panel to conduct the review and report to Civic Affairs Committee, so
improvements can be implemented then and at the next Council AGM, and that the
Panel be asked to: - identify issues needing review, including the Executive Councillor/Committee split - investigate potential areas of agreement between the parties on the council - review how the role and contribution of individual Councillors can be increased, and -
assess further improvements to public involvement
including webcasting of key meetings.
Minutes: Councillor Herbert proposed and Councillor Owers seconded the following motion: “The Council considers that its decision-making processes need updating, along with wider aspects of its Constitution. It therefore asks the Chief Executive to establish a Member Review Panel to conduct the review and report to Civic Affairs Committee, so improvements can be implemented then and at the next Council AGM, and that the Panel be asked to: - identify issues needing review, including the Executive Councillor/Committee split - investigate potential areas of agreement between the parties on the council - review how the role and contribution of individual Councillors can be increased, and - assess further improvements to public involvement including webcasting of key meetings. On a show of hands the motion was lost by 18 votes to 21.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Duration of the meeting Resolved at 10.30pm under Council Procedure Rule 10.1 that the meeting not be adjourned. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Marchant-Daisley The Council urges local residents, organisations and
businesses to make full use of the last week of consultation on the Cambridge
Local Plan 'Issues and Options report' to 2031. We want all sections of the
community to have a voice in the Local Plan review and in shaping future
decisions. The Council recognizes that major challenges will be raised
in responses to the city and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan consultations that
require an overall plan for major developments in the Cambridge area including:
- to expand jobs and education and skills - the building of badly needed additional market and affordable housing - vital transport and wider improvements, and -
protecting the best features of our area and
environment, and that these major issues can only be effectively
addressed by the City, South Cambridgeshire and the County Council implementing
integrated planning consultation and decision making. The Council asks the Leader to instigate urgent member and
officer meetings with the two other councils to maximise integration and: a) create one integrated, transparent and robust decision
making process on the two Local Plan reviews, learning from other city region
joint decision making like the Greater Norwich Development Partnerships b) Ensure the same consultation timings for both the two
reviews and transport strategy consultations c) add an evidence base on combined Cambridge area
projections on employment, housing and transport needs for 2020 and 2030,
including to quantify unmet needs, and d) investigate the potential to develop plans for a 'Cambridge City region' including a
potential 'City Deal' bid to Government for extra powers and investment and
infrastructure options.
Minutes: Councillor Marchant-Daisley proposed and Councillor Herbert seconded the following motion: “The Council urges local residents, organisations and businesses to make full use of the last week of consultation on the Cambridge Local Plan 'Issues and Options report' to 2031. We want all sections of the community to have a voice in the Local Plan review and in shaping future decisions.
The Council recognizes that major challenges will be raised in responses to the city and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan consultations that require an overall plan for major developments in the Cambridge area including: - to expand jobs and education and skills - the building of badly needed additional market and affordable housing - vital transport and wider improvements, and - protecting the best features of our area and environment,
and that these major issues can only be effectively addressed by the City, South Cambridgeshire and the County Council implementing integrated planning consultation and decision making.
The Council asks the Leader to instigate urgent member and officer meetings with the two other councils to maximise integration and:
a) create one integrated, transparent and robust decision making process on the two Local Plan reviews, learning from other city region joint decision making like the Greater Norwich Development Partnerships
b) Ensure the same consultation timings for both the two reviews and transport strategy consultations
c) add an evidence base on combined Cambridge area projections on employment, housing and transport needs for 2020 and 2030, including to quantify unmet needs, and
d) investigate the potential to develop plans for a 'Cambridge City region' including a potential 'City Deal' bid to Government for extra powers and investment and infrastructure options.
Councillor Ward proposed and Councillor Kightley seconded the following
amendment: Delete from paragraph starting “and that these major issues
…” to end. Then insert at end: “The
Council further recognises that - South Cambridgeshire District Council have stated that it is neither necessary nor practical to speed up their local plan review process sufficiently to match the City Council’s dates -
To delay the
City Council’s local plan review process to match South Cambridgeshire District
Council’s dates would run the risk of opening up a policy vacuum which could be
exploited by developers to promote inappropriate development in and around
Cambridge. The Council endorses the objective of achieving alongside
South Cambridgeshire District Council two complementary local plans which make
sense whether taken separately or together, supported by a consistent transport
strategy enabled by Cambridgeshire County Council, but it fails to see why this
can only be achieved by surrendering local decision-making upwards. It notes
the machinery already established through which the City Council, along with
other authorities, will seek to discharge their legal duty to co-operate: -
The County
Council is preparing its Transport Strategy on a trajectory to match with the two
Districts’ plans and is consulting on transport planning alongside the
districts’ local plan Issues and Options consultations (there was no comparable
transport strategy underpinning the 2006 Local Plan). -
The City
Council, the County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council have set
up a Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and
Cambridgeshire County Council Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group to
co-ordinate planning activities in the Cambridge area, and this body has
committed to a shared process and consultation on the “broad locations for
development” around Cambridge. The current issues and options consultation will
be followed by a joint ‘fringe sites’ consultation before Christmas. -
The County
Council along with all the districts and Peterborough City Council have agreed
and contributed to the setting up of the Cambridgeshire Joint Planning unit and
set up a Strategic Planning & Transport Joint Member Group to co-ordinate
evidence preparation and strategic planning across the county. -
Officers of
the councils are working closely together to support this joined-up plan making
process. Key parts of the evidence base have been jointly commissioned (e.g.
the infrastructure study and the Employment Land review) and there is
significant day to day working going on. The Council further notes and endorses the
work already under way in conjunction with our partner authorities to
investigate the potential for the Cambridge City Region to attract devolved
powers from central government to facilitate its contribution to national
economic growth in the manner of the recent "city deals" with the 8
core cities. The Council asks the Executive to (a) Ensure
that officers and members continue to work closely with partner councils to
deliver as joined-up a spatial and transport planning process as is practical. (b) Continue
work on the City Deal concept and if it appears to add value to our objectives
within the area, to bring forward a bid to central government.” On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 21 votes to 18. Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) that: The Council urges local residents, organisations and businesses to make full use of the last week of consultation on the Cambridge Local Plan 'Issues and Options report' to 2031. We want all sections of the community to have a voice in the Local Plan review and in shaping future decisions.
The Council recognizes that major challenges will be raised in responses to the city and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan consultations that require an overall plan for major developments in the Cambridge area including: - to expand jobs and education and skills - the building of badly needed additional market and affordable housing - vital transport and wider improvements, and - protecting the best features of our area and environment,
The
Council further recognises that - South Cambridgeshire District Council have stated that it is neither necessary nor practical to speed up their local plan review process sufficiently to match the City Council’s dates -
To delay the
City Council’s local plan review process to match South Cambridgeshire District
Council’s dates would run the risk of opening up a policy vacuum which could be
exploited by developers to promote inappropriate development in and around
Cambridge. The Council endorses the objective of achieving alongside
South Cambridgeshire District Council two complementary local plans which make
sense whether taken separately or together, supported by a consistent transport
strategy enabled by Cambridgeshire County Council, but it fails to see why this
can only be achieved by surrendering local decision-making upwards. It notes
the machinery already established through which the City Council, along with
other authorities, will seek to discharge their legal duty to co-operate: -
The County
Council is preparing its Transport Strategy on a trajectory to match with the
two Districts’ plans and is consulting on transport planning alongside the
districts’ local plan Issues and Options consultations (there was no comparable
transport strategy underpinning the 2006 Local Plan). -
The City
Council, the County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council have set
up a Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire
County Council Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group to co-ordinate
planning activities in the Cambridge area, and this body has committed to a
shared process and consultation on the “broad locations for development” around
Cambridge. The current issues and options consultation will be followed by a
joint ‘fringe sites’ consultation before Christmas. -
The County
Council along with all the districts and Peterborough City Council have agreed
and contributed to the setting up of the Cambridgeshire Joint Planning unit and
set up a Strategic Planning & Transport Joint Member Group to co-ordinate
evidence preparation and strategic planning across the county. -
Officers of
the councils are working closely together to support this joined-up plan making
process. Key parts of the evidence base have been jointly commissioned (e.g.
the infrastructure study and the Employment Land review) and there is
significant day to day working going on. The Council further notes and endorses the
work already under way in conjunction with our partner authorities to
investigate the potential for the Cambridge City Region to attract devolved
powers from central government to facilitate its contribution to national
economic growth in the manner of the recent "city deals" with the 8
core cities. The Council asks the Executive to (c) Ensure
that officers and members continue to work closely with partner councils to
deliver as joined-up a spatial and transport planning process as is practical. (d) Continue
work on the City Deal concept and if it appears to add value to our objectives
within the area, to bring forward a bid to central government.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Rosenstiel This council
recognises the valuable role that pubs play in their communities and is alarmed
by the number that have been closed down, used for other purposes or demolished
in recent years. Council also notes that communities are most successful when
they contain a healthy mix of shops, including those that are independently
run. This council
therefore congratulates Julian Huppert MP on proposing a 10 Minute Rule Bill
which would defend against change of use or demolition of local pubs or
independent shops without planning permission. It further notes that this would
complement the powers currently being consulted on by the council for protection
of pubs by means of Interim Planning Policy Guidance. This Council calls
on the Leader to write to Andrew Lansley MP, as the city's other representative
in Parliament, requesting that he support the Bill on second reading on Friday
26 October and to encourage other MPs to do likewise. Minutes: Councillor Rosenstiel proposed and Councillor Brown seconded the following motion: “This council recognises the valuable role
that pubs play in their communities and is alarmed by the number that have been
closed down, used for other purposes or demolished in recent years. Council
also notes that communities are most successful when they contain a healthy mix
of shops, including those that are independently run. This council therefore congratulates Julian
Huppert MP on proposing a 10 Minute Rule Bill which would defend against change
of use or demolition of local pubs or independent shops without planning
permission. It further notes that this would complement the powers currently
being consulted on by the council for protection of pubs by means of Interim
Planning Policy Guidance. This Council calls on the Leader to write to
Andrew Lansley MP, as the city's other representative in Parliament, requesting
that he support the Bill on second reading on Friday 26 October and to
encourage other MPs to do likewise.” Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) that the motion be agreed as set out above. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: Members noted that written questions and answers as circulated around the Chamber. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Urgency Decision PDF 17 KB Decision taken by the Executive Councillor for Customer Services
and Resources – Councillor Julie Smith ·
Future Cities Demonstrator Project Bid
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved that: i. The Special Urgency decision be noted. |