A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions

Contact: Glenn Burgess  Committee Manager

Items
No. Item

13/24/CNL

To elect a Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/14

Minutes:

Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded the nomination of Councillor Paul Saunders as Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014.

 

Councillor Price proposed and Councillor Herbert seconded the nomination of Councillor Geri Bird as Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014.

 

21 votes were cast for Councillor Saunders and 20 votes for Councillor Bird.

 

Resolved that:

 

  i.  Councillor Paul Saunders be elected Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014 (Councillor Saunders then made the statutory declaration of acceptance of the office of Mayor).

 

13/25/CNL

To elect a Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/14

Minutes:

Councillor Swanson proposed and Councillor Brierley seconded the nomination of Councillor George Pippas as Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014.

 

Councillor O’Reilly proposed and Councillor Marchant-Daisley seconded the nomination of Councillor Geri Bird as Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014.

 

21 votes were cast for Councillor Pippas and 21 Votes for Councillor Bird.

 

Resolved (on the Mayor’s casting vote) that:

 

  i.  Councillor George Pippas be elected Deputy Mayor for the Municipal Year 2013/2014 (Councillor Pippas then made the statutory declaration of acceptance of the office of Deputy Mayor).

 

13/26/CNL

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2013

To follow

Minutes:

The minutes of the 18 April 2013 meeting were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

 

13/27/CNL

To note the Returning Officer's Report that the following have been elected to the office of Councillor

Abbey  Peter Roberts

Minutes:

It was noted that the following had been elected to the office of Councillor:

 

Abbey Ward: Peter Roberts

 

13/28/CNL

To note the appointment of the Mayor's Chaplain for the ensuing year

Minutes:

The Council noted the appointment of The Reverend, Stewart Taylor as the Mayor’s Chaplain for the Municipal Year 2013/2014.

 

13/29/CNL

To note the appointment of the Mayor's Cadet for the ensuing year

Minutes:

The Council noted the appointment of Adam Brown of No. 104 (City of Cambridge) Squadron, Air Training Corps, as the Mayor’s Cadet for the Municipal Year 2013/14.

 

 

13/30/CNL

To pass a Resolution of Thanks to the outgoing Mayor and Consort

Minutes:

Resolved (unanimously), on the proposal of Councillor Bick, seconded by Councillor Herbert that:

 

  i.  This Council expresses its appreciation of the manner in which the duties of Mayor and Consort were discharged by Councillor Sheila Stuart and her husband Bruce Stuart during their period of office and that the Common Seal be affixed to a copy of this resolution for presentation to them.

 

13/31/CNL

Mayor's Announcements

Minutes:

1.  APOLOGIES

 

No apologies were received. 

 

 

2.  WELCOME

 

The Mayor welcomed students from Ridgefield School, representatives of Cambridge COPE and local residents from the Arbury area.

 

A warm welcome was also extended to Honorary Councillor Percy Reed who served as Mayor in 1981/82 and sat as a Councillor for fifteen years. Mr Reed would be shortly celebrating his 100th birthday and sincere congratulations were extended on behalf of the City Council.

 

 

3.  OUTGOING MAYOR’S DINNER – Thursday, 13 June

 

The Mayor reminded anyone planning to attend the dinner at Corpus Christi College to mark the term in office of Councillor Sheila Stuart, to arrange to purchase their tickets from the Civic and Twinning Officer.

 

 

4.  CIVIC CHURCH SERVICE – Sunday, 2 June

 

The Mayor confirmed that the Mott Sermon would be preached at Holy Trinity Church on Sunday, 2 June at 9.30am.

 

 

5.  ARMED FORCES DAY - 29 June

 

The Mayor confirmed that, in support of national Armed Forces Day, the Armed Forces Flag would be flown from the Guildhall from Monday, 24June for one week. 

 

 

6.  PROCLAMATION OF MIDSUMMER FAIR – Wednesday, 19 June

 

The Mayor confirmed that the Proclamation of Midsummer Fair would take place on Wednesday, 19 June.

 

 

7.  MAYOR’S DAY OUT

 

The Mayor confirmed that the Mayor’s Day Out would take place on Thursday 5 September. The support of Councillors was greatly valued each year and members were asked to let the Civic and Twinning Officer know if they could help out.

 

 

8.  HMS PROTECTOR

 

The Mayor confirmed that HMS Protector would be back at Ipswich Docks in July and arrangements were in hand to acknowledge the ship’s return to the UK after a lengthy deployment in the Antarctic.

 

 

 

13/32/CNL

To elect from among the Members of the Council four Bailiffs of the City for the Municipal Year 2013/14

Minutes:

Councillor Boyce proposed and Councillor Owers seconded that Councillors Bird, Brown, McPherson and Swanson be appointed as Bailiffs.

 

Resolved that Councillors Bird, Brown, McPherson and Swanson be appointed as Bailiffs of the City for the Municipal Year 2013/2014.

 

13/33/CNL

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

 

Councillor

Item

Interest

 

Ashton

 

 

13/37/CNL

 

Personal: Knows the public speaker

 

Reiner

 

13/40/CNL

 

Personal: As a Cam Conservator

 

 

 

13/34/CNL

To consider recommendations of Committees for Adoption pdf icon PDF 72 KB

Civic Affairs (13 May 2013)

 

·  Executive Councillors and Allocation of Portfolios

·  Appointment of Committees 2013/14

·  Appointment of Chairs and Vice Chairs 2013/14

·  Appointment of an Employment (Senior Officer) Committee

 

(The Mayor will call a recess so that the Special Meetings of Committees can meet to make their appointments)

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Civic Affairs (13 May 2013)

 

Executive Councillors and Allocation of Portfolios

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to:

 

  i.  Amend the terms of reference of scrutiny committees to reflect the changes to portfolios made by the Leader of the Council and to make Environment Scrutiny Committee responsible for scrutiny of the Public Places portfolio.

 

  ii.  Authorise the Head of Legal Services to update the Constitution to reflect the changes to portfolios and the recommended change to the terms of reference of scrutiny committees.

 

 

Nominations For Committees For The Municipal Year 2013/14

 

Resolved to:

 

  i.  Agree the number and size of committee and membership of committees as listed below:

 

SCRUTINY

COMMITTEE

 

GROUP

CURRENT NUMBERS

(1) =Alternate

NOMINATIONS

Community Services

 

Liberal Democrats

 

 

Labour

 

4 (1)

 

 

 

4 (1)

 Blackhurst, Kerr, Kightley, Tucker

Alt: Brierley

 

Johnson, Moghadas (Community Wellbeing Spokes), Price (Housing Spokes), Roberts

Alt: Todd-Jones

Environment

 

Liberal Democrats

 

 

Labour

 

4 (1)

 

 

 

4 (1)

 

Kightley, Reid, Saunders, Tunnacliffe

Alt: Brierley

 

Blencowe (Planning and Climate Change Spokes), Owers (Environmental and Waste Services Spokes), O’Reilly (Public Places Spokes),Marchant-Daisley

Alt: Herbert

Strategy & Resources

 

Liberal Democrats

 

Labour

 

4 (1)

 

 

 

 

4 (1)

 

 

Boyce, Cantrill, Pitt, Rosenstiel

Alt: Stuart

 

Ashton, Benstead (Customer Services and Resources Spokes), Herbert (Strategy Spokes), O’Reilly

Alt: Bird

Housing Management Board

 

Liberal Democrats

 

 

Labour

 

4 (1)

 

 

 

4 (1)

 

Blackhurst, Brierley, Pippas, Rosenstiel

Alt: Pitt

 

Bird, Blencowe, Price (Spokes), Johnson

Alt: Todd-Jones

 

REGULATORY COMMITTEES

COMMITTEE/SUB COMMITTEE

NOMINATIONS

CURRENT NUMBERS

(1)= Alternate

PROPOSED CHANGES AND NOMINATIONS

 

PLANNING

 

 

Liberal Democrat

 

 

 

Labour

 

 

 

Ind&Con

 

4 (1)

 

 

 

 

3 (1)

 

 

 

1

 

Rosenstiel, Saunders, Stuart, Tunnacliffe

Alt: Swanson

 

Blencowe, Dryden, Marchant-Daisley 

Alt: Herbert

 

Hipkin

JOINT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

 

Liberal Democrat

 

Labour

 

3 (2)

 

 

3 (2)

Reid, Smart, Tucker

Alts: Tunnacliffe + 1

 

Blencowe, Dryden, Price,

Alts: Herbert and O’Reilly

 

LICENSING

 

 

Liberal Democrat

 

 

 

 

Labour

 

 

 

 

Ind&Con

6 (1)

 

 

 

 

 

5 (1)

 

 

 

 

1

Brierley, Pippas, Rosenstiel, Saunders, Stuart, Boyce

Alt: Brown

 

Benstead, Gawthrope, McPherson, Owers, O’Reilly

Alt: Bird

 

Meftah

CIVIC AFFAIRS

 

Liberal Democrat

 

 

Labour

 

3 (1)

 

 

 

3 (1)

 

Cantrill, Pitt, Rosenstiel

Alt: Boyce

 

Benstead, Herbert, Johnson

Alt: Ashton

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS SUB

Liberal Democrat

 

 

Labour

 

 

Ind&Con

5

 

 

 

4

 

 

1

Brierley, Boyce, Pippas, Smart, Stuart

 

Bird, Gawthrope, Price, Birtles

 

Hipkin

 

 

Appointment of Chairs and Vice-Chairs 2013/14

 

Scrutiny Committees

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 19) that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs be as follows:

 

Committee

Chair

Vice Chair

 

Community Services Scrutiny Committee

 

 

Kerr

 

Blackhurst

 

Environment Scrutiny Committee

 

 

Kightley

 

Saunders

 

Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee

 

 

Pitt

 

Cantrill

 

Housing Management Board

 

 

Tenant Rep

 

Blackhurst

 

 

Regulatory Committees

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 19) that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs be as follows:

 

Committee

Chair

Vice Chair

 

Joint Development Control Committee

 

 

Reid

(City Lead)

 

 

N/A

 

Civic Affairs

 

 

Rosenstiel

 

Cantrill

 

Resolved (by 23 votes to 19) that the Chairs and Vice-Chairs be as follows:

 

Committee

Chair

Vice Chair

 

Employment Appeals

Sub Committee

 

Smart

 

 

N/A

 

 

Resolved (in the absence of any further nominations):

 

Committee

Chair

Vice Chair

 

Planning

 

Stuart

 

 

Blencowe

 

Licensing

 

 

 

Rosenstiel

 

Benstead

 

 

Appointment of a standing Employment (Senior Officer) Committee

 

Resolved (by 41 votes to 0) to:

 

  ii.  Establish an Employment (Senior Officer) Committee with the terms of reference set out below and that the Constitution is amended accordingly.  

 

Appointed by: 

From time to time in accordance with the wishes of the political groups. 

Membership:

6 members allocated between political groups in accordance with the rules on political balance  set out in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989

 

Chair/Vice Chair:

To be appointed by the members of the Committee.

 

Decision making:

By the majority of members present and voting.  The Chair has a casting vote if required.

 

Terms of Reference:

 

1. To deal with the recruitment to the post of Chief Executive and to recommend a selected applicant to Council for appointment.

2. To recruit, appoint, take disciplinary action against and dismiss Directors

3. To suspend and keep under review the Chief Executive, Directors, the Monitoring Officer or section 151 Chief Finance Officer whilst an investigation takes place into alleged misconduct.

4. To appoint a designated independent person under regulation 7 of the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001

5. To take disciplinary action against the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer or section 151 Chief Finance Officer in accordance with a recommendation in a report made by a designated independent person under regulation 7 of the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001.

6. To consider and if necessary recommend to Council to dismiss or terminate the employment of the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer or section 151 Chief Finance Officer.

 

Note: The committee will be governed by the provisions contained within Part 4I of the Constitution (Officer Employment Procedure Rules)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re-ordering of the agenda

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor altered the order of the agenda to take agenda items 13 and 15 next. However, for the ease of the reader the minutes will follow the order of the printed agenda.

13/35/CNL

Annual Statements pdf icon PDF 155 KB

Group Leaders will each have the opportunity to speak for not more than 15 minutes on their Group’s priorities for action and objectives for the forthcoming municipal year in the following order:

 

Councillor Bick

Councillor Herbert

CouncillorHipkin

 

The Annual Statement of the Liberal Democrat Group and the Labour Group are appended to this summons. 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Bick spoke to a written Annual Statement on the Liberal Democrat Group’s priorities for the forthcoming Municipal Year, which had been appended to the agenda for the meeting.

 

Councillor Herbert spoke to a written Annual Statement on the Labour Group’s priorities for the forthcoming Municipal Year, which had been appended to the agenda for the meeting.

 

 

13/36/CNL

Adoption of Annual Policies and Priorities

The scheme for Annual Statements provides that the Statement of the Leader of the largest group on the Council shall be deemed to be a motion for adoption. It may therefore be debated and amendments proposed after which it shall be put to the vote and, if carried, shall be adopted as Council policy for the municipal year.

 

The Council will therefore consider the Annual Statement of the

Liberal Democrat Group as a motion for adoption.

 

If the adopted Annual Statement contains proposals which fall outside the Council’s budgetary or policy framework, the proposals shall not be acted upon until there has been a report to the relevant Scrutiny Committee(s) and Executive Councillor(s) in the normal way and approval at a subsequent meeting of the Council. 

 

Minutes:

Under the Scheme for Annual Statements, that of Councillor Bick was deemed to be a motion for adoption by the Council.

 

Councillor Owers proposed and Councillor Herbert seconded the replacement of the Liberal Democrat Annual Statement by that of the Labour Group.

 

On a show of hands, this proposal was lost by 19 votes to 21.

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 19) that:

 

  i.  The Annual Statement of the Liberal Democrat Group, as appended to the agenda, be adopted as Council policy for 2013/14.

 

13/37/CNL

Public Questions Time - see at the foot of the agenda for details of the scheme

Minutes:

Speaking on Motion 6a – Kinship carers

 

Ms Roberts (Kinship United, Nuffield Children’s Centre, Chesterton), Ms Edwards and Ms Boulton addressed the Council explaining the support group and personal experiences of kinship caring under the current regime and why they supported the Motion to enable opportunity for funding and support. They explained the difficulties that they faced under the current regime and that the County Council should recognise their role formally.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing thanked the speakers for attending and putting their case to the Council – she indicated that she would be supporting the Motion.  She requested that they provide their contact details to the Committee Manager so that she could meet with them to discuss how best to take the matters raised forward.

 

 

13/38/CNL

To deal with Oral Questions pdf icon PDF 837 KB

Minutes:

1. Councillor Johnson to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

Can the Executive Councillor for Public Places reassure Council that the surveillance of Cambridge boat-dwellers, as recently highlighted in the local media, did not breach the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act?

 

The Executive Councillor for Public Places confirmed that the surveillance of Cambridge boat-dwellers did not breach the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

 

It was noted that Residential Moorings Licences were issued with a number of stipulations. One being the occupation and use of the boat, and that the boat must be occupied by the licensee and by members of the immediate family of the licensee. The licensee must also notify the Council for any continuous period of non-occupation lasting more than four weeks or more than 30 days of non-occupation in any 12 month period. The boat must be the licensee's only permanent residence and the licensee must notify the Council as soon as the boat ceases to be the only permanent residence.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the Council had a total of 70 Moorings spaces, 55 narrow beam and 15 wide beam. The waiting list for Council Moorings had reached 200 and turnover was very slow, with on average less than one a year. Often Council officers were informed by current boaters, or by those on the waiting list, that boats have been unoccupied for some time.

 

It was noted that between January and February officers undertook four walk-by inspections of Council Moorings. During these walk-by inspections they noted signs of a lack of occupation. 

This would include whether smoke was emitted from the chimney of the boat, whether there were cobwebs or ivy covering access or doorways and whether there had been any indication of recent access and egress surrounding boat.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that at no time did officers either enter property or watch property for a prolonged period. Officers had their ID cards on display and wore work wear and were clearly visible.

 

2.  Councillor Reid to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

Would the Executive Councillor explain her reactions to Marshall's announcement on Monday of the increase in flights from Cambridge Airport?

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services responded that she was glad that Cambridge Airport could provide this opportunity for mainly business travellers to fly to and from Europe without having to drive to Stansted or Luton.  The success of Marshall’s as a whole was very important to the Cambridge economy and bringing extra business travellers and a limited number of tourists would be welcome.

 

However, the Executive Councillor was disappointed that there were no discussions with the City Council about the possible impact on local residents or the environment. At the recent Cambridge Airport Consultative Committee attended by the Executive Councillor it was announced that business discussions were underway about such flights but there was no timing on an announcement, as the discussions were at a sensitive stage. The statement that this was a strategic step in the development of Cambridge as a regional international airport caused some alarm.  The Cambridge Airport press release indicated that there were plans to minimise the impact on local residents but unfortunately they have not yet communicated those to the City Council.

 

Whilst the small modern planes to be used would be quiet, particularly after take-off, discussions with Environmental Health would have reduced the anxiety that people may have felt and given confidence that the airport really was aware of local residents.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that she would be holding a meeting with the Director of Environment and Cambridge Airport to discuss the issue in more detail. 

 

3.  Councillor Blackhurst to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Has the Adjudicator ruled on the Council’s dispute with Apollo and if so, will the Executive Councillor tell us what effect the ruling will have on the programme of planned maintenance?

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded that Apollo were claiming a total of £669,096 in additional overheads, non-productive working and costs associated with survey work for year one of the contract. The Adjudicator had disallowed £472,774 of Apollo’s claim.

 

Should this claim have succeeded then clearly less work would have been possible to tenant’s homes from available funding budgets.The decision meant that a higher proportion of the overall budget for delivery of housing investment programmes could now be released, with confidence, to spend on works in current and future years. The Adjudicator’s decision regarding appropriate levels of overhead cost would also assist in determining overhead payments for the remainder of the contract.

 

It was noted that the Adjudicator had ruled that 75% of the cost of the adjudication to be paid by Apollo and 25% by the Council.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the Council would continue to work with Apollo and its other contracting partners to ensure that delivery of planned investment programmes continue to be delivered whilst demonstrating value for money for our residents.

 

4. Councillor Tunnacliffe to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

Could the Executive Councillor provide an update on the proposed lighting along the footpaths on Parkers Piece?

 

The Executive Councillor for Public Places responded that between 28 January and 25 February the Council undertook a trial consultation on lighting on Parker’s Piece.

 

The consultation received 1,039 valid responses, with 76% of those in favour of lighting. The full consultation analysis would be presented to the West Central Area Committee on 20 June at which time the Committee would be asked to approve the project moving forward to a design and costing phase.

 

5.  Councillor Cantrill to the Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee

 

At a time when the public engagement in the election process is low, it is important that the City Council does everything possible to make the process of voting easy.

 

The selection of the University Sports Ground as the location for one of the polling stations in the Newnham Ward in the recent County Council elections, did nothing to help this goal.

 

Could the Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee indicate what actions are being taken to ensure that this venue is not used again.

 

The Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee responded that he shared Councillor Cantrill’s concerns about the long standing problems of finding suitable a polling station in this area. Finding Polling Stations was, however, the responsibility of the Chief Executive in her role as Returning Officer.

It was noted that the Returning Officer had written to Ward Councillors on 7 May acknowledging that the polling station had not been ideal but explaining that it had been very difficult to find a suitable polling station in that polling district.

Selwyn College have been reluctant to rent out Selwyn Diamond as it is being used by the college for exams and other purposes.

Newnham Bar was used in 2011 but was being refurbished this year. There are also concerns about its suitability on size grounds for use in a General Election.

The Council had also tried portacabins at the Rugby Club which was unpopular because of size and the noise of the generators. The previous polling district in this area used Cockcroft Hall but that is not well located for much of the electorate and would now disrupt a nursery.

 

The key challenge for election staff was finding a site which could take delivery and store polling booths and equipment before polling day itself, which could be available from 6.30am to 10.30pm on polling day and where building owners were happy to have the general public walking through their site.

 

It was confirmed that the Civic Affairs Committee and Returning Officer would be conducting polling district and polling station reviews later in the year.

 

The Chair of the Civic Affairs Committee was committed to trying to find a better, more permanent solution for next year onwards and this may involve changes in the area to be served by a polling station to cope with the difficulties experienced over many years.

As there may be two combined elections in 2014 and 2015 there was a need to make sure that any solution is big enough for a combined poll.

 

Members were asked for any suggestions of alternative venues that officer could be explored by the Returning officer.

 

The Chair was also hopeful that the University and Colleges would be able to assist in finding a suitable location for a polling station within their considerable estate in the area. It was felt that the people most disadvantaged by the problems included many of their students and the Council would also liaise with CUSU to seek assistance from the student body.

 

6.  Councillor Pitt to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

What steps have been taken to address the issues around punt touting ahead of this summer?

 

The Executive Councillor for Public Places responded that the proliferation of punt touts in the City Centre in recent years was directly linked to independent punt operators trading from Garret Hostel Lane (GHL).

 

It was confirmed that in September 2011 the Conservators of the River Cam had altered their regulations for issuing commercial licenses requiring that all punt operators trade from one of 6 “recognised” punt stations, GHL was not listed as one of these stations.

 

Throughout the 2012 season the touting continued as the GHL punt operators ignored the new regulations and applied for a Judicial Review of the Conservators’ decision. Over the summer the Conservators collected information on those trading from GHL and instigated court proceedings against a number of them. The court proceedings took place in Feb/March 2013 and the court found in favour of the Conservators in each case.

 

It was confirmed that, since the court proceedings and the outcome of the Judicial Review (the judge upheld the Conservators’ decision although this has been appealed for a 2nd time and is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal this year) all operations from Garret Hostel Lane have ceased and as a direct result the number of touts in the City Centre had reduced dramatically.

 

The Council had reviewed and re-issued its Punt Operators Code of Practice which detailed permitted areas in which the legitimate companies could tout, these were all directly adjacent to their businesses and no company had permission to tout in the King’s Parade area. Although the Code was voluntary, all the legitimate operators were consulted, and supported the Code of Practice.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the Council would continue to monitor the situation should further action prove necessary.

 

7.  Councillor Price to the Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources 

 

How many of those affected by the Bedroom Tax/Social Sector Size Criteria were given wrong information about the amount of money they would lose from their housing benefit by housing officers?

 

The Executive Councillor for Customer Services and Resources responded that she was aware of one isolated incident where a City Homes Officer may have given a resident the wrong impression regarding the amount that their Housing Benefit would be reduced by. The resident was however advised to speak with another officer to get some more detailed information.

 

It was confirmed that Housing Officers had received training on all of the Welfare Reforms and were extremely well informed and well aware of the changes that happened in April.

 

 

13/39/CNL

To consider the following Notices of Motion, notice of which has been given by:

13/39/CNLa

Councillors Owers and Bird

This Council acknowledges the incredibly valuable job done by kinship carers in Cambridge, relatives and friends (most often grandparents) who care for children informally because their parents are no longer able to look after them, usually because of bereavement, ill-health, imprisonment, or addiction problems.

 

This Council acknowledges that, whilst foster carers and social care workers may make a significant contribution to the care of children unable to remain with their families, children raised by kinship carers typically have better educational and social outcomes relative to children brought up in non-kinship foster or social care. Each child raised by kinship carers also saves the taxpayer up to £56,000 a year.

 

This Council notes the existence of two Kinship Care support groups in Cambridge: Cambridge Kinship Carers, which meets at Bewick Bridge Primary School in Cherry Hinton, andKinship United, which meets at Nutfield Children’s Centre in Chesterton.

This council notes that these support groups currently receive no community development funding from the City Council, due to problems with the constitution and status of their organisation.

 

This Council notes the problems faced by such carers, such as the following:

 

-  Although children raised by kinship carers tend to progress better than children raised by non-kinship carers, they still typically experience much higher than average levels of anxiety and mental health problems, usually related to the high levels of adversity they have suffered in their early life. 88% have been abused or neglected.

 

-  Most kinship carers are either on low-fixed incomes, such as pensions, or have to give up work to become carers. 70% of kinship carers themselves have a longstanding health condition or disability. Due to these factors, and the financial burden placed on kinship carers by the responsibilities of bringing up a child, the majority of kinship carers experience severe poverty. They also suffer from a lack of restbite care and the difficulties of caring for children who usually have emotional, educational or behavioural problems.

 

 

-  Local authorities tend to provide support on the basis of legal status, rather than need, which disadvantages the 95% of kinship carers who care informally. LAs tend to discourage kinship carers from becoming formal kinship foster carers, who are entitled to higher levels of support, to keep down costs. This leaves the majority of kinship carers entitled to less help than foster carers, and unclear as to what support they are entitled to.

This Council notes that the 2011 Family and Friends Care Statutory Guidance statutory guidance requires all responsible local authorities to produce a policy outlining a consistent approach to supporting kinship carers based on need, rather than legal status.

This council notes that Cambridgeshire County Council has failed to produce such a policy.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

-  Request the Cambridge City Council Community Development team to liaise with the Cambridge Kinship support groups to advise them on how they may access support and funding.

 

-  Write to Cambridgeshire County Council, specifically the Cabinet member for Children and Young People's Services,  ...  view the full agenda text for item 13/39/CNLa

Minutes:

Motion A

 

Councillor Owers proposed and Councillor Bird seconded the following motion:

 

“This Council acknowledges the incredibly valuable job done by kinship carers in Cambridge, relatives and friends (most often grandparents) who care for children informally because their parents are no longer able to look after them, usually because of bereavement, ill-health, imprisonment, or addiction problems.

 

This Council acknowledges that, whilst foster carers and social care workers may make a significant contribution to the care of children unable to remain with their families, children raised by kinship carers typically have better educational and social outcomes relative to children brought up in non-kinship foster or social care. Each child raised by kinship carers also saves the taxpayer up to £56,000 a year.

 

This Council notes the existence of two Kinship Care support groups in Cambridge: Cambridge Kinship Carers, which meets at Bewick Bridge Primary School in Cherry Hinton, andKinship United, which meets at Nuffield Children’s Centre in Chesterton.

 

This council notes that these support groups currently receive no community development funding from the City Council, due to problems with the constitution and status of their organisation.

 

This Council notes the problems faced by such carers, such as the following:

 

-  Although children raised by kinship carers tend to progress better than children raised by non-kinship carers, they still typically experience much higher than average levels of anxiety and mental health problems, usually related to the high levels of adversity they have suffered in their early life. 88% have been abused or neglected.

 

-  Most kinship carers are either on low-fixed incomes, such as pensions, or have to give up work to become carers. 70% of kinship carers themselves have a longstanding health condition or disability. Due to these factors, and the financial burden placed on kinship carers by the responsibilities of bringing up a child, the majority of kinship carers experience severe poverty. They also suffer from a lack of respite care and the difficulties of caring for children who usually have emotional, educational or behavioural problems.

 

-  Local authorities tend to provide support on the basis of legal status, rather than need, which disadvantages the 95% of kinship carers who care informally. LAs tend to discourage kinship carers from becoming formal kinship foster carers, who are entitled to higher levels of support, to keep down costs. This leaves the majority of kinship carers entitled to less help than foster carers, and unclear as to what support they are entitled to.

This Council notes that the 2011 Family and Friends Care Statutory Guidance statutory guidance requires all responsible local authorities to produce a policy outlining a consistent approach to supporting kinship carers based on need, rather than legal status.

 

This council notes that Cambridgeshire County Council has failed to produce such a policy.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

-  Request the Cambridge City Council Community Development team to liaise with the Cambridge Kinship support groups to advise them on how they may access support and funding.

 

-  Write to Cambridgeshire County Council, specifically the Cabinet member for Children and Young People's Services, to request the County Council to produce a policy on Family and Friends Care which outlines how they intend to provide consistent and transparent support to kinship carers based on need rather than legal status, and which addresses the discrepancies between the levels of support that kinship carers receive relative to foster carers.”

 

Resolved (unanimously) to agree the motion as set out above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

13/39/CNLb

Councillors Cantrill and Rosenstiel

This Council:

 

-  notes the results of the recent Cambridgeshire County Council elections and its new political composition

 

-  welcomes any proposed changes in governance structure that increases the democratic accountability and transparency of the County Council

 

-  hopes that any changes in governance will ensure that the residents and representatives of the City will be more effectively involved in decision-making affecting the City

 

-  Calls on the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive to explore the support present at the County Council and neighbouring district authorities to further simplify local democratic accountability for the benefit of the residents of Cambridge

 

 

Minutes:

Motion B

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Rosenstiel seconded the following motion:

 

“This Council:

 

-  notes the results of the recent Cambridgeshire County Council elections and its new political composition

 

-  welcomes any proposed changes in governance structure that increases the democratic accountability and transparency of the County Council

 

-  hopes that any changes in governance will ensure that the residents and representatives of the City will be more effectively involved in decision-making affecting the City

 

-  Calls on the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive to explore the support present at the County Council and neighbouring district authorities to further simplify local democratic accountability for the benefit of the residents of Cambridge”

 

Councillor Herbert proposed and Councillor Owers seconded the following amendment:

 

Delete all and replace with:


“1. The Council is committed to further improving its own democratic accountability and decision making, including major improvements to joint delivery.  Internal issues at the county council are the job of the newly elected County Council.

2.  The Chief Executive is asked to write to the County Council proposing improvements to joint decision making, including detailed proposals to revamp the new Area Joint Transport Committee, with clear responsibility and accountability for delivering all Cambridge area transport initiatives, working closely with South Cambridgeshire.

3. The Council supports a unitary council for the combined area of the two councils, to radically improve delivery for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire residents and businesses, and deliver better decisions and future planning, improved and more efficient services, and clear accountability and transparency. 

The Council recognises that this change needs detailed discussion with South Cambridgeshire and the County Council to seek support and agreement, and then consult with Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire residents and organisations to decide whether and how best to implement it.

4.  As a half way house, the Council will also work with South Cambridgeshire and the County Council to establish a ‘virtual unitary council’ including fully integrating Local Plans and Transport Strategy, expanding joint services and shared delivery, and wider initiatives to achieve integrated, efficient, effective and accountable local government for the city and the Greater Cambridge area.”

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 19 votes to 20.

 

Resolved (by 20 votes to 0) that:

 

This Council:

 

-  notes the results of the recent Cambridgeshire County Council elections and its new political composition

 

-  welcomes any proposed changes in governance structure that increases the democratic accountability and transparency of the County Council

 

-  hopes that any changes in governance will ensure that the residents and representatives of the City will be more effectively involved in decision-making affecting the City

 

-  Calls on the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive to explore the support present at the County Council and neighbouring district authorities to further simplify local democratic accountability for the benefit of the residents of Cambridge

 

13/40/CNL

Written Questions pdf icon PDF 28 KB

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

 

Minutes:

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

 

 

13/41/CNL

To note the record of Member's attendances at Committee, Sub-Committee and Working Party meetings during 2012/13 pdf icon PDF 29 KB

Minutes:

Resolved that:

 

  i.  Record of Members’ attendances at Committee, Sub Committee and Working Party Meetings during 2012/2013 be noted.

 

 

13/42/CNL

To note the appointment of the Mayor's Cadet for the ensuing year

13/43/CNL

Annual Statements