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: Claire Tunnicliffe Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minutes: The minutes of the 13 July 2017 were confirmed as a correct record and
signed by the Mayor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mayor's announcements Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Avery, Gehring, Ratcliffe and Tunnacliffe. MAYOR’S DAY OUT The Mayor advised that the annual outing for senior citizens to Great Yarmouth on 16 August was once again a huge success and thanked those Councillors who had helped with the stewarding. ANNUAL FIRE WORK
DISPLAY Members were reminded of their invitation to the Annual Firework Display on Midsummer Common taking place on 4 November, starting at 6.00pm. REMEMBRANCE Members were informed that the Remembrance Sunday Civic Service would take place on Sunday 12 November, Great St. Mary’s Street, 10.55am. Anyone wishing to attend should inform the Sergeant-at-Mace of their attendance. The Deputy Mayor would lead the civic procession to church. The Mayor advised that he would be laying a wreath on behalf of the City at the War Memorial and anyone wishing to attend was welcome to do so which would start at 10.30 a.m. A 2 minutes silence would be observed from the main entrance to the Guildhall on Saturday 11 November at 11 a.m. Councillors were invited to attend this act of remembrance. CHEVYN SERVICE The Mayor gave advance
notice that the preaching of the Chevyn Sermon would
take place on Sunday 28 January 2018.
Invitations would be sent out nearer the time. BRIEFING FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND The Mayor stated that a member briefing on Monday 27th November, 5.30pm
had been planned. This would be presented by the Local Government Boundary
Commission for England, on the review of Cambridge City Council ward boundaries
and what that would be involved, followed by a question and answer session |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public questions time Minutes: Members of the public asked
a number of questions, as set out below. 1.
Benya Atabani raised the following points:
i.
Expressed an interest in politics.
ii.
Expressed concern about climate change.
iii.
Felt the City Council needed to plan for a sustainable future. a.
Requested the council worked with partners to take action. b.
Strategies needed quantifiable objectives. c.
The city needed a local renewable energy company as per the City of
Nottingham and Nottingham City Council. d.
Suggested an electric vehicle incentive fund be implemented to encourage
purchase of these vehicles. The Executive Councillor
for Finance and Resources responded: i.
How the city could reduce its
carbon footprint had been a subject of debate. ii.
The City Council had taken
measures to reduce its carbon footprint. For example meeting with business
leaders to discuss how they could be more energy efficient. iii.
Cambridge City Council worked with
the Robin Hood Energy Company based in Nottingham. However the Council did not
buy electricity from Nottingham as it was not from a sustainable source. iv.
Cambridge City Council bought its
electricity from a sustainable source. v.
The City Council could investigate
the practicability of an electric vehicle fund but this may be larger scale
work than it was able to implement on its own. As a supplementary point Benya Atabani asked if the City
Council would set up a renewable energy company similar to that of Nottingham. The
Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the scale of operation
would be difficult but could be investigated. The Council had a scheme to
encourage people to switch to cheaper electricity suppliers, sustainable ones
could be reviewed in future. 2.
Dara Morefield raised the following
points:
i.
Understood there was difficulty in providing enough housing stock.
ii.
Expressed concern that family homes were being lost as they were being
bought and converted into flats.
iii.
The city’s housing stock was becoming unbalanced and the Planning
Committee appeared unable to stop this. A city wide
plan was required to address this trend.
iv.
Asked Member to support a city wide plan.
v.
Residents could, and do, object to individual developer demolish/replace
applications. But this was becoming a futile exercise. vi.
Family houses, in family
neighbourhoods, close to existing schools and facilities were disappearing.
Many of the “childproof “units in the blocks which took their place often
remained empty, or marketed as an AirBnB. vii.
Stated that in Queen Edith's ward
alone, there were four such planning applications. viii.
Enquired what the City Council could do to preserve the existing housing
stock in Cambridge. The
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport responded: i.
The City Council had to balance
city needs against each other, such as local Plan policies to protect the
character of the city and housing policy on future growth. ii.
Appreciated residents were
concerned about how they perceived developers treated Cambridge eg buying properties to develop. iii.
The city needed a balanced stock
of 1-2 bedroom houses and 4-5 bedroom houses for current and future needs. iv.
The Local Plan went through public
consultation before becoming guidance for decision making eg
protecting the character of an area. v.
Each planning application was
considered on its own merit. Dara Morefield made the following supplementary
points:
i.
Understood the difficulty of getting enough housing stock.
ii.
Expressed concern about: a. Family
housing was being lost through demolition and replacement with flats. b. City
housing stock was becoming unbalanced in favour of flats over family homes. c. The
Planning Committee appeared unable to stop the loss of family homes. The
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport responded with the
following: i.
People who were able to put in
applications to demolish and replace family housing with flats then argue the
case at Planning Committee. ii.
Re-iterated that each planning
application was treated on its own merit in-line with local and national
planning policy. iii.
Sometimes national planning policy
undermined local policy. 3.
Anthony Martinelli raised the following
points:
i.
Expressed concern about air quality in the city.
ii.
Queried progress on the Air Quality Action Plan mentioned at the 13 July
2017 Council meeting. The
Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre responded: i.
The Council were actively
developing an Air Quality Action Plan to replace the current one. This would be
scrutinised at the March 2018 Environment Scrutiny Committee after public
consultation. It was hoped the Plan would have come to committee in January
2018, but this had been delayed due to external factors. ii.
The Council was taking action such
as installing electric charge points for taxis (starting March 2018) which was
just one example of addressing the air quality in the city. As a supplementary
point Anthony Martinelli asked if action was being taken on idling engines. The
Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre responded that
this was a complicated issue which would be reviewed in the new Air Quality
Action Plan. 4.
Kevin Roberts (GMB) raised the following
points:
i.
Thanked the Council for putting
forward the motion, fair pay for public sector workers.
ii.
If this motion was passed this
would send a positive message to the council’s workforce.
iii.
As a living wage employer who
promoted the living wage this would send a good example for other local
authorities to follow.
iv.
Cambridge city had become a very
expensive place to live. Lots of people who were on low income had to move out
of the city. High cost of housing and rented accommodation made it impossible
for low paid worker to make ends meet.
v.
Cambridge had the highest
deferential between the lowest paid and the highest earners in the country.
vi.
The motion would go a small way in
getting local people to work for their local authority. Rather than having to commute it would help
to reduce pollution. vii.
There had been seven years of
government cuts and a reduction in public sector workers pay in real terms of
21%. The council had started to feel the effect of these cuts as it was getting
more difficult to recruit and retain staff. The council in the past 4-5 years
had reduced its staffing levels by 400% to cuts being imposed on them by the
Government. viii.
The Government needed to fund
local government properly so that staff can be paid the living wage and that
good services could be maintained. The Executive Councillor
for Finance and Resource thanked Mr Roberts for his comments which would be
dealt with under Motion 8d. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the recommendations of the Executive for adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (28 votes to 0) to: i. Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital
budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the
document, attached to the Council agenda, with the resulting position
summarised in Appendix H. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (27 votes to 1) to: i. Agree the Treasury Management Half Yearly Update Report which
included the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2017/18 to
2020/21. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (by 27 votes to 1) to: General Fund
Revenue i.
Agree the budget strategy and timetable as outlined
in Section 1 [pages 1 to 2 refer] of the MTFS document. ii.
Agree incorporation of the budget savings and
pressures identified in Section 4 [pages 13 to 16 refer] including an
additional £100k contribution to Sharing Prosperity Fund. This provided an
indication of the net savings requirements, by year for the next 5 years, and
revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections as shown in
Section 5 [page 17 refers] of the MTFS document. Capital
i.
Note the changes to the Capital Plan as set out in
Section 6 [pages 18 to 23 refer] and Appendix A [pages 32 to 40 refer] of the
MTFS document and agreed the new proposals: Reserves
i.
Agree changes to General Fund Reserve levels, with
the Prudent Minimum Balance being set at £5.35m and the target level at £6.42m
as detailed in Section 7 [pages 24 to 27 refer] and Appendix B [pages 41 to 42
refer]. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the recommendations of Committees for adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (unanimously)
to:
i.
Approve the Code of Corporate Governance (Appendix
3 of the Officer’s report attached to the Council agenda). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Licensing Committee: Statement of Licensing Policy PDF 270 KB Minute to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (unanimously)
to: i. Approve the amended Statement of Licensing Policy |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
To deal with oral questions Minutes: Primary Questions 1) Councillor O'Connell to the Executive Councillor for Environmental
Services and City Centre Does the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services agree with me
that it is unacceptable for the council to try to shift responsibility for
overflowing refuse bins caused by delayed or missed collections on to
residents? The Executive Councillor
responded that the Council and Shared Waste Service were not trying to shift
responsibility for overflowing refuse bins on to residents. 2) Councillor Smart to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open
Spaces What will the changes in toilet cleaning frequency proposed in the
Streets and Open Spaces review mean in practice? The Executive Councillor
advised it was proposed to adjust cleaning times for low frequency visited
toilets only. Residents and visitors would not see any difference in standards.
Toilets were valued as assets in the city. The Council were trying to keep all
public toilets open which provided good value for money without losing quality. 3) Councillor Sargeant to the Executive Councillor for Housing Given that this is empty homes week, would the Executive Councillor for
Housing tell council what is being done in Cambridge to bring empty homes back
into use? The Executive Councillor
responded that the Empty Home Officer not only visited properties during empty
homes week but on regular occasions. The intention was to meet owners and find
out why properties were empty with the intent of bringing them back into use.
Advice was provided to property owners on options available. If owners were
unavailable, officers could obtain warrants to enter properties. The City
Council had recently launched a scheme to help the owners of empty properties
to bring them back into residential use offering loans of up to £25,000 to
homeowners, which would enable them to carry out essential renovation works. The Council had helped
owners to bring 13 properties back into use in the last six months, many of
which had been empty for a substantial period of time. 4) Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and
Transport Does the Executive Councillor think that 7600 new homes can be built at Northern
Fringe East including on the sewage works site? The Executive Councillor
responded, the land owner partnership had been working together for several
years to unlock the delivery of the scheme through investment. A bid had been
submitted to Housing Infrastructure Fund sponsored by the Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership. The bid
indicated the support that 7600 new homes could be built at Northern Fringe
East including on the sewage works site. The Executive Councillor stated he
would not disagree with this decision. 5) Councillor Holland to the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources What income does the City Council receive from the private bike hire organisations:
Ofo and Rutland Cycle Hire? As a regular bike user, there have been occasions when there were no
bike spaces in the bike rack on Peas Hill because approximately 25% of the
spaces were occupied by Ofo bikes and Rutland Cycle
Hire bikes, including a permanent advertising bike which has not been moved for
several months. The Executive Councillor
responded that anyone could use bike racks across the city. The problems arose
when bikes were left when people had finished using them, such as the bikes for
hire or just abandoned. Officers were looking to remove these in future. The
permanent advertising bike was a separate issue which would be investigated.
The Council received no income from Ofo but business
rates were collected from Rutland Cycle which the Council kept 6% with the
remainder being remitted to central government, the County Council and the Fire
Service. 6) Councillor Holt to the Executive Councillor for Streets & Open
Spaces Is the Executive Councillor's priority for the council’s provision of
public toilets still best described as ‘let them use pubs’, which was at one
time shorthand for her party’s policy? The Executive Councillor
responded the Council had done a lot of work to persuade local businesses to
open toilets to the public as part of the ‘free to use’ initiative. In
particular Councillor Bird had been working to highlight the importance for
disabled users to be able to use the facilities at local business with some
positive results. Councillors would continue to encourage pubs/shops,cafes etc to welcome people
to use their facilities as access was an important issue. There were currently
20 blocks of public toilets across the City which equated to 180 units that
could be accessed by visitors and residents. In comparison Liverpool had 1
public toilet unit. The
Council was currently undertaking toilet refurbishment work. 7) Councillor Barnett to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open
Spaces Can the Executive Councillor provide some more details about the
proposed increase in the use of volunteers as set out in the Streets and Open
Spaces review? The Executive Councillor
responded that people valued this initiative and there were a large number who
had signed up to volunteer. Since the introduction of the scheme introduced by
Labour in 2015, a total number of 73 volunteers had signed up and last year a
total of 800 volunteer hours were logged.
There was a range of choice from litter picking, cycling champions to
conservation. Growing areas of the city
would have increased populations and therefore more potential volunteers.
Officers were putting together a plan on how to engage more people. The Council
wanted to work in partnership with other organisations such as residents
associations and friends groups to increase the number of volunteers. 8) Councillor Austin to the Executive Councillor for Streets & Open
Spaces How are you planning to stop cars and lorries parking illegally and
driving irresponsibly on Midsummer Common? The Executive Councillor responded
illegal parking was a long standing and difficult problem. Councillors and
Officers were concerned by this issue and unauthorised access to the common had
been partly solved by the much improved barriers installed under the previous
Labour Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces, Councillor O’Reilly. Damage had been caused to
the common due to unauthorised parking by vehicles at the Fort St George Pub
who did not use the designated loading area. Dialogue continued with the owners
of Midsummer House, who were very proactive on this matter and the Fort of St
George. Action from Environmental Health
Officers was pending on those vehicles who parked illegally. 9) Councillor Cantrill to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open
Spaces Does the Executive Councillor agree with me that the City Rangers
provide a unique service to the residents of Cambridge? The Executive Councillor
responded the 150 staff in the service did a fantastic job and thanked them all
for their hard work, which included the Rangers. Advised that she would not
describe the service that Rangers provided as unique, but there were some jobs
that only Rangers did, and other jobs that were partly covered by other teams. Local people placed high
value on staff knowing the local area and local residents which fed into the
service review.
The following oral
questions were tabled but owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted,
were not covered during the meeting. The Mayor asked Executive Councillors if a
written response could be provided to those questions that had not been
covered. 10) Councillor Todd Jones to the Executive Councillor for Streets and
Open Spaces Can the Executive Councillor update on what is being planned to limit
the use of chemical herbicides? 11) Councillor Adey to the Leader Would the Leader of the Council agree that a golden opportunity may be
lost if a new Cycle Bridge is not built as part of the Mill Rd depot
redevelopment, linking to Cromwell Road in Romsey? 12) Councillor T. Moore to the Leader Does the leader agree that we should encourage moving around by
cycling? Therefore, does he, like me, welcome the concept of the
greenways routes for people coming into Cambridge from the neighbouring
villages? 13) Councillor Sinnott to the Executive Councillor for Communities Can the Executive Councillor for Communities provide an update on
preparations for the Volunteer for Cambridge community fair this Saturday, and
inform Council how the public can be involved? 14) Councillor Sarris to the Leader Will the Leader please update the Council on what progress has been made
with the plans to develop the area around Northern Fringe East? Secondary Questions No secondary questions were
submitted. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the following notices of motion, notice of which has been given by: PDF 219 KB |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Johnson: Universal Credit Minutes: Councillor Johnson proposed
and Councillor Price seconded the following motion: This Council notes: That Universal Credit (UC),
a single monthly payment to replace a number of working-age benefits, is due to
be fully rolled out in Cambridge by June 2018; The way UC is administered,
with recipients in some cases having to wait longer than six weeks for claims
to be processed, is leading to real hardship. Across the 105 councils where the
housing costs element of UC has already been introduced, the number of council
tenants who have rent arrears has risen from less than 10% to 50%; The cuts to work allowances
in UC, and the decision to limit tax credit and UC payments to the first two
children in a family, will likely increase child poverty; That the pace and change brought
about by UC has been condemned by organisations such as the Citizens Advice
Bureau and Trussell Trust who believe that, without
revision, it will do more harm than good for the most vulnerable. This Council recognises: The work it has conducted in
recent years with JobCentre Plus, the CAB, credit
unions, housing associations and the voluntary sector to prepare for UC and to
best assist the most vulnerable in Cambridge in the transition to this new
benefit and other changes to the welfare system; The importance of its
dedicated teams within City Homes, who are working with tenants at risk of
falling into arrears, due to UC and changes to the eligibility criteria for the
housing component of UC, thereby helping to support these tenants stay in their
homes and prevent homelessness. This Council resolves to: Write to the Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions, requesting him to halt the roll out of UC until
further notice, as has been demanded by hundreds of charities and organisations
working with the worst off in Britain. We call on the Secretary of State to
redesign its administration, as well as reversing planned real-terms cuts to
working families and ending payment delay, and for local authorities to pay the
housing costs component from UC direct to landlords as is the case with Housing
Benefit; Continue working closely
with council tenants, and those at risk of being adversely affected by the
Government’s welfare reforms, through its City Homes and Revenue and Benefit
teams and partnership work with other agencies as funded by the Council’s
Housing Revenue Account, General Fund and Sharing Prosperity Fund; Inform the city’s two MPs
of this motion and to call for their support in lobbying the Government to
achieve our objectives on this issue. Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor O'Connell ; Improved Councillor Scrutiny of Public Complaints Minutes: Councillor O’ Connell
proposed and Councillor Austin seconded the following motion: Council notes the recent
year-on-year rises in complaints to the council and their importance as a
resource for improving services to the public. On the most significant issues
raised, it believes there should be an opportunity for more of a public closure
and plan for the future with the involvement of elected representatives, than
is allowed for by the current minimal section of the Annual Complaints Report. It therefore resolves to
provide an automatic public review by councillors of the three service areas
with most complaints across the council each year, based on detailed reports to
the relevant scrutiny committees in the autumn meeting cycle, together with
recommended improvement plans. It calls on the Chief
Executive, in consultation with group leaders, to define a fair and workable
procedure for implementation. Councillor Robertson
proposed and Councillor R Moore seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted
text struck through and additional text underlined): Council notes the
value
of the Annual Complaints Report to Civic Affairs Committee and the council and • its
importance as a resource for improving services to the public, • the
importance of providing public disclosure and an opportunity for councillors to
review and question the complaints received, and • the
recording of actions taken to remedy them. To further strengthen this,
future Annual Complaints Reports will each year identify three areas of
complaint meriting further investigation and report back to Civic Affairs. The selection of the three
areas in the report to Civic Affairs Committee will be based on an assessment
of the change or lack of change in the number of complaints over the previous
and preceding few years. On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 24 votes to 0 Resolved (unanimously) that: Council notes the value of
the Annual Complaints Report to Civic Affairs Committee and the council and • its importance as a resource for
improving services to the public, • the
importance of providing public disclosure and an opportunity for councillors to
review and question the complaints received, and • the recording of actions taken to
remedy them. To further strengthen this,
future Annual Complaints Reports will each year identify three areas of
complaint meriting further investigation and report back to Civic Affairs. The selection of the three areas
in the report to Civic Affairs Committee will be based on an assessment of the
change or lack of change in the number of complaints over the previous and
preceding few years. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Cantrill: Mill Road Depot Minutes: Councillor Cantrill
proposed and Councillor Adey seconded the following motion: The housing market in
Cambridge is broken. The majority of residents cannot afford to rent or buy a
property in the city. This is particularly the case for people on low salaries
doing critical jobs such as care workers, nurses and teachers. Private rents
have increased by 20% since 2014 (median private rent). In addition, affordable
rents in Cambridge are not affordable for very many people. The Housing needs
register has over 2,500 households seeking accommodation, with over 1,500
single households making up the register. In the medium to long term,
this issue can only be addressed by a fundamental review of the level of supply
of housing of all kinds in and around Cambridge. However, in the short term,
key stakeholders in the city should act to relieve this unacceptable pressure
for residents. The City Council, as a key
stakeholder in the city, has a unique opportunity at this time to use its
financial and social capital to help to address this important problem. The Mill Road Depot site
provides one of a small number of large strategic sites in the centre of the
city that the council can use to address these critical housing issues. This is
particularly the case as the Council is the owner of the majority of the site
and is in receipt of £70m of devolved funds to build 500 social homes. This council therefore
calls on the Leader and the Executive Councillors for Housing and Finance to
bring forward plans for the Mill Road Depot that: • reflect the feedback from the
public consultations undertaken - in particular the provision of community
facilities • have a level of affordable
housing on the site of at least 80% (with the majority being social housing –
rented on a Local Authority rental basis – as defined by Cambridgeshire
Insight) • provide an element of
properties on the site that are rented on a ‘Local Living Rent’ basis to key
workers (ie based on one third of an individual’s net income – rather than with
reference to a discount to market rents) - this would be one of the first
schemes of this nature outside London • ensure that the development of
the site is undertaken on the highest level of sustainability – including
limiting the use of car usage on the site to a minimum and encouraging
sustainable transport Councillor Price proposed
and Councillor Todd-Jones seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted
text struck through and additional text underlined):
This Council notes that: i) The combined effects since 2010 under
first the Liberal Democrat and Tory coalition government, and now the Tory
government, of a number of government policies in housing and welfare have had
a severe impact on the problems of housing supply and housing affordability in
Cambridge. ii) Around a quarter of the City’s households
earn under £16,000 a year and for people on lower incomes the provision of
social housing for rent in Cambridge is vital, which is why the Council’s new
build programme is targeted at those on below median incomes. iii) The Housing Needs Register has around
2500 households seeking accommodation and over a quarter of annual lets are to
those to whom the Council has agreed a statutory duty of homelessness. iii) Our agreement with the Government for
the Devolution Housing Grant and use of our retained Right to Buy receipts is
to deliver at least 500 new council homes over five years, and council owned
sites in both the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund are key in
delivering those homes. This Council also notes that: i) the only major General Fund owned site to
be redeveloped by the Council in recent years is Clay Farm, where the Council
achieved 50% of homes delivered as Affordable Housing but with a tenure split
of 60% social rented and 40% shared ownership which is below the Council’s own
Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (AHSPD) tenure
recommendation of 75/25% and the high costs of shared ownership has meant that
the units there are increasingly slow to sell. ii) prior to Labour taking control of the
Council in 2014, the practice of the then Liberal Democrat administration was
to sell off a significant proportion of the land on small Housing Revenue
Account redevelopment sites to be developed for market sale, and that the loss
of existing and potential council homes was justified on the basis of the need
for ‘mixed and balanced communities’ by the Liberal Democrats. iii) The Mill Road Depot site provides one of
a small number of large strategic sites in the centre of the city that the
Council can use to address the critical need for affordable rented housing in
Cambridge. iv) the Mill Road Depot SPD was approved in
March 2017 with the aim of achieving a new high quality, sustainable, mixed and
balanced community. This Council therefore resolves, having
regard to the Mill Road Depot SPD: i) to seek to achieve 50% of the homes
delivered on Mill Road Depot as new council homes; ii) to consider options for increasing the
level and range of affordable housing delivered on the site above 50%, including
where this unlocks the possibility of further affordable and council homes on
other nearby sites iii) to consider options for achieving, and
where possible exceeding, other requirements stated in the Mill Road Depot SPD
relating to open space and community facilities. iv) to deliver an exemplary development by
seeking for the homes delivered on Mill Road Depot to be constructed to the
standards laid out in the Cambridge Sustainable Housing Design Guide. v) to seek to meet the needs of the new
community and the wider adjacent communities by integrating and connecting the
site to the neighbourhood with a network of high quality pedestrian and cycle
routes, including as part of the Chisholm Trail, and to ensure surrounding
streets are not further pressured for car parking by the provision of an
appropriate level of mainly underground car parking on the site. On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 22 votes to 9. Resolved (21 votes to 0) that: This Council notes that: i) The combined effects
since 2010 under first the Liberal Democrat and Tory coalition government, and
now the Tory government, of a number of government policies in housing and
welfare have had a severe impact on the problems of housing supply and housing
affordability in Cambridge. ii) Around a quarter of the
City’s households earn under £16,000 a year and for people on lower incomes the
provision of social housing for rent in Cambridge is vital, which is why the
Council’s new build programme is targeted at those on below median incomes. iii) The Housing Needs
Register has around 2500 households seeking accommodation and over a quarter of
annual lets are to those to whom the Council has agreed a statutory duty of
homelessness. iii) Our agreement with the
Government for the Devolution Housing Grant and use of our retained Right to
Buy receipts is to deliver at least 500 new council homes over five years, and
council owned sites in both the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund
are key in delivering those homes. This Council also notes
that: i) the only major General
Fund owned site to be redeveloped by the Council in recent years is Clay Farm,
where the Council achieved 50% of homes delivered as Affordable Housing but
with a tenure split of 60% social rented and 40% shared ownership which is
below the Council’s own Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document
(AHSPD) tenure recommendation of 75/25% and the high costs of shared ownership
has meant that the units there are increasingly slow to sell. ii) prior to Labour taking control
of the Council in 2014, the practice of the then Liberal Democrat
administration was to sell off a significant proportion of the land on small
Housing Revenue Account redevelopment sites to be developed for market sale,
and that the loss of existing and potential council homes was justified on the
basis of the need for ‘mixed and balanced communities’ by the Liberal
Democrats. iii) The Mill Road Depot
site provides one of a small number of large strategic sites in the centre of
the city that the Council can use to address the critical need for affordable
rented housing in Cambridge. iv) the Mill Road Depot SPD
was approved in March 2017 with the aim of achieving a new high quality,
sustainable, mixed and balanced community. This Council therefore resolves,
having regard to the Mill Road Depot SPD: i) to seek to achieve 50%
of the homes delivered on Mill Road Depot as new council homes; ii) to consider options for
increasing the level and range of affordable housing delivered on the site
above 50%, including where this unlocks the possibility of further affordable
and council homes on other nearby sites iii) to consider options
for achieving, and where possible exceeding, other requirements stated in the
Mill Road Depot SPD relating to open space and community facilities. iv) to deliver an exemplary
development by seeking for the homes delivered on Mill Road Depot to be
constructed to the standards laid out in the Cambridge Sustainable Housing
Design Guide. v) to seek to meet the
needs of the new community and the wider adjacent communities by integrating
and connecting the site to the neighbourhood with a network of high quality
pedestrian and cycle routes, including as part of the Chisholm Trail, and to
ensure surrounding streets are not further pressured for car parking by the
provision of an appropriate level of mainly underground car parking on the
site. 8d Councillor Smart: Fair Pay for
Public Sector Staff Councillor
Smart proposed and Councillor Bird seconded the following motion: Cambridge
City Council notes that • For
most local government workers, pay and conditions are determined nationally by
the National Joint Council (NJC) and, on average, NJC basic pay has fallen by
21% in real terms since 2010. • NJC
workers had a three-year pay freeze from 2010 to 2012 and have received capped
1% pay increases annually since then. • While
bottom-loaded NJC pay settlements are welcome, these have squeezed pay grade
differentials between lower paid staff. • The
majority of NJC workers are women and the gender pay gap has widened in the
public sector since the pay cap was introduced. The
Council • Supports
the GMB campaign to end the public sector Pay Pinch and end continuous cuts to
public sector real pay, while being committed to protecting quality service
delivery and council jobs, and will contact the Local Government Association
and all East Region employer representatives on the NJC to that effect in
relation to the 2018 local government pay negotiations. • Welcomes
the joint review of the NJC pay spine to remedy the effects of bottom-loaded
pay settlements. • In
addition to already paying at least the Living Wage to all its staff, shares
the GMB objective for a Living Wage of at least £10 an hour for all public
sector workers, and the Council will investigate increasing minimum pay to City
Council staff to £10 per hour from 2018. • Will
write to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
copied to GMB supporting the Pay Pinch campaign and the end to real public
sector pay cuts, and to call on Government to provide vital extra funding to
the public sector to achieve fair pay settlements without cutting services or
jobs. Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Smart: Fair Pay for Public Sector Staff Minutes: Councillor
Smart proposed and Councillor Bird seconded the following motion: Cambridge
City Council notes that • For
most local government workers, pay and conditions are determined nationally by
the National Joint Council (NJC) and, on average, NJC basic pay has fallen by
21% in real terms since 2010. • NJC
workers had a three-year pay freeze from 2010 to 2012 and have received capped
1% pay increases annually since then. • While
bottom-loaded NJC pay settlements are welcome, these have squeezed pay grade
differentials between lower paid staff. • The
majority of NJC workers are women and the gender pay gap has widened in the public
sector since the pay cap was introduced. The
Council • Supports
the GMB campaign to end the public sector Pay Pinch and end continuous cuts to
public sector real pay, while being committed to protecting quality service
delivery and council jobs, and will contact the Local Government Association
and all East Region employer representatives on the NJC to that effect in
relation to the 2018 local government pay negotiations. • Welcomes
the joint review of the NJC pay spine to remedy the effects of bottom-loaded
pay settlements. • In
addition to already paying at least the Living Wage to all its staff, shares
the GMB objective for a Living Wage of at least £10 an hour for all public
sector workers, and the Council will investigate increasing minimum pay to City
Council staff to £10 per hour from 2018. • Will
write to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government, copied to GMB supporting the Pay Pinch campaign and the end to real
public sector pay cuts, and to call on Government to provide vital extra
funding to the public sector to achieve fair pay settlements without cutting
services or jobs. Resolved (unanimously) to support
the motion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Herbert: Membership of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee Minutes: Councillor Herbert proposed and Councillor Sarris
seconded the following motion: This Council is to agree: To change the size of the Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee from 6 members to 8 members for the remainder of the Municipal
Year and to note that the two seats will be taken by the Independent and Green
Group and the Labour Group. Council notes that this change does not affect the
proportionality overall of seats on committees in any other way. Councillor Herbert then
moved to amend the motion, seconded by Councillor Sarris, in accordance with
the Council’s Constitution 23.3, Council Procedure Rules as follows: That there then be 8
members on S&R (5 Labour, 2 Lib Dem, Cllr Hipkin). A corresponding
reduction to remove an anomaly on Environment Scrutiny Committee reducing the 5
Labour members to 4, a reduction of one to 4:2 Resolved by (26 votes to 0) to amend the motion Members were advised that a
change of proportionality required that no member voted against the amended
motion Resolved (26 votes to-1) to support the motion. Therefore the motion was
lost. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Written questions 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: The Mayor advised that no written questions had been received. |