Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the 18 July 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

 

Apologies

Apologies were received from Councillors Collis, Hipkin and Smith. Councillors Gehring and Payne gave apologies for lateness. 

 

Mayor’s day out

The annual outing for senior citizens to Great Yarmouth in August was a huge success and the Mayor thanked councillors who helped with stewarding.

 

Chariots of Fire

The Mayor joined the High Sheriff in presenting the awards at this year’s event.

 

Annual firework display

Members were invited to this year’s Annual Firework Display on Midsummer Common on Tuesday 5 November 2019.

 

Rowan Trust -  35^th anniversary

The Mayor invited Members to join her at one of her charity events for the Rowan Trust on Friday 8 November 2019.

 

Remembrance  

Members were reminded that the Remembrance Sunday civic service would take place on Sunday 10 November 2019.

 

Mayor’s Reception

The Mayor’s reception was taking place on Friday 15 November, it was an opportunity to thank members of the community for their hard work during the year.

 

Chevyn Service

This is advance notice that the preaching of the Chevyn Sermon would be taking place on Sunday 26 January 2020.  Invitations would be sent out nearer the time.

 

Local Champions Day

The Mayor thanked Local Government workers for all their hard work as they encouraged communities to thrive and helped the most vulnerable in our society.  The Mayor asked members to look at photographs that Councillor Price had taken of city council workers performing their varied duties, which were on display outside the Council Chamber.

 

Declarations of Interest

 

Member	Item	Interest
Davey	19/45/CNL	Partner worked for Cambridgeshire County Council with responsibility for housing need
Baigent	19/47/CNL	Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Cantrill	19/45/CNL	Trustee of Winter Comfort
Dalzell	19/48/CNL	Volunteer for Food Cycle
Thornburrow	19/48/CNL	Volunteers for Food Cycle
Hadley	19/45/CNL	Partner works for Willow Walk
Robertson	19/45/CNL	Trustee of Cambridge Cyrenians

 

 

·        Newnham: Josh Matthews

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

·        Newnham: Josh Matthews

 

 

A member of the public asked a question as set out below.

1.   He was Chairman of Cam Valley Forum, which was a community group concerned with the welfare of the river Cam. Without a healthy river Cam this was not Cambridge. The Cam needed protection from the over abstraction of its ground water sources. This had in recent years caused low flows and its upper river status to be classed as 'poor'.

 

Given that Cambridge was in a water stressed region and that this was now well recognised by all the local Water Companies and Government Agencies concerned, asked if the City Council could grant a much greater protected status to the river Cam.

              

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces responded:

     i.        Thanked the public speaker for raising his question.

    ii.        Commented that this was a dire situation.

   iii.        The river Cam was designated a county wildlife site as was Hobsons Brook and Nine Wells was a nature reserve. This meant that the rivers and brooks would be material considerations in any planning application.

  iv.        There was an EU Water Framework Directive which sought to bring all rivers to ‘good’ ecological status. Anything below good was considered to be failing. The Granta and Chalk Stream were failing. Information regarding this was contained on the Environmental Agency’s website, which had not been updated since 2016.

   v.        Commented that there were many questions to be asked.

  vi.        She had heard a comment from an expert that the river Cam could be dead next year.

 vii.        There was no spawn from head waters, which was an ecological disaster.

viii.        The City Council was not in a position to increase the protected status of the river but the council could try and find out as much information as possible and start asking questions of the right people.

  ix.        She would call a water crisis forum and wanted this to be a cross party forum. South Cambridgeshire District Council Councillors were also invited to participate. A meeting would be held soon and she hoped that the member of the public would be able to attend. She  would develop a report on this issue. 

 

The member of the public made the following supplementary point:

     i.        He would leave two copies of river Cam manifesto and if councillors wanted to find out more information they could simply search ‘Cam Valley Forum’ on the web.

 

 

Councillor Porrer proposed and Councillor Cantril seconded the following amendment (additional text underlined):

 

     i.        Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the officers report, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H.

   ii.        Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Devolution Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance and the specific use of Section 106 Funding for investment in affordable housing against the Campkin Road scheme

  iii.        Council is asked to note, as per the unanimous agreement at the recent Housing Scrutiny Committee in the light of the recent declaration of a climate emergency, that the HRA MTFS will be reviewed within a year to take into account specific environmentally sustainable solutions to ongoing maintenance, repairs and replacements, as well as for new build proposals.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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 officers report, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H.

  ii.          Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Devolution Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance and the specific use of Section 106 Funding for investment in affordable housing against the Campkin Road scheme.

 iii.          Note, as per the unanimous agreement at the recent Housing Scrutiny Committee in the light of the recent declaration of a climate emergency, that the HRA MTFS will be reviewed within a year to take into account specific environmentally sustainable solutions to ongoing maintenance, repairs and replacements, as well as for new build proposals.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

i.             Approve the proposed localised Council Tax Reduction schemes (as set out in the officers report).

 

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0) to:

 

     i.        Approve the report which included the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2019/20 to 2022/23.

    ii.        Approve an increase in the Authorised Limit for External Debt from £300m to £400m (paragraph 5.3 of the officer’s report).

   iii.        Note the inclusion of loans to the Cambridge City Housing Company and Cambridge Investment Partnership on the Current Counterparty list shown in Appendix B of the officer’s report.

 

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0) to:

 

i.             Agree the budget strategy and timetable as outlined in Section 1 [pages 5 to 7 refer] of the MTFS document.

ii.            Agree the incorporation of changed assumptions and indicative net unavoidable budget pressures identified in Section 4 [pages 20 to 22 refer]. This provides an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years, and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Section 5 [page 23 refer] and reserves [section 7 pages 30 to 33 refer] of the MTFS document.

iii.           Note the changes to the capital plan as set out in Section 6 [pages 24 to 29 refer] and Appendix A [pages 37 to 41 refer] of the MTFS document and agree the new proposals.

Ref	Description/ £’000s	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23	23/24	24/25	Total
SC646	Redevelopment of Cambridge Junction	250						250
SC658	CCTV infrastructure – additional cost	75						75
SC691	HR and payroll – new system	20	150					170
SC699	Corn Exchange fire doors	37						37
SC672	Mill Road redevelopment – development loan to CIP		1,142					1,142
SC695	Cromwell Road redevelopment – equity contribution		329	333				662
SC696	Cromwell Road redevelopment loan to CIP	2,376	5,481	1,000				8,857
SC701	Dales Brewery – replacement fire alarm system	24						24
	Total Proposals	2,782	7,102	1,333				11,217

 

iv.          Agree changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £5.51m and the target level at £6.61m as detailed in section 7 [pages 30 to 33 refer] and Appendix B [pages 42 and 43 refer] of the officers report.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

     i.        Amend Part 4I: Officer Employment Procedure Rules to include the following statement:

Other Employees

Appointment of employees at head of service level and below is the responsibility of the Head of Paid Service or his/her nominee, and may not be made by Councillors.

Director Posts

A committee of the Council appointed for that purpose will appoint Director level posts. The Executive Notification process will be undertaken for these roles.

    ii.        Delegate to the Head of Human Resources and Head of Legal Practice authority to update the Constitution in Part 4I: Officer Employment Procedure Rules to include the approved statements.

   iii.        Delegate to the Head of Human Resources and Head of Legal Practice authority to update the Constitution in Part 4I: Officer Employment Procedure Rules to modify the remaining paragraphs to simplify and clarify the text in line with the practice of South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire District Councils.

 

 

1) Councillor Smart to the Executive Councillor for Housing

This week is the first ever Street Aid Week. What is the Council doing to promote the event amongst the public? And what is it seeking to achieve?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the first Street Aid week had begun on 14 October and would run until 18 October. There was a fund raising target of £2500.  The Street Aid Co-Ordinator had planned key activities during the Street Aid week which included the unveiling of the Street Aid week banner at the Guildhall and there had been a stall in the Grand Arcade to promote their contactless donation terminal. There was an event at St Paul’s Church to launch their contactless donation terminal. Leaflets promoting Street Aid were handed out at key locations in the City including at the Train Station and the Market Square. Eight further contactless donation terminals were planned in council car parks and Co-Op stores across the City.  Other organisations were also promoting Street Aid through bake sales, college dinners and raffles. The Council had promoted Street Aid through press releases, adverts on buses and information on Twitter, Facebook and in Cambridge Matters. An article had also been included in the Cambridge BID magazine.

 

2) Councillor Sheil to the Executive Councillor for Communities

What are some of the measures we are currently taking to combat poverty in the city?

The Leader responded that the council continued to review how it could raise the capacity of individuals and communities in the City by interventions.  He referred to the 2020-2023 Food Poverty Strategy which was contained within the Information Pack. An example was the cookery classes, delivered by Cambridge Sustainable Food which helped people learn how to cook on a low income.  The Digital Inclusion Project was another example of how the Council worked with the North Cambridge Community Partnership to assist tenants and residents with their IT skills as a lot of companies now only provided their services online.  There was a whole range of council staff who introduced anti-poverty initiatives within their services to assist vulnerable members of the community.

 

3) Councillor Pippas to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Can the Executive Councillor update us on the status of the proposed installation of a security barrier on King’s Parade please?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the Council had been working closely with the County Council and the Police to progress this scheme. The scheme had taken some time to progress as he had wanted to ensure that concerns which had been raised around parking and deliveries were addressed. An application for an order to close King’s Parade and to relocate new disabled parking spaces had been submitted to the County Council. The County Council were expected to determine the application soon and once the application had been determined, an installation date would be provided. Officers had undertaken to brief Ward Councillors, local businesses and residents once the order had been determined.

 

4) Councillor McGerty to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

Can the Executive Councillor provide an update on the activities of the Area Ranger service?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the Streets and Open Spaces Community and Engagement Service had been running for just over 12 months and comprised a Team Leader, four Area Rangers and a local Nature Reserve Ranger. Officers undertook a range of duties on a day to day basis, engaging with the council’s volunteers under the Corporate Volunteer policy. Officers also worked with local community groups and schools to support environmental projects and to assist in the delivery of local and national behaviour campaigns across the City. Officers helped to support and deliver community clean up days and dealt with abandoned bikes and shopping trolleys across the city. They also helped to organise community pay back projects in the city.

 

The local Nature Reserve Ranger had a special role and worked with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, volunteers and community groups to monitour and help the council reach targets with biodiversity and deliver improvement across the city.

 

5) Councillor O’Reilly to the Executive Councillor for Communities

What lessons are we learning from the review of Cambridge Live?

The Leader responded that the Council had learned a number of important lessons from the Cambridge Live review. One lesson was to be clear about the reasons for creating a Trust to deliver services. He noted that trusts which had been set up by other local authorities had also encountered issues and had also struggled to deliver savings which the Cambridge Live Trust had sought to achieve. There was a delicate balance in setting up an arm’s length company and allowing it to develop. A further lesson which had been learnt was that it needed to be clear what role Councillors played in the Trust. He paid tribute to previous Councillors who had served on the Cambridge Live Board.

 

6) Councillor Todd-Jones to the Executive Councillor for Housing

Does the Executive Councillor believe revised proposals for Meadows and Buchan Street, currently out for consultation, take full account of public comments expressed on the previous set of plans?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that residents views had been considered carefully following the consultation for the Meadows and Buchan Street development. Building new council homes was a key priority for the council but the council was committed to doing so in a way which worked for the whole community. Any open space lost would be kept to a minimum. The council looked to maximise the number of council homes, with a new modern community centre to serve Kings Hedges and North Cambridge. The Executive Councillor reported that there was a set of revised plans, which would deliver these objectives. The development would deliver over 100 sustainable council homes and 92% of open space would be retained. Concerns had been raised that 5 storey buildings would be too high and overbearing; the units closest to Daisy Close had been reduced to 3 and 4 storeys in height.  The Executive Councillor confirmed that the London Plane Trees would be retained along St Catherine’s Road.

 

7) Councillor Gehring to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

Reducing single use plastics is a key part of all carbon neutrality strategies- does the Executive Councillor agree that it is therefore of vital importance that water fountains are installed and functional in public parks?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that water fountains were very important on public open space for carbon neutrality. The Council had signed up to the Cambridge Plastic Pledge, which encouraged every business and organisation in Cambridge to make a change to reduce the amount of single use plastic they use. The council was supporting the pledge in a number of ways including supporting the National Refill campaign. A drinking fountain had recently been installed at Parker’s Piece. The Council had invested in three new water points in parks, two on Parkers Piece and one on Jesus Green, which helped reduce the use of plastic at major events such as the Big Weekend and other events. Going forward all new and refurbished community buildings would have water refill points. The most recent round of the Environmental Improvement Programme sought out suggestions for new public water points, a suggestion from a Castle Ward Councillor at Histon Road Recreation Ground would be considered by the West Central Area Committee in December. A further scheme on Midsummer Common Orchard was being looked into.

 

8) Councillor Porrer to the Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Could the Executive Councillor for confirm that she is still keen to reduce congestion and pollution in and around Cambridge?

 

The Executive Councillor was keen to reduce congestion and all forms of pollution in the city; particularly air pollution. She believed that Cambridge needed a clean air zone.  Her preferred plan would be a stepped programme covering buses, taxis and coaches initially then as time went on more vehicles would be included with stricter zero emission requirements. This plan would improve air quality in the city and would give individuals, businesses, and bus companies’ clarity for their future plans and prompt them to consider when renewing their vehicles to do so with vehicles that were low or zero emission vehicles. She noted that this debate was often seen as a negative but stated that this should be seen as a positive as the city is prioritising the health and wellbeing of people. Active travel (eg: walking and cycling) and public transport (eg: buses) had health benefits, these were not just physical benefits but also mental health benefits. She was in favour of increased pedestrianisation in King’s Parade; less cars would make the area safer and there would be more space for trees, planters, flowers and benches.

 

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.

 

9) Councillor McQueen to the Executive Councillor for Communities

What is the executive councillor’s opinion of the proposed review of adult social care charging which is being proposed by the county council’s adults committee?

 

10) Councillor Davies to the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Please can the Executive Councillor give council an update on where discussions with The Police and Crime Commissioner regarding a remaining Cambridge City Police Station once the main police station has moved to a new site?

 

11) Councillor Tunnacliffe to the Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

At this summer's Chesterton Festival which attracted considerable numbers of people, the toilets on Chesterton recreation ground. Were wholly inadequate and quickly became quite disgusting. The toilet for disabled people did not have a RADAR key operated lock. The whole site was supposed to have been refurbished by this year but nothing has been done. During the day the plumbing gave up and there was a flood.

Could the executive councillor say what will be done at future Chesterton Festivals and similar civic events, to avoid a repeat of what was a distressing experience for many people, including volunteers who tried to clean the mess?

12) Councillor Martinelli to the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety

Is the Executive Councillor satisfied that all possible actions are being taken to minimise antisocial behaviour in the city centre?

13) Councillor Davey to the Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Having met the Climate Change Strategy Aspirational Target of a 20% reduction on Carbon emissions two years early we have made a very positive start to our work to tackle climate change. What should be our focus in the next 12 months prior to revamping our Carbon Management Plan in 2021?

 

 

14) Councillor Barnett to the Executive Councillor for Communities

What is the council doing to create sporting opportunities for young people in the city?

 

15) Councillor Summerbell to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

There is an epidemic of pub demolitions across the UK. In many cases these demolitions occur without the appropriate planning permission. Pubs lost in these circumstances across the country include the Alchemist in Battersea, the Carlton Tavern in Maida Vale, the Admiral Jellico in Canvey, the Bay Horse in Warrington, the Royal Oak in Leatherhead, the Battle of Britain in Northfleet, the Ten Bells in Leeds, and the Osborne Arms in Cambridge.

 

In some cases, these demolitions are awarded retrospective permission, as in the case of the Osborne Arms. In the case of the Bay Horse, those responsible were fined only £16,500 – hardly a deterrent when dealing with the multi-million pound business of property development. In the case of the Ten Bells, demolition was begun due to structural damage incurred during conversion work.

 

However, the case of the Alchemist and the Carlton Tavern provide an excellent example of an effective way to ensure the onus is on developers to ensure the planning process is followed to the letter. The developers have been ordered to rebuild the illegally demolished pubs, brick by brick. Not only does this restore a heritage asset, but it provides an effective deterrent to demolition without correct permission. 

Will the executive councillor commit, when any pub in Cambridge falls vacant without immediate and clear plans for reoccupation, to releasing a statement clarifying that rebuilding is a credible and likely sanction for any demolition without appropriate advance planning permission.

 

16) Councillor Cantrill to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Open Spaces

Does the Executive Councillor believe the planning service is currently delivering for the residents of Cambridge?

17) Councillor Payne to the Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Could the Executive Councillor comment on the efficiency of green bin recycling across the City?

 

 

18) Councillor Chadwick to the Executive Councillor for Housing

Does the Executive Councillor believe the Council keeps its housing stock well maintained?

19) Councillor Baigent to the Leader

What do you think is the best way to stop Brexit?

 

20) Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor for Housing

Would he join me in congratulating Norwich City Council for winning the Stirling Prize for their Goldsmith Street scheme of council eco-homes?

 

21) Councillor Dalzell to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Can the Executive Councillor confirm when he expects this Council's audited statement of accounts for the last financial year to be approved and published?

 

 

 

Council welcomes the prospect of expanded "Housing First" provision for rough sleepers in Cambridge and the additional contribution it can make alongside the hostel pathway to progress rough sleepers off the streets and into mainstream accommodation. However it notes that under the current strategy, which is subject to collaboration between the city and county councils, the ongoing visiting support which is integral to Housing First is set to be funded from cutbacks to existing hostel provision.

 

Council believes that hostels are likely to remain the most effective provision for some rough sleepers who benefit from the structure provided and the company of others, whilst Housing First models have been shown to provide a more successful solution for some individuals who have demonstrably been unable to succeed in the hostel system. As the city’s rough sleeping problem continues at a high level, additional service is clearly called for and both types of provision are likely be necessary - not one or the other.

 

Council notes the county council’s proposal to cease funding for support services at the Willow Walk hostel, the only hostel in the city for rough sleepers with the highest level of needs. This threat is causing concern among professional practitioners, who consider that neither Housing First nor the city’s other hostels will be able to meet the needs of the full number and full range of service users currently catered for at Willow Walk, leaving some extremely vulnerable individuals with no suitable housing provison at all. This is also a matter of concern to the police and the general public, who fear that the loss of this facility will increase, rather than reduce, rough sleeping and suffering in this city. This concern is further increased given the prospect that the building, owned by Riverside Housing, could be redeployed to accommodate homeless people from London and other areas.

 

Accordingly, council calls on the county council to set aside any decisions, tentative or otherwise, to withdraw funding for any hostels for rough sleepers, until it has completed and published a full needs analysis of this client group and gained agreement on a clear vision for overall provision embracing innovation such as Housing First, where appropriate. 

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the following motion:

 

Council welcomes the prospect of expanded "Housing First" provision for rough sleepers in Cambridge and the additional contribution it can make alongside the hostel pathway to progress rough sleepers off the streets and into mainstream accommodation. However it notes that under the current strategy, which is subject to collaboration between the city and county councils, the ongoing visiting support which is integral to Housing First is set to be funded from cutbacks to existing hostel provision.

 

Council believes that hostels are likely to remain the most effective provision for some rough sleepers who benefit from the structure provided and the company of others, whilst Housing First models have been shown to provide a more successful solution for some individuals who have demonstrably been unable to succeed in the hostel system. As the city’s rough sleeping problem continues at a high level, additional service is clearly called for and both types of provision are likely be necessary - not one or the other.

 

Council notes the county council’s proposal to cease funding for support services at the Willow Walk hostel, the only hostel in the city for rough sleepers with the highest level of needs. This threat is causing concern among professional practitioners, who consider that neither Housing First nor the city’s other hostels will be able to meet the needs of the full number and full range of service users currently catered for at Willow Walk, leaving some extremely vulnerable individuals with no suitable housing provison at all. This is also a matter of concern to the police and the general public, who fear that the loss of this facility will increase, rather than reduce, rough sleeping and suffering in this city. This concern is further increased given the prospect that the building, owned by Riverside Housing, could be redeployed to accommodate homeless people from London and other areas.

 

Accordingly, council calls on the county council to set aside any decisions, tentative or otherwise, to withdraw funding for any hostels for rough sleepers, until it has completed and published a full needs analysis of this client group and gained agreement on a clear vision for overall provision embracing innovation such as Housing First, where appropriate.

 

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

 

Council welcomes the prospect of expanded "Housing First" provision for rough sleepers in Cambridge and the additional contribution it can make alongside the hostel pathway to progress rough sleepers off the streets and into mainstream accommodation. However it notes that under the current strategy, which is subject to collaboration between the city and county councils, the ongoing visiting support which is integral to Housing First is set to be funded from cutbacks to existing hostel provision.

 

Council believes that hostels are likely to remain the most effective provision for some rough sleepers who benefit from the structure provided and the company of others, whilst Housing First models have been shown to provide a more successful solution for some individuals who have demonstrably been unable to succeed in the hostel system. As the city’s rough sleeping problem continues at a high level, additional service is clearly called for and both types of provision are likely be necessary - not one or the other support is called for to help people move more quickly to settled accommodation where they can begin to address other issues, and plan for their future.

 

Council notes the county council’s proposal to cease funding for support services at the Willow Walk hostel, the only hostel in the city for rough sleepers with the highest level of needs. While the county council has made reference to reinvesting funds from Willow Walk towards the expansion of Housing First, there is no suggestion the proposed programme of increased support for Housing First by the city council is directly reliant on the possible decommissioning of the hostel.

 

This threat is causing concern among professional practitioners, who consider that neither Housing First nor the city’s other hostels will be able to meet the needs of the full number and full range of service users currently catered for at Willow Walk, leaving some extremely vulnerable individuals with no suitable housing provision at all. This is also a matter of concern to the police and the general public, who fear that the loss of this facility will increase, rather than reduce, rough sleeping and suffering in this city. This concern is further increased given the prospect that the building, owned by Riverside Housing, could be redeployed to accommodate homeless people from London and other areas.

 

Council recognises the difficult financial decisions that all local authorities need to take due to a decade of austerity which, under the Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition and subsequent Tory governments, led to rough sleeping increasing by 165% between 2010 and 2018 according to official figures. Nevertheless, it expresses concern that the county council are looking to make £1m worth of cuts to its housing related support budget with inevitable consequences for services who work with vulnerable people in Cambridge, like Whitworth House, An Lac House and Jimmy’s.

 

Council believes that funding decisions in this area should be evidence-based to meet the goal of supporting rough sleepers back into self-contained, safe and secure accommodation and off the streets for good. Any proposals by the county council to cutback funding existing services, like at Willow Walk, which has the potential to increase rough sleeping, must be avoided.

 

Accordingly, council calls on the county council to set aside any decisions, tentative or otherwise, to withdraw funding for any hostels for rough sleepers, until it has completed and published a full needs analysis of this client group and gained agreement on a clear vision strategy for overall provision embracing innovation such as Housing First, where appropriate. Such a strategy would best be developed, and in partnership, alongside our own proposed “Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2020 – 2025”.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 21 votes to 15.

 

Resolved (by 36 votes to 0):

 

Council welcomes the prospect of expanded "Housing First" provision for rough sleepers in Cambridge and the additional contribution it can make alongside the hostel pathway to progress rough sleepers off the streets and into mainstream accommodation.

 

Council believes that hostels are likely to remain the most effective provision for some rough sleepers who benefit from the structure provided and the company of others, whilst Housing First models have been shown to provide a more successful solution for some individuals who have demonstrably been unable to succeed in the hostel system. As the city’s rough sleeping problem continues at a high level, additional support is called for to help people move more quickly to settled accommodation where they can begin to address other issues, and plan for their future.

 

Council notes the county council’s proposal to cease funding for support services at the Willow Walk hostel, the only hostel in the city for rough sleepers with the highest level of needs. While the county council has made reference to reinvesting funds from Willow Walk towards the expansion of Housing First, there is no suggestion the proposed programme of increased support for Housing First by the city council is directly reliant on the possible decommissioning of the hostel.

  

Council recognises the difficult financial decisions that all local authorities need to take due to a decade of austerity which, under the Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition and subsequent Tory governments, led to rough sleeping increasing by 165% between 2010 and 2018 according to official figures. Nevertheless, it expresses concern that the county council are looking to make £1m worth of cuts to its housing related support budget with inevitable consequences for services who work with vulnerable people in Cambridge, like Whitworth House, An Lac House and Jimmy’s.

 

Council believes that funding decisions in this area should be evidence-based to meet the goal of supporting rough sleepers back into self-contained, safe and secure accommodation and off the streets for good. Any proposals by the county council to cutback funding existing services, like at Willow Walk, which has the potential to increase rough sleeping, must be avoided.

 

Accordingly, council calls on the county council to set aside any decisions, tentative or otherwise, to withdraw funding for any hostels for rough sleepers, until it has completed and published a full needs analysis of this client group and gained agreement on a clear strategy for overall provision embracing innovation such as Housing First, where appropriate. Such a strategy would best be developed, and in partnership, alongside our own proposed “Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2020 – 2025”.

 

Following the vote taken, and when Council reconvened following the refreshment break, Councillors Davey and Hadley on points of personal explanation informed the Council that because of their declared interests in 19/45/CNL, they wished to withdraw the votes they made on both the amendment and the motion as amended. The votes recorded above on both the amendment and the motion have been amended to reflect this position.

 

 

Council notes the high level of fly tipping around the city and the recent withdrawal of dry mixed recycling facilities from seven of the city’s neighbourhood recycling points.

Council calls on the Executive Councillor to institute an urgent review of the relationship between the recycling centres and fly tipping and to consider whether fuller recycling services and more frequent collection might be a better approach – and to bring the results to the scrutiny committee.

Info: List of sites where dry mixed recycling has been withdrawn. Arbury Court, Cherry Hinton Hall, Coldham’s Lane, Colville Road, Gwydir Street, Hauxton Road (Waitrose), Newmarket Road (Tesco).

 

Councillor McGerty proposed and Councillor Martinelli seconded the following motion:

 

Council notes the high level of fly tipping around the city and the recent withdrawal of dry mixed recycling facilities from seven of the city’s neighbourhood recycling points.

Council calls on the Executive Councillor to institute an urgent review of the relationship between the recycling centres and fly tipping and to consider whether fuller recycling services and more frequent collection might be a better approach – and to bring the results to the scrutiny committee.

Info: List of sites where dry mixed recycling has been withdrawn. Arbury Court, Cherry Hinton Hall, Coldham’s Lane, Colville Road, Gwydir Street, Hauxton Road (Waitrose), Newmarket Road (Tesco).

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

 

Council notes the high level of fly tipping around the city and the recent withdrawal of dry mixed recycling facilities from seven of the city’s neighbourhood recycling points. Council calls on the Executive Councillor to institute an urgent review of the relationship between the recycling centres and fly tipping and to consider whether fuller recycling services and more frequent collection might be a better approach – and to bring the results to the scrutiny committee. Info: List of sites where dry mixed recycling has been withdrawn. Arbury Court, Cherry Hinton Hall, Coldham’s Lane, Colville Road, Gwydir Street, Hauxton Road (Waitrose), Newmarket Road (Tesco). This council notes; ·        the Shared Waste Service’s high kerbside collection rates for residual waste, mixed recycling and compostable waste at 99.8% due to the hard work of our waste-crews day in, day out through all weathers. ·        the increase on the Greater Cambridge rate for kerbside recycling to over 51%, achieved through greater focus on reducing contamination, which puts us in the top quartile of councils but with opportunities to increase the rate further. ·        the increased availability of kerbside collection of mixed recycling with the offer of up to four free blue bins per household plus the collection of side waste in clear plastic bags or folded cardboard. ·        the review of Recycling Points in the city that has been taking place over the past year to deal with fly-tipping and the high contamination rates in the mixed recycling, which has resulted in much of the waste collected from these sites being unfit to be recycled. ·        that dumping waste at Recycling points outside of the recycling bins is fly-tipping and therefore a criminal offence liable for a £400 fixed penalty notice ·        the increase in fly-tipping seen nationally with over 998,000 incidents reported by Local Authorities last year. ·        the environmental damage caused by fly-tipping and litter, to wildlife and local residents, particularly in rural areas. ·        the damage caused by litter and rubbish washing into our waterways and oceans. ·        the high cost of cleaning up fly-tipping and litter to local Authorities and organisations such as the Woodland Trust who estimated that they have spent over £1m in the last five years*. ·        the new Scrap-it scheme that Cambridge City Council are trialling along with our partners across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to raise awareness of fly-tipping to householders who may not realise that their waste is being fly-tipped and to improve evidence gathering and prosecution of offenders. ·        the improvements in the quality of recyclate collected and the reduction in fly-tipping seen at the Recycling Points where we have removed mixed recycling bins following the review ·        that in the last two years, the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste service have opened three new underground Recycling Points across the city ·        that the Shared Waste service are looking to add and promote the recycling of extra materials at Recycling Points that are not collected at the kerbside such as shoes, textiles, lightbulbs and small electricals. ·        the cost to the environment from high levels of waste and in this time of a climate crisis the importance of the waste hierarchy of Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.

 

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

 

Resolved (by 24 votes to 0):

 

This council notes; ·        the Shared Waste Service’s high kerbside collection rates for residual waste, mixed recycling and compostable waste at 99.8% due to the hard work of our waste-crews day in, day out through all weathers. ·        the increase on the Greater Cambridge rate for kerbside recycling to over 51%, achieved through greater focus on reducing contamination, which puts us in the top quartile of councils but with opportunities to increase the rate further. ·        the increased availability of kerbside collection of mixed recycling with the offer of up to four free blue bins per household plus the collection of side waste in clear plastic bags or folded cardboard. ·        the review of Recycling Points in the city that has been taking place over the past year to deal with fly-tipping and the high contamination rates in the mixed recycling, which has resulted in much of the waste collected from these sites being unfit to be recycled. ·        that dumping waste at Recycling points outside of the recycling bins is fly-tipping and therefore a criminal offence liable for a £400 fixed penalty notice ·        the increase in fly-tipping seen nationally with over 998,000 incidents reported by Local Authorities last year. ·        the environmental damage caused by fly-tipping and litter, to wildlife and local residents, particularly in rural areas. ·        the damage caused by litter and rubbish washing into our waterways and oceans. ·        the high cost of cleaning up fly-tipping and litter to local Authorities and organisations such as the Woodland Trust who estimated that they have spent over £1m in the last five years*. ·        the new Scrap-it scheme that Cambridge City Council are trialling along with our partners across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to raise awareness of fly-tipping to householders who may not realise that their waste is being fly-tipped and to improve evidence gathering and prosecution of offenders. ·        the improvements in the quality of recyclate collected and the reduction in fly-tipping seen at the Recycling Points where we have removed mixed recycling bins following the review ·        that in the last two years, the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste service have opened three new underground Recycling Points across the city ·        that the Shared Waste service are looking to add and promote the recycling of extra materials at Recycling Points that are not collected at the kerbside such as shoes, textiles, lightbulbs and small electricals. ·        the cost to the environment from high levels of waste and in this time of a climate crisis the importance of the waste hierarchy of Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council notes the consistently high level of unprosecuted cycle theft at Cambridge Rail Station Cycle Point, with over 100 reported episodes in the last year of publicly available crime statistics having led to no subsequent prosecutions. Council further notes that this is likely an under-representation of the total number of criminal acts in the area and that CCTV gives users a false sense of security when, in reality, the images are not monitored, nor have they proved useful in identifying thieves.

 

Council affirms that, in light of the Climate Emergency, it is committed to encouraging cycling as a sustainable form of transit and is not prepared to let organised crime undermine its transport strategy.

 

Council will therefore:

 

1) Write to Greater Anglia as operators of the Cycle Point to request urgent action aimed at ensuring that rail users' property is protected, including dramatically increasing security patrol frequency.

 

2) Write to the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary to request targeted enforcement given the recurrent and relatively predictable nature of the crimes involved.

 

3) Ask Officers to consider the possibility of planning enforcement measures against Greater Anglia Railways for not providing sufficient security of the Cycle Point premises

Councillor Martinelli proposed and Councillor Gehring seconded the following motion:

 

Council notes the consistently high level of unprosecuted cycle theft at Cambridge Rail Station Cycle Point, with over 100 reported episodes in the last year of publicly available crime statistics having led to no subsequent prosecutions. Council further notes that this is likely an under-representation of the total number of criminal acts in the area and that CCTV gives users a false sense of security when, in reality, the images are not monitored, nor have they proved useful in identifying thieves.

 

Council affirms that, in light of the Climate Emergency, it is committed to encouraging cycling as a sustainable form of transit and is not prepared to let organised crime undermine its transport strategy.

 

Council will therefore:

 

1) Write to Greater Anglia as operators of the Cycle Point to request urgent action aimed at ensuring that rail users' property is protected, including dramatically increasing security patrol frequency.

 

2) Write to the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary to request targeted enforcement given the recurrent and relatively predictable nature of the crimes involved.

 

3) Ask Officers to consider the possibility of planning enforcement measures against Greater Anglia Railways for not providing sufficient security of the Cycle Point premises.

 

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

 

Council notes the consistently high level of unprosecuted cycle theft at Cambridge Rail Station Cycle Point, with over 100 reported episodes in the last year of publicly available crime statistics having led to no subsequent prosecutions. Council further notes that this is likely an under-representation of the total number of criminal acts in the area and that CCTV gives users a false sense of security when, in reality, the images are not monitored, nor have they proved useful in identifying thieves.

 

Council affirms that, in light of the Climate Emergency, it is committed to encouraging cycling as a sustainable form of transit and is not prepared to let organised crime undermine its transport strategy.

 

Council also notes

- that the Police and Crime Commissioner has been asked by Councillors and others in Cambridge to prioritise cycle thefts, especially given this type of crime feeds into the wider acquisitive crime that links to drug misuse and the huge issue our city faces to tackle county lines drug dealing.

 

- that the numbers of police officers and police community support officers (PCSOs), who patrol the streets in Cambridge and nationally has seriously reduced, as part of austerity measures brought in by the Conservative and Coalition governments from 2010. 

 

- the work our local police have been doing at the Cycle Point at the ongoing request of Labour councillors at East Area Committee, we note their ongoing targeted enforcement and target hardening suggestions that have already been communicated to Greater Anglia.

- that other Cycle Points across the country are policed by British Transport Police and not by the local police force.

 

-The work of the Executive Councillor of Planning who has requested officers to already investigate the potential breach of a S106 agreement, a review the management arrangements and that an updated Cycle Park Management Plan, which includes monitoring thefts and remedial measures be submitted.

- the ongoing dialogue the Executive Councillor for Community safety has with both Police officers and Greater Anglia on this subject.

 This council will

 

1) Write to Greater Anglia as operators of the Cycle Point to request urgent action aimed at ensuring that rail users' property is protected, including dramatically increasing security patrol frequency and improving the quality of the CCTV.

 

2) Write to the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable to request further targeted enforcement given the recurrent and relatively predictable nature of the crimes involved and the links to both acquisitive crime and drug misuse.

 

3) Write to British Transport Police to seek their support in them policing Cycle Point especially given the fact Cycle Point has British transport police phones in cycle point but they don’t have any jurisdiction.

3) Ask Officers to consider the possibility of planning enforcement measures against Greater Anglia Railways for not providing sufficient security of the Cycle Point premises

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 24 votes to 0.

 

Resolved (unanimously):

 

Council notes the consistently high level of unprosecuted cycle theft at Cambridge Rail Station Cycle Point, with over 100 reported episodes in the last year of publicly available crime statistics having led to no subsequent prosecutions. Council further notes that this is likely an under-representation of the total number of criminal acts in the area and that CCTV gives users a false sense of security when, in reality, the images are not monitored, nor have they proved useful in identifying thieves.

 

Council affirms that, in light of the Climate Emergency, it is committed to encouraging cycling as a sustainable form of transit and is not prepared to let organised crime undermine its transport strategy.

 

Council also notes

- that the Police and Crime Commissioner has been asked by Councillors and others in Cambridge to prioritise cycle thefts, especially given this type of crime feeds into the wider acquisitive crime that links to drug misuse and the huge issue our city faces to tackle county lines drug dealing.

 

- that the numbers of police officers and police community support officers (PCSOs), who patrol the streets in Cambridge and nationally has seriously reduced, as part of austerity measures brought in by the Conservative and Coalition governments from 2010. 

 

- the work our local police have been doing at the Cycle Point at the ongoing request of Labour councillors at East Area Committee, we note their ongoing targeted enforcement and target hardening suggestions that have already been communicated to Greater Anglia.

- that other Cycle Points across the country are policed by British Transport Police and not by the local police force.

 

-The work of the Executive Councillor of Planning who has requested officers to already investigate the potential breach of a S106 agreement, a review the management arrangements and that an updated Cycle Park Management Plan, which includes monitoring thefts and remedial measures be submitted.

- the ongoing dialogue the Executive Councillor for Community safety has with both Police officers and Greater Anglia on this subject.

 This council will

 

1) Write to Greater Anglia as operators of the Cycle Point to request urgent action aimed at ensuring that rail users' property is protected, including dramatically increasing security patrol frequency and improving the quality of the CCTV.

 

2) Write to the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable to request further targeted enforcement given the recurrent and relatively predictable nature of the crimes involved and the links to both acquisitive crime and drug misuse.

 

3) Write to British Transport Police to seek their support in them policing Cycle Point especially given the fact Cycle Point has British transport police phones in cycle point but they don’t have any jurisdiction.

 

 

Council notes the rise in food poverty both nationally and in Cambridge, where the Cambridge City Food Bank distributed 8,766 3 day emergency food parcels to people in crisis last year, an increase of 36% from 2017. Nationally, food bank usage has now risen above 1 million.

 

Council notes with thanks the excellent work being done by officers across the city to tackle the impact of this trend, including;

-      developing a programme of holiday lunches that in 2018/9 provided 2737 free meals

-      supporting 51 cookery skills sessions (2018/9) attended by 271 local residents

-      continuing to develop a robust, evidence-based anti-poverty strategy to tackle the underlying causes of food poverty and insecurity

-      promotion of the Living Wage

 

We also welcome the strength of partnership working in line with our Sustainable Food Policy. This is particularly evident within the Food Poverty Alliance established by Cambridge Sustainable Food, which incorporates the council, Cambridge city foodbank, housing providers, sports clubs, local churches and other frontline organisations providing community meals, emergency food provision and advice.

 

We note the publication of the alliance’s comprehensive action plan listing a package of preventative and crisis measures, and five main aims;

 

1.   to ensure children’s access to food 365 days a year

2.   to ensure there is emergency support so that people in Cambridge do not go hungry

3.   aim to tackle the underlying causes of food poverty in Cambridge

4.   to promote and support community responses to food poverty

5.   to monitor and evaluate the extent of food poverty in Cambridge

 

At a national level, this council;

-      is concerned that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, there will be a significant impact both on our short-term food security and any longer term work to establish a sustainable food strategy for the UK.

-      welcomes UK Labour’s pledge to introduce a Fair Food Act, creating a legal right to food, and their aim to halve food bank usage in their first year in government.

         

Cambridge City Council therefore resolves to;

 

-      fully endorse the Food Poverty Alliance’s action plan and continue to work in partnership with local agencies to tackle food poverty in our city, and its underlying causes.

-      call on our local MPs to support Sue Hayman MP’s proposals for a Fair Food Act.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed and Councillor Sheil seconded the following motion: 

 

Council notes the rise in food poverty both nationally and in Cambridge, where the Cambridge City Food Bank distributed 8,766 3 day emergency food parcels to people in crisis last year, an increase of 36% from 2017. Nationally, food bank usage has now risen above 1 million.

 

Council notes with thanks the excellent work being done by officers across the city to tackle the impact of this trend, including;

-      developing a programme of holiday lunches that in 2018/9 provided 2737 free meals

-      supporting 51 cookery skills sessions (2018/9) attended by 271 local residents

-      continuing to develop a robust, evidence-based anti-poverty strategy to tackle the underlying causes of food poverty and insecurity

-      promotion of the Living Wage

 

We also welcome the strength of partnership working in line with our Sustainable Food Policy. This is particularly evident within the Food Poverty Alliance established by Cambridge Sustainable Food, which incorporates the council, Cambridge city foodbank, housing providers, sports clubs, local churches and other frontline organisations providing community meals, emergency food provision and advice.

 

We note the publication of the alliance’s comprehensive action plan listing a package of preventative and crisis measures, and five main aims;

 

1.   to ensure children’s access to food 365 days a year

2.   to ensure there is emergency support so that people in Cambridge do not go hungry

3.   aim to tackle the underlying causes of food poverty in Cambridge

4.   to promote and support community responses to food poverty

5.   to monitor and evaluate the extent of food poverty in Cambridge

 

At a national level, this council;

-      is concerned that in the event of a No Deal Brexit, there will be a significant impact both on our short-term food security and any longer term work to establish a sustainable food strategy for the UK.

-      welcomes UK Labour’s pledge to introduce a Fair Food Act, creating a legal right to food, and their aim to halve food bank usage in their first year in government.

         

Cambridge City Council therefore resolves to;

 

-      fully endorse the Food Poverty Alliance’s action plan and continue to work in partnership with local agencies to tackle food poverty in our city, and its underlying causes.

-      call on our local MPs to support Sue Hayman MP’s proposals for a Fair Food Act.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

 

 

 

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