Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the 19 October 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

Queen Edith’s ward

It was noted the following had been elected to the Officer of Councillor

 

Queen Edith’s – Immy Blackburn-Horgan

Apologies

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ashton, Divkovic and Healy. Councillor Payne provided apologies for lateness.

 

Declarations of Interest

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Baigent	All	Personal: Cambridge Cycling Campaign.
Councillor Davey	23/61/CNL	Personal: Had previously been on the Board of Abbey People.
Councillor Tong	23/61/CNL	Personal: Had worked with Abbey People and had attended their 10 Anniversary event recently.
Councillor S.Smith	23/61/CNL	Personal: Board member of the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP).
Councillor Bird	23/61/CNL	Personal: Board member of the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP).

 

Mayors Announcements

 

The Chevin Sermon would take place on Sunday 21 January 2024 at 10:00am. 

 

Noted the Mayor’s Diary had been extremely busy with charity events, charity AGMs and business partnering events and giving talks about the role of the Mayor.

A list of public questions was published in the Information Pack on the meeting page available via: Agenda for Council on Thursday, 30th November, 2023, 6.00 pm - Cambridge Council

 

Responses to public questions and supplementary questions are included below: 

 

Question 1

My question is about the outcome of the Public Inquiry which now allows Queens' College to go ahead with major development at their Owlstone Croft Site. This decision will have a huge impact on Newnham Croft School and Paradise Nature Reserve, but also has important and worrying consequences for the whole city.

 

Like many residents, I have closely followed the process of the Queens' College application and Appeal.

 

While the Planning Committee unanimously refused the application, its position at Appeal was fatally undermined by a set of favourable officer reports and weak, hastily-drafted reasons for refusal, despite a raft of policy grounds on which to reject the application.

 

This represents a complete and catastrophic failure of the planning system at all stages. A system intended to protect our communities,

schools and environmentally unique Nature Reserves.

 

The interpretation of the biodiversity policy requirements by the Inspector, if unchallenged, seriously undermines their efficacy in future developments in Cambridge. What action will the Council take to address this?

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded:

      i.         Had sat on the Planning Committee that heard the Owlstone Croft planning application.

    ii.         Had brought a motion about biodiversity to Council in May 2019. Continued to liaise with Planning Officers and Committee members on how to protect and enhance biodiversity. The Council aimed to do this across all its services.

   iii.         Legislation is not providing adequate protection for biodiversity. We aim to do what we could as a District/City Council. Planning legislation had a constrained way of dealing with decision making.

  iv.         The Planning Committee refused to grant planning permission for the Owlstone Croft application after carefully considering its reasons. The Planning Inspector then considered these reasons were insufficient. This judgement did not set a precedent that would affect other planning applications as Owlstone Croft was considered on its own merits.

    v.         The Council’s Biodiversity Strategy will still have weight in planning proposals. Officers will keep the Strategy under review as circumstances and legislation changes.

 

The following supplementary points were made:

      i.         This case undermined confidence in the Planning Service.

    ii.         What measures were being undertaken to address the issues identified?

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure responded with the following:

      i.         The Planning Service reviewed how committees worked. The Council would review / learn from appeal decisions, which arose following a Planning Committee decision.

    ii.         Would speak to the Case Officer to learn lessons from the Owlstone Croft appeal decision.

   iii.         The pre-application process had already been revised to involve the planning committee earlier in the process. The hope is that this will allow Planning Committee Members to work better with applicants and residents.

 

Question 2

What protection is there for existing trees in Cambridge?

 

We ask because residents are telling FeCRA there seems to be no protection at all for trees that are not in Conservation areas and that even trees in those are not safe.

 

They say this seems at odds with the two recent reports sent to all councillors that focused on the value of tall mature trees to the city and the importance of tree canopy cover and the need to plant more trees.

 

We are hearing very disturbing reports from residents about garden clearances just like the recent one in Dorset which featured in all the national media where: 'They completely destroyed an eco-system in one day and all the wildlife...didn't even leave the trees on site to let small animals or bats or insects to crawl out, put it straight in the chipper.' Residents highlight that a garden at Queen Edith's Way was completely cleared of all the mature trees and shrubs in what they say would seem to be an attempt to remove any evidence of existing biodiversity before a planning application. It was only after the support of a determined councillor and the sharing of information on social media that 'documents started appearing on the planning web portal, documents that should have been published there some time ago' which residents say 'gives the impression that all the documents have been posted promptly and in chronological order and have been publicly accessible on the web portal since the claimed publication date'.

 

Residents say Google maps can enable the tracking of information required for BNG assessment for a planning application but this doesn't protect mature trees in gardens that are not in conservation areas from being felled or severely lopped or even slowly poisoned.

 

In April this year contractors who are on a list approved by the council and employed by the Clarion Group Housing Association, took saws to the trunks of old ivy on mature trees in the front gardens of Glebe Road at peak nesting time when both the ivy and trees were full of nests, a wildlife crime. To tenants' distress the contractors came back to severely lop the trees in what seems like a process aimed at the trees' managed decline. The contractors gave no advance notice that the tall mature trees were to be lopped or even their location . There were no ecology reports even though the trees of this road form a leafy, beautiful and verdant corridor that is full of wildlife. The contractors showed tenants who had lived there for 25 years an email from the council's technical services dept. It stated that, as the mature trees of their leafy road were not in a conservation area and did not have tree protection orders, the contractors could do what they liked.

 

Residents were delighted that members of the planning committee voted to refuse permission to fell the trees at St Matthew's Piece but there are concerns that many mature trees across the city are still at risk.

 

They highlight that at the recent Public Inquiry into Queens' College appeal over the council's refusal of planning permission for their development at Owlstone Croft, the barrister acting for Queens' pointed out in his closing statement that "it was the tree officer's choice to fell the five mature trees in the Protected Open Space that form the bat corridor for Paradise Nature Reserve: "Had she asked for the poplars to be retained doubtless they would be in the scheme".

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded:

      i.         There are several different legal protections for trees many prescribed by Government which require tree owners to engage with the designated regulator prior to undertaking tree works in specific circumstances – these included:

    ii.         Specific trees of high amenity value could be made the subject of a tree preservation order. Where a tree was protected by a tree preservation order, an application for consent must be made to the local planning authority where any work was proposed. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) may issue a consent, issue a consent with conditions, or refuse consent. The decision was based on the impact the proposed work would have on the tree’s amenity with regard to the reasons put forward to support the work.

   iii.         All trees in conservation areas over 75mm in diameter at breast height are protected. The LPA should be notified of any proposed work and can either not object to the proposal or serve a TPO to prevent the work from going ahead.

  iv.         A landowner may fell up to 5 cubic metres in any calendar quarter on their property without a felling licence, as long as no more than 2 cubic metres are sold. Landowners must apply to the Forestry Commission for a felling licence if they plan to fell more than this amount.

    v.         All the above regulatory mechanisms have exceptions to the general requirements that cover for example but not limited to, dead and dangerous trees.

  vi.         All trees impacted by new development proposal are a material consideration when deciding a planning application. The LPA must consider the protection of on-site trees with regarding to local plan policy and national planning policy and may issue refuse a planning application or issue consent subject to conditions that protect existing trees. Tree preservation order may also be issued for long-term protection beyond that imposed by planning condition.

The following supplementary points were made:

      i.         The Times reported on a 123-year-old tree in Stroud Green. It has been the subject of a long legal dispute with Insurers Alliance and Viva who blamed it for subsidence and asked Haringey Council to cut it down.

    ii.         The Times reported this case highlighted the dilemma faced by councils nationally i.e., to save or fell trees and risk taxpayers’ money.

   iii.         Had the City Council assessed the impact of a lack of water and additional new homes (proposed by Michael Gove) on the city’s stock of mature trees?

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded:

      i.         Was unfamiliar with the Haringey Council case.

    ii.         Agreed this was a huge national issue. Councils should not be put in this position.

   iii.         Would provide a written answer to the public question after the meeting.

 

Question 3

My question has to do with the Repair Café movement in relation to the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency. The City Council has already championed and funded Repair Cafés locally, I know, but I want today to ask that it now champion them more forcefully and fund them more generously. Given the cost of living crisis, the breaking of a kettle, a heater or a hoover may be the last straw for many in this most unequal of British cities. The casting of millions of such appliances into landfill is an environmental disaster too, and for one and all. The mending of broken things is thus a twofold good. But anyone who has been to a Repair Café – and I urge everyone to go and see for themselves – will know that these events represent a further good, being hives of busy, sociable and cheerful activity. To mend is to heal, and the healing goes beyond the objects.

 

The last Repair Café I went to was on International Repair Day, which falls on the third Saturday in October: we were all asked to request on their behalf more funding and more support. But I am writing this on Black Friday. Everyone knows Black Friday but how many have heard of International Repair Day?  In the Global North we tend to live our lives as if there were two or three earths, not one; Repair Cafés honour the one and only earth we have. I therefore ask the City Council to promote these wonderful events more vigorously and to fund them more generously, enabling the skilled and dedicated volunteers who give their time and expertise to purchase or hire more of the equipment and materials they need?

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment responded:

      i.         Agreed repair cafes were a good way to preserve the Earth’s resources and maintain residents’ possessions.

    ii.         One of the council’s six objectives in its Climate Change Strategy 2021-2026 is “reducing consumption of resources, reducing waste, and increasing recycling in Cambridge”.

   iii.         As part of this we had taken a range of actions to increase re-use of resources, including supporting repair cafes organised by local voluntary and community groups.

  iv.         Groups wishing to run repair cafes could apply for funding from the Council’s annual Sustainable City Grant funding. The application window for these grants is August-October each year, and each group can apply for a maximum of £10k per year.

    v.         The Sustainable City Grants (SCG) have funded Cambridge Carbon Footprint to run and support other groups to run repair cafes for a number of years, including running the World’s Biggest Repair Café in 2017.

  vi.         During 2023/24 the grants had funded Cambridge Carbon Footprint to run further repair cafes and support other local groups to run their own repair cafes. The grants also funded Trumpington Repair Café Group to run 4 repair cafes in their area in 2023/24.

 vii.         In addition to promoting repair cafes funded by the Council through its grant programme, we would be happy to promote other repair cafes organised by local people through our communications channels, including social media, council magazines and our website.

viii.         We also promoted a wide range of climate change and environmental sustainability days through our communications channels, and we would be happy to promote International Repair Day (21 October) in future as part of this wider communications programme.

 

The following supplementary point was made:

        i.       Would the Council support a Green Directory in both electronic and paper form to tackle the global climate emergency?

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment responded:

      i.         Welcomed the idea of a Green Directory. A one-stop-shop would be useful, would liaise with colleagues as the Executive Councillor was aware of several other initiatives:

a.    Cambridge Carbon Footprint had started a carbon directory map of Cambridge.

b.    The Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority are looking at a portal / website to assist with the reduction in carbon emissions.

 

Question 4

At its last meeting, this Council asked the Leader and Chief Executive to initiate discussions with other Authorities in the region to identify options for a less fragmented and more cohesive model of Government for Cambridge. I appreciate that this was only a few weeks ago, but could the Leader please give an update on any discussions that have been held so far and indicate the likely timescales for future discussions.

 

The Leader responded:

      i.         Noted it had only been a couple of week since the last Full Council meeting, there had been few formal discussions on becoming a unitary authority but there had been a number of informal ones.

    ii.         Opinion was split on whether contacts supported a unitary model or not.

   iii.         A number of key themes had emerged:

a.    Geography of the unitary area - what area it should cover.

b.    Affordability. How many people should the proposed unitary authority cover and would it have the resources to do so?

c.    Governance. Was it a unitary authority or a unitary authority in an overall Mayoral controlled area?

  iv.         Undertook to keep stakeholders informed of discussion progress.

 

The member of the public signposted Cambs Unitaries Campaign | The Campaign for Unitary Authorities in Cambridgeshire.

 

Resolved (by 27 votes to 0) to:

i.    Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Section 9 and detailed in Appendix F of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H of the Officer’s report.

ii.  Approve proposals for new housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H of the Officer’s report.

iii. Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance and HRA borrowing, as summarised in Appendix H of the Officer’s report.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

i.    Approve the council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2023/24 to 2026/27 (Appendix A).

 

Resolved (by 27 votes to 1) to:

        i.       Agree the incorporation of changed assumptions as presented in Section 3 [pages 12 and 13], which provide an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years [page 16], and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Appendix A [page 34] and reserves, Section 6 [page 26].

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

      ii.        Agree the 2023/24 revenue budget proposal as set out in Section 4 [page 15], for a £651k increase in pay budgets to reflect the recently agreed pay settlement for 2023/24.

 

Resolved (by 26 votes to 0) to:

    iii.        Note the changes to the capital plan, as set out in Section 5 [pages 22 to 25]. and Appendix B [pages 35 to 44] of the MTFS document.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

    iv.       To agree a capital spending proposal, rephasing and scheme deletions/reductions as set out below.

 

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

      v.       Agree changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £5.934 million and the target level at £7.121 million as detailed in Section 6 [page 27].

 

Resolved (by 23 votes to 0) to:

    vi.       Approve the contribution of £700k of general reserves and £274k of funding released from capital schemes to the Our Cambridge Transformation earmarked reserve as set out in Section 4 [pages 19 to 21].

 

Resolved (by 27 votes to 11) to:

  vii.        Approve the council’s reserve policy as set out in Appendix E [page 47].

 

1) Councillor Griffin to the Executive Councillor for Communities

 

Can the Executive Councillor for Communities tell us about what work the council is doing to support our food hubs and what progress has been made since the city achieved silver sustainable food city status?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         Food hubs were established in the response period to the Covid Pandemic.

    ii.         They still did valuable working in supporting vulnerable people during periods of need.

   iii.         City Council Officers and Councillors were working with partners such as the Food Hub to explore the more sustainable model of sustainable supermarkets.

  iv.         Had visited Brighton to learn from their Food Justice Network. Cambridge City Council then hosted a Food Justice Conference 4 October 2023. Encouraged retailers and other stakeholders to donate funds and items to the food justice campaign.

 

2) Councillor Payne to the Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

 

Could the Executive Councillor please offer an update on the situation regarding whether the trees on Histon Road recreation ground can be retained during the ATS/Murketts Garage redevelopment?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         Some trees would be removed and others planted within the site boundary.

    ii.         No trees are planned to be removed from Histon Road Rec due to the development.

   iii.         A tree works application has been made to retain three trees on the ATS site close to the boundary with the Histon Road Rec, work was being undertaken to maintain the safety of residents using the park.

 

3) Councillor Bennett to the Leader

 

Together with other city councillors, I listened to the encouraging reports of the SCDC 4 day week trial which affects the key shared services of Planning and Waste. Will the executive councillors responsible for these services comment on their experience of the trial and state whether they will be responding to the recent best value notice served on SCDC or have any other opportunity to ensure that the impact on Cambridge City Council services has been reflected in the SCDC response?

 

The Leader responded:

      i.         The City Council would have the opportunity to feedback on the recent best value notice served on SCDC, although the City Council was not obliged to respond.

    ii.         The City Council continued to open Monday to Friday although it operated a share planning service with SCDC.

   iii.         The four day week helped recruitment and retention in the shared planning service, which saved money for both councils involved.

  iv.         Operating service levels and targets for the shared waste service were within normal parameters.

 

4) Councillor Thittala Varkey to the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

 

It has been reported this week that potentially toxic 'forever chemicals' have been detected in the drinking water sources at 17 of 18 England's water companies. This included Anglian Water with 22 raw samples above the limit from two groundwater sources. Can the executive Cllr for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure give us some detail on how the Council can get more information on this issue and put pressure on Anglian Water to improve their water monitoring and safety levels.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         The city’s water supply is provided by Cambridge Water who are owned by South Staffordshire PLC. Anglia Water handle the waste water in the area.

    ii.         Cambridge Water were heavily criticised in 2022 when there was a serious incident in the water supply near Duxford.

   iii.         The Drinking Water Inspectorate had produced a useful guide on drinking water. Water companies were encouraged to undertake risk assessments and liaise with local authorities over risks.

  iv.         The Council would meet with South Staffordshire PLC to request a report on water quality, their risk assessment on water quality in the city and details how they would mitigate contamination risk.

 

5) Councillor Martinelli to the Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and Community Safety

 

Could the Executive Councillor update us on progress with the King's Parade barrier?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         The City Council and partners introduced the barrier in June 2020 following advice from the Police on how to better manage traffic access onto Kings Parade and improve safety in the city centre.

    ii.         The type of barrier chosen was selected due to cost and safety advice. The Council agreed to review this due to concerns from residents.

   iii.         The Police recently advised the barrier should remain in place due to security issues and national threat level.

  iv.         The high cost of replacing the barrier with a more aesthetically pleasing one meant this could only be undertaken if partners such as Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) agreed to provide the funding.

    v.         Changes to the road network may mean the barrier is not needed in the longer term but is expected to remain in place in the short term.

 

6) Councillor Blackburn-Horgan to the Executive Councillor for Communities

 

Queen Edith’s residents tell me they still don’t know when the Pavilion on Nightingale Recreation Ground will be open, will the Executive Councillor tell me when that is going to happen and will the Pavilion be wheelchair accessible?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         The Pavilion was expected to open in early December 2023.

    ii.         The Pavilion, veranda and new toilets would be connected to existing paths around the recreation ground to make them accessible.

   iii.         New fold away tables would be delivered 6 December.

  iv.         Details about the Pavilion would go live on the Council’s website in early December. People could book the Pavilion and Community Room from there.

 

7) Councillor Flaubert to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

 

Could the Executive Councillor please explain why has it taken so long for a new outdoor play strategy to come forward, which is of concern to my residents in Trumpington as our population of children is growing and provision needs to keep up?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         The previous outdoor play investment strategy ran from 2016-2021. When that period came to an end all sites had to be closed for a period of time due to the pandemic.

    ii.         A census occurred in 2021 and it took some time for the data from this to be made available for use in a new outdoor play strategy. The data was key to ensure the strategy was well informed and targeted investment appropriately.

   iii.         The new outdoor play strategy was expected to be brought forward for scrutiny in Spring 2024. Commitments from motions in October 2023 Full Council were also incorporated into this work.

  iv.         The Council sourced an independent company to prepare the outdoor play strategy. The strategy was considerably larger than the previous one as it covers all 110 council play areas.

    v.         The strategy would assess the play area needs of each city ward. The data would be made live/dynamic so it could be updated as required negating the need for future strategies.

  vi.         The system would be demonstrated to councillors so they can see how it operated.

 

8) Councillor Robertson to the Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

 

Can the Exec Cllr for Housing and Homelessness give us an update on how the audits of our council homes are going?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         An audit had been conducted of council homes.

    ii.         From April-October 2023, 342 homes were checked and over 900 actions identified including 39 cases of damp, mould and condensation and 147 repairs had been undertaken.

   iii.         Other issues identified were fire safety, drug dealing and domestic abuse.

  iv.         The audit was a success as it would help the council to maintain its housing stock, support tenants and provide a better service.

 

9) Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

 

The successful and popular community orchard on Midsummer Common is managed for the enjoyment of the public by a team of volunteers. Is the Executive Councillor satisfied that the bid they made to the council for improvements, paid for from developer contributions and approved in October 2021, has still not been delivered?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

      i.         The contractor was engaged over a year ago. They promised work would be completed on several occasions and had not delivered.

    ii.         Work was meant to start in late November, when it did not, officers contacted two alternative contractors, one of whom officers met on site w/c 27 November 2023 to go through the range of works. The funding was still available and the Council has contacted Friends of Midsummer Common to seek details of their preferred storage unit provider specifications. The bench may be delivered earlier than the original contractor suggested.

   iii.         The Executive Councillor was confident officers had provided details to the contractor and had kept Friends of Midsummer Common informed of arrangements.

  iv.         Officers will review the scheme when complete to evaluate what lessons can be learnt for dealing with contractors in future.

 

A full list of oral questions including those not asked during the meeting can be found in the Information Pack, which is published on the meeting webpage Agenda for Council on Thursday, 30th November, 2023, 6.00 pm - Cambridge Council.

This council notes the intimidation and abuse of councillors, in person or otherwise, undermines democracy; preventing elected members from representing the communities they serve, deterring individuals from standing for election, and undermining public life in democratic processes.

 

This council further notes that increasing levels of toxicity in public and political discourse is having a detrimental impact on local democracy and that prevention, support and responses to abuse and intimidation of local politicians must improve to ensure councillors feel safe and able to continue representing their residents.

 

This council therefore commits to challenge the normalisation of abuse against councillors and uphold exemplary standards of public and political debate in all it does.

 

The council further agrees to sign up to the Local Government Association’s (LGA) Debate Not Hate campaign. The campaign aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate and improve the response to and support for local politicians facing abuse and intimidation.

 

In addition, the council resolves to:

·      Write to our local Members of Parliament to ask them to support the campaign

·      Write to the Government to ask them to work with the LGA to develop and implement a plan to address abuse and intimidation of politicians

·      Regularly review the support available to councillors in relation to abuse and intimidation and councillor safety

·      Work with the local police to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting threats and other concerns about the safety of councillors and their families

·      Take a zero-tolerance approach to abuse of councillors and officers.

·      Express our support for the Jo Cox Foundation[1]’s Civility in Public Life Campaign, which we commit to adhering to in all of our political discourse[2].

 

Notes:

·      Except for the last bullet point, this motion follows the wording, with only very minor edits for local context, of the Local Government Association’s Debate not Hate motion which has been passed at councils  across the country. More details of the LGA debate not hate campaign can be found here: https://www.local.gov.uk/about/campaigns/debate-not-hate.

·      The Jo Cox Foundation is a registered charity set up in memory of murdered MP, Jo Cox, who studied at Cambridge University. It works to promote stronger communities, respectful politics, and a fairer world. (https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/about/ )

·      The 2023 Civility Pledge, which is the core of the Civility in Public Life campaign is as follows:

o   Set a respectful tone when campaigning

o   Lead by example to foster constructive democratic debate

o   Demonstrate compassion by defending and promoting the dignity of others, especially my opponents.

·      More details about the Jo Cox Foundation’s campaign to promote civility in public life can be found here: https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/our-work/respectful-politics/

 

Councillor A.Smith proposed and Councillor Holloway seconded the following motion:

 

This council notes the intimidation and abuse of councillors, in person or otherwise, undermines democracy; preventing elected members from representing the communities they serve, deterring individuals from standing for election, and undermining public life in democratic processes.

 

This council further notes that increasing levels of toxicity in public and political discourse is having a detrimental impact on local democracy and that prevention, support and responses to abuse and intimidation of local politicians must improve to ensure councillors feel safe and able to continue representing their residents.

 

This council therefore commits to challenge the normalisation of abuse against councillors and uphold exemplary standards of public and political debate in all it does.

 

The council further agrees to sign up to the Local Government Association’s (LGA) Debate Not Hate campaign. The campaign aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate and improve the response to and support for local politicians facing abuse and intimidation.

 

In addition, the council resolves to:

·      Write to our local Members of Parliament to ask them to support the campaign

·      Write to the Government to ask them to work with the LGA to develop and implement a plan to address abuse and intimidation of politicians

·      Regularly review the support available to councillors in relation to abuse and intimidation and councillor safety

·      Work with the local police to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting threats and other concerns about the safety of councillors and their families

·      Take a zero-tolerance approach to abuse of councillors and officers.

·      Express our support for the Jo Cox Foundation[1]’s Civility in Public Life Campaign, which we commit to adhering to in all of our political discourse[2].

 

Notes:

·      Except for the last bullet point, this motion follows the wording, with only very minor edits for local context, of the Local Government Association’s Debate not Hate motion which has been passed at councils  across the country. More details of the LGA debate not hate campaign can be found here: https://www.local.gov.uk/about/campaigns/debate-not-hate.

·      The Jo Cox Foundation is a registered charity set up in memory of murdered MP, Jo Cox, who studied at Cambridge University. It works to promote stronger communities, respectful politics, and a fairer world. (https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/about/ )

·      The 2023 Civility Pledge, which is the core of the Civility in Public Life campaign is as follows:

o   Set a respectful tone when campaigning

o   Lead by example to foster constructive democratic debate

o   Demonstrate compassion by defending and promoting the dignity of others, especially my opponents.

·      More details about the Jo Cox Foundation’s campaign to promote civility in public life can be found here: https://www.jocoxfoundation.org/our-work/respectful-politics/

 

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.