A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Claire Tunnicliffe Committee Manager
Link: Video recording of the meeting
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2017 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on the 19 October 2017 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mayor's Announcements Minutes: APOLOGIES Apologies were
received from Councillors Abbott, Adey, Dryden and T Moore. MAYOR’S QUIZ The Mayor thanked
all staff and councillors who attended the Mayor’s quiz on Thursday 1 February.
He welcomed Robert Osborne as Quiz Master and reported a great evening was had
by all. A total of £1,226 was raised for the two Mayor’s charities, of which,
£254 was raised on the night through very generous donations. Holocaust Memorial
Day + The Vote & Beyond The Mayor informed
those present that he had recently participated in the Holocaust Memorial Day
and The Vote and Beyond, hosted here at the Guildhall and he was very honoured
to have participated in these hugely important remembrance events. Cambridge Chinese
New Year Gala The Mayor stated he
had joined more than 1000 people who attended the Chinese New Year Gala, on
Monday 12th February and he felt privileged to be invited to join the
celebrations. Heidelberg Easter
Festival Reception The Mayor gave
advance notice of welcoming visitors from Heidelberg on 29th March for a Civic
Reception during the evening, which would mark the start of the weekend. Wintercomfort and
the YMCA sleep out event The Mayor spoke of
his visit to Wintercomfort on Christmas day, and
highlighted the hard work of the staff and volunteers working on the day. The
visit served as a reminder that for some Christmas day could be a difficult and
lonely day but when the community pulled together it can make such a difference
to those in need. The Mayor would be
attending the YMCA Sleep Out event on Friday 9 March, the aim was to raise
awareness of the growing problem of homelessness and to raise money which would
go directly to the local YMCA accommodation services to help homeless young
people. He invited councillors to contact Penny Jackson for further
information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public Questions Time See the foot of the agenda for details of the scheme Minutes: Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below. 1.
Tracy
Hutchinson raised the following:
i.
She
was trying to start a parkrun in Cambridge, a parkrun
was a free weekly 5km run for people of all running abilities.
ii.
Parkrun
builds and strengthens communities and Cambridge was the only city which did
not have a parkrun.
iii.
Asked
if the Council agreed that it would be good for the standard of living and the
health and wellbeing of the local community to hold a weekly parkrun on Coldham’s Common. iv.
Asked
that the parkrun went ahead without the need for a public consultation. The Executive Councillor for Streets and
Open Spaces responded:
i.
The Council was committed to improving the health
and wellbeing of residents and visitors to Cambridge.
ii.
The Council already provided a range of sports and
leisure facilities throughout the city and worked in partnership with
organisations across the City.
iii.
Recognised the health benefits of parkruns and was aware these were well attended locally at
Milton, Wimpole Hall and Hinchingbrooke Country Park. iv.
Officers had been working with parkrun
representatives over the last 12 months identifying suitable sites.
v.
She was supportive of parkrun provided a suitable
site could be found. vi.
The next stage would be to look at the feasibility
of holding a parkrun on Coldhams Common and the
impact on local residents and users of the spaces before a decision could be
made. vii.
A survey would be published in the near future
asking for public feedback on this matter. Tracy Hutchinson made the following supplementary points: i.
She
asked when she would be able to see officers and the consultation questions as
she felt there had been a lack of engagement and offer of meetings for the past
10 months. The Executive Councillor for Streets and
Open Spaces responded with the following: i.
Officers were keen to engage, it
was a complex issue with lots of things to discuss. No-one wanted to shut
anything down and as soon as there was information to share she would be keen
to meet. Nicky Massey addressed the
Chamber and made the following the points: ii.
In 2013 the number of children who
died before the age of 17 in England was 3946.
In most cases if the child was under 15 years of age, most funeral
directors forgo payment for a basic child’s funeral, however the government did
not. Bereaved parents had to face the
cost of the burial or cremation fees. iii.
Some local authorities waived the
burial and cremation fees, which meant it was a postcode lottery for some
families. iv.
She was thankful to hear there was
a proposal for Cambridge City Council to remove the fee. v.
In 2013 she lost her son just
before his 4th birthday and had to pay these fees herself, at a time when she
did not know where money would be coming from or what her future without her
youngest child was going to look like.
She was happy to know now, that in the future other parents would be
financially supported, regardless of their circumstances. vi.
She asked how many families were
affected by child death each year in Cambridge, and what the cost was to
Cambridge City Council to pay these fees on behalf of bereaved families. The Executive Councillor for Streets and Open
Spaces responded with the following: i.
A decision was made at the
Community Services Scrutiny Committee to remove charges for the burial of
children under 16 years of age. ii.
She appreciated that it was a very
difficult time for families. iii.
The cemetery in Cambridge had
dealt with 30 such burials in the last year. iv.
Due to the financial management by
the Bereavement Service it was almost a cost neutral proposal, they had managed
to absorb costs elsewhere while still being 10% under standard benchmarking for
every other cost. v.
It was estimated to cost the
Council about £1,000 a year. vi.
The Bereavement Service felt it
was ethically the right thing to do. Nicky Massey addressed the Chamber and made the
following further points: i.
She was thrilled that Cambridge
had taken the decision not to charge for burials for children under the age of
16. ii.
She thanked the Council for taking
the burden away from families. iii.
Asked if children passed away
somewhere else for example in Milton Hospice but still lived in Cambridge
whether a charge would be applied. The Executive Councillor for Streets and Open
Spaces responded with the following: i. Confirmed that it did not matter where a child passed away or where they lived the fee would be covered if they used the city council’s services. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the recommendations of the Executive for Adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (by 23 votes to 0) to: Treasury
Management
i.
Recognise the decision taken in 2017/18 to defer
the review of the current approach to treasury management, which requires 25% of
the value of the housing debt to be set-aside by the point at which the loan
portfolio matures, until after it is clear whether or not the policy to
introduce a levy in respect of the sale of higher value voids will be
implemented. Housing Capital
ii.
Approve the capital bids, shown in Appendix D (2)
of the HRA Budget Setting Report, to include the replacement of the estate
service champion vehicle, recognition of increased costs for the replacement of
the housing management information system and the refurbishment /
reconfiguration works at Ditchburn Place, and to
recognise additional investment in Disabled Facilities Grants in line with
anticipated grant awarded through the Better Care Fund via the County Council.
iii.
Approve the latest Decent Homes Programme, to
include updated allocation and timing of decent homes expenditure for new build
dwellings, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report. iv.
Approve the latest budget sums, profiling and
associated financing for new build schemes including the scheme approved at
Mill Road by Strategy & Resources, based upon the latest cost information
from the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) or direct procurements, as
detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K, of the HRA Budget
Setting Report
v.
Incorporate into the Housing Capital Investment
Plan, a Section 106 affordable housing contribution of £1,750,000, to be used
as funding towards the delivery of affordable housing within the city, by the
HRA. vi.
Approve to earmark additional resource of
£2,151,000 towards the cost of a denser re-development at Akeman Street, in
advance of the revised scheme being presented to Housing Scrutiny Committee in
March 2018 for formal decision. This will allow the scheme to proceed should
the CIP tendered cost fall within the approved cost envelope or allowable
contract parameters. vii.
Approve the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan
as shown in Appendix K of the HRA Budget Setting Report. General viii.
Approve the delegation to the Head of Finance, as
Section 151 Officer, to approve an in year increase in the budget for disabled
facilities grants, in direct relation to any increase in the capital grant
funding for this purpose, as received from the County Council through the
Better Care Fund. ix.
Approve of delegation to the Strategic Director to
review and amend the level of fees charged by the Shared Home Improvement
Agency for disabled facilities grants and repair assistance
grants, in line with any decisions s made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency
Board.
x.
Approve of delegation to the Strategic Director, in
consultation with the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down
resource from the ear-marked reserve for potential debt redemption or
re-investment, for the purpose of open market property acquisition or new build
housing development, should the need arise, in order to meet quarterly
deadlines for the use of retained right to buy receipts. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (23 votes to 0) to approve:
i.
Approve the
Treasury Management Strategy Statement Report, including the estimated
Prudential & Treasury Indicators for 2017/18 to 2020/21, inclusive, as set
out in Appendix D of the Officer’s report. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider Budget Recommendations of the Executive for Adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: The Executive presented its budget recommendations as set out in the Council agenda and information pack. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Liberal Democrat Group Amendment to the Executive Budget Recommendations Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Bick and Liberal Democrat Group Members presented the Liberal Democrat Group’s alternative budget as set out in the Council Agenda. Under the Council’s Procedure Rules – Budget Recommendations and Amendments, the Liberal Democrat Group’s alternative budget was deemed to have been moved and seconded as an amendment. On a show of hands the Liberal Democrat Group’s alternative budget amendment was lost by: 10 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 23 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones 2 Abstentions: Councillors Hipkin and Holland Councillor Hipkin and
Holland left the meeting after this vote. In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules – Budget Recommendations and Amendments, Councillor Bick moved separately the following proposals, which formed part of the Liberal Democrat Group alternative budget:
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 11 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 23 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 11 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 23 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 11 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 23 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 12 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Gillespie, Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 22 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 12 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Gillespie, Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 22 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 12 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Gillespie, Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 22 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 11 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 23 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 12 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Gillespie Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 22 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 12 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Gillespie Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 22 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones
On a show of hands the proposal was lost by: 12 votes in favour: Councillors Austin, Avery, Bick, Cantrill, Gehring, Gillespie Holt, Nethsingha, O’Connell, Page-Croft, Pippas & Tunnacliffe To 22 votes against: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones Unless otherwise specified, all references in the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to this version of the Budget-Setting Report (Version 3 - Council) of the Council Agenda Public Reports Pack and the Information Pack. This can be found via the Council agenda page: This can be found via: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=3256 It was RESOLVED to agree the Executive’s budget proposals by: 23 votes in favour: Councillors Ashton, Baigent, Barnett, Benstead, Blencowe, Gawthrope, Gillespie, Hart, Herbert, Johnson, McPherson, R. Moore, O'Reilly, Price, Ratcliffe, Roberts, Robertson, Sargeant, Sarris, Sheil, Smart, Smith and Todd-Jones To 0 votes against To approve the following: General Fund Revenue
Budgets: [Section 5, page 31 refers] i. Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix C (a) and Savings shown in Appendix C (b). ii. Bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds as shown in Appendix C (c). iii. Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix C (d). iv. Delegate to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which will be set out in Appendix A (a). v. Agree the level of Council Tax for 2018/19 as set out in Section 4 [page 28 refers]. Other Revenue: vi. Delegate to the Head of Finance authority to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP). vii. Approved the setting up an earmarked fund - the “GF development fund” [with the remit as page 27 refers]. The council would provide loans to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP), of which it is a member, to support the development of the former council depot on Mill Road. The proposals and resulting interest income are covered in more detail in Section 5. Noted the proposals to retain income from this and other CIP developments in an earmarked reserve reflecting uncertainty in both timings and quantum, and to provide a contingency fund reflecting the potential risks in this scheme and future schemes under development. Capital: [Section 7, page 37
refers] viii. Agreed the proposals outlined in Appendix E (a) for inclusion in the Capital Plan, including any additional use of revenue resources required. ix. Agreed the Council the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix E (d), the Funding as set out in Section 7, page 40 and note the Projects Under Development list set out in Appendix E (e). General
Fund Reserves: x. Noted the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 8, page 45 refers]. Members unanimously resolved
to continue the meeting after 10:30pm rather than adjourn to another day. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the recommendations of Committees for Adoption |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Civic Affairs: Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 Minute to follow Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved (unanimously) to:
i.
Approve the draft Pay Policy Statement 2018/19
attached as Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.
ii.
Approve the proposal to introduce a Cambridge
Weighting to be paid to employees and agency workers earning less than £10 per
hour, with effect from April 2018.
iii.
Delegate authority to the Head of Human Resources
to update the weightings on each relevant pay point, subject to the limit of
£10 per hour, depending upon the current hourly rate and the Real Living Wage
supplement payable at that time.
iv.
Note the position on the National Joint Council
(NJC) pay offer which relates to Bands 1-11 of the City Council’s pay scales,
the national Chief Executive pay claim, and the
national Chief Officer pay claim (relating to Strategic Directors and Heads of
Service).
v.
Delegate authority to the Head of Human Resources
to update the Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 should an NJC and/or Chief Executive
and/or Chief Officer pay award be agreed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Civic Affairs: Special Responsibility Allowance Minute to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved (unanimously) to: i. Approve a special responsibility allowance of 25% of the Basic Allowance (£1,120) be paid to the Cabinet Member on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. This is for the 2017/18 municipal year (backdated to May 2017). ii. Approve further evidence gathering on the work of city councillor responsibilities on the Combined Authority, Greater Cambridge Partnership and Police and Crime Panel, reporting back to the Civic Affairs Committee in the new municipal year. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Civic Affairs: Independent Person and Deputy Minute to follow Minutes: Resolved (unanimously) to:
i.
Note a report would be presented to the Civic
Affairs Committee in March with their recommendations to Council for the
meeting to be held in April 2018. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To deal with Oral Questions Minutes: 1)
Councillor Ashton to the Leader What steps are the Council taking regarding
better bus services that include reliability, pricing and franchising? Our
elected Mayor Palmer is fixated with tunnels/metros whilst the reality is that
Stagecoach are continually cutting bus routes, driving in convoys and ignoring
any consultations regarding better bus services. All this leads to people having to use their
cars if they live on the outskirts of the city. This increases congestion. The Executive Councillor responded there seemed to be an operator who had significant control of the bus service but was not able to organise effective services. A review on public transport was currently being undertaken by the Combined Authority and suggested that franchising the service and community transport should also be looked at. While looking at alternatives such as the metro system, improved bus services were also needed that offered value for money, increased operating hours and a wider geography. 2)
Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor
for Planning Policy Given the
importance of housing land to the future needs of the city, is the Executive
Councillor keeping in touch with the intentions of Marshalls about future use
of their airport site, which was removed from the green belt for development at
their request in 2003 as part of their plan to keep design jobs in Cambridge
but use an airfield elsewhere? The Executive Councillor confirmed that the Council was in regular dialogue with Marshalls which there was mutual respect and hoped the dialogue would continue. 3) Councillor Todd-Jones to the Executive
Councillor for Street and Open Spaces Can the Executive Councillor update us on the
progress of initiatives to reduce chemical weed killers since the last Council
meeting. The Executive Councillor stated that the Council was
committed to reducing the use of chemical weed killers and were exploring
alternatives. The Council had been in touch with several organisations including
the National Trust to request they shared best practice on this matter. There was currently a difficulty in finding
‘like for like’ alternatives, in the meantime two small sites had been
allocated as zero chemical zones. Details of these sites would be made public
and the results would be published once the trial had been completed. 4)
Councillor Gehring to the Leader How much money has
Cambridge City Council received to date in its accounts from the devolution
deal with central government? The Executive Councillor advised that as part of the devolution deal, a total of £70,000,000 would be allocated to Cambridge, paid by the Combined Authority. It would not be paid in one lump sum and the City Council had to evidence what had been spent. The City Council had recently submitted their first invoice to the Combined Authority (April 2017 to December 2017) for the sum of £230,194.71 5) Councillor Ratcliffe to the Executive
Councillor for Housing Figures released by the Government in January
2018 revealed that rough sleeping in England has increased for the seventh year
in a row with a 15% rise on 2016. I was delighted to see that Cambridge City
Council was one of the very few councils bucking the national trend and with a
significant reduction in the number of people sleeping rough in Cambridge. Can
the Executive Councillor give details on some of the measures and partnership
work that he considers has contributed to that success? The Executive Councillor responded that in 2016 Cambridge City were fifth on list of cities outside London for the number of homeless per 1000 of the population by district and had now fallen to 21 on the list in 2017. During the last street count in November 2017, a number of 26 people were found sleeping rough compared to 40 the previous year; four of those were from the previous count. There were now 500 beds available in Cambridge and 300 beds for single people. The Council had 40 social tenancies to assist people moving out of hostels each year and Cambridge Street Aid had raised over £25,000 to date and had allocated £17,000 in small grants. A street life working group had been formed to work with long term rough sleepers 6) Councillor
Austin to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces Cyclists struggle
to park their bikes in racks in the City centre. What plans are being
considered for additional racks? The Executive Councillor responded that the Council were committed to providing as much provision for cycling parking as possible. This also applied to areas outside the city centre. £25,000 had been approved at the Capital Programme Board in December 2017 for city cycle parking which included the following sites: i. Queen Anne Terrace ii. East Road iii. The frontage of Jesus Green Lido iv. Free School Lane Across these sites, 32 less effective cycle stands had been removed with 90 new, more effective stands installed; these provided parking for 116 cycles and cargo bikes at Queen Anne Terrace. The Council continued to remove abandoned bikes which took up parking spaces. The Greater Cambridge Partnership had recently voted to allocate £150,000 for bike parking initiative in Cambridge. 7) Councillor Bird to the Executive
Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces Can the Executive Councillor update us on the
progress of Silver Street toilets? The Executive Councillor responded that the procurement process had begun and hoped that the works would be completed by summer 2019. 8) Councillor Sarris to the Leader Can the Leader
update us on the Council’s Living Wage campaign in the light of Cambridge University’s decision to seek
accreditation as a ’Real Living Wage’ employer? The Executive Councillor stated he welcomed the University’s decision to become a ‘Real Living Wage’ employer and looked forward to the remaining 31 colleges out of 32 to follow. 9) Councillor
Sargeant to the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre I understand that
some of our surrounding authorities have increasing problems with rats and yet
they are raising the charges for pest control, what is the situation here in
the city? The Executive Councillor acknowledged that the number of calls to the Council’s pest control team had increased year upon year, which did not mean an increase in the rat population but due to the increase in development sites across the city disturbing the rat population. The Council was committed to keeping free pest control to all residents; neighbouring authorities who charged for this service had experienced issues with containing the rat population. However there was a charge for commercial properties which the Council planned to expand, which would bring in additional income. The following Oral Questions were also tabled, but owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted, were not covered during the meeting. The Mayor encouraged a written response to be sent out those Councillors whose questions were not answered: 10) Councillor Holland to the Executive Councillor for Housing What uptake has there been on the applications for grants from the £100K
+ awarded to City and South Cambs by DCLG for community-led housing? 11) Councillor Cantrill to the Executive Councillor for Housing The Cambridge housing
market is broken. Residents cannot
afford to rent let alone buy in the city.
Rents have increased by over 15% in the last three years. Does the
Executive Cllr believe he is doing everything possible to address this
important issue for Cambridge residents? 12) Councillor
Sinnott to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces Can the executive councillor update us on the progress of the trees for
babies scheme? 13) Councillor
O’Connell to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport Is the Executive Councillor concerned by recent reports that council
planning can ignore national guidance on fire engine access and that concerns
raised by Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service have not been addressed, and
will he ask officers to review current policy in this area? 14) Councillor Baigent to the Executive Councillor for Communities With the County Council proposing to
charge for library computers, and the likely negative impact on those on low
incomes as a result, can the Executive Councillor for Communities explain what
the City Council is doing to ensure residents have the means to get online and
access vital services? Secondary
Questions Councillor Holland to the Leader What becomes of the YMCA site on Gonville Place when the organisation is relocated to the
Mill Road depot site? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To consider the following Notices of Motion, notice of which has been given by: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Councillor Cantrill: The Future of Cambridge Magistrates Court. This
Council currently notes the proposals for the future of Cambridge Magistrates
Court, including the closure of the building with its work being relocated to
existing courts in Cambridge, Huntingdon and Peterborough. This Council
also notes the current consultation being undertaken to find out the public's
views on the proposals. This
Council objects to the proposals to close Cambridge Magistrates Court for the
following reasons:
i.
That
Cambridge residents could be forced to travel to Peterborough or Huntingdon to
attend a hearing as participants in court proceedings;
ii.
That
it dilutes the sense of place and mutual community responsibility which is
valuable in underpinning the most local level of the justice system; and
iii.
That
the impact assessment in relation to the proposals is flawed as it fails to monetise the costs to be imposed on court users. This
Council asks the Leader of the Council to write to the responsible minister,
Lucy Frazer, MP setting out the Council’s objections to the proposals Minutes: Councillor Cantrill altered his motion under Council Procedure Rule 26.1 with the consent of Council so that it incorporated the amendment detailed on page 73 of the information pack Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Gehring seconded
the following motion: This Council currently notes the proposals for the future of Cambridge
Magistrates Court, including the closure of the building with its work being relocated
to existing courts in Cambridge, Huntingdon and Peterborough. This Council also notes the current consultation being undertaken to
find out the public's views on the proposals. This Council objects to the proposals to close Cambridge Magistrates
Court for the following reasons: i. That Cambridge residents could be forced
to travel to Peterborough or Huntingdon to attend a hearing as participants in
court proceedings; ii. That it dilutes the sense of place and mutual community
responsibility which is valuable in underpinning the most local level of the
justice system; and iii. That the impact assessment in relation to the proposals is flawed
as it fails to monetise the costs to be imposed on court users. The Council will work with others campaigning against the closure including Daniel Zeichner,
MP for Cambridge. This Council asks the Leader of the Council to write to the responsible
minister, Lucy Frazer, MP setting out the Council’s objections to the
proposals. Resolved
(unanimously) to support the motion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Written Questions No discussion will take place on this
item. Members will be asked to note the written questions and answers document as
circulated around the Chamber.
Minutes: Members were asked to note the written questions and answers that had been placed in the information pack circulated around the Chamber. |
PDF 280 KB