Parish Clerk: Ramune Mimiene, Buckden Village Hall Burberry Road Buckden PE19 5UY. Tel; 01480 819407

Notice of meeting: Parish Council Meeting Time: 7.30pm Date: Tuesday 12 November 2019 Venue: Buckden Village Hall – Millard Suite All members of the Council are hereby summoned to attend for the purposes of considering and resolving the business to be transacted at the meeting as set out below. The meeting is open to the public (including press). Ramune Mimiene Clerk Buckden Parish Council 7 November 2019 AGENDA

(2019- Apologies for absence 20) To receive and accept apologies for absence. 382

(2019- Open Forum – a maximum of 15 minutes is permitted for members of the public to 20) address the Council. Members of the public may have up to three minutes each. Items 383 to be addressed should be notified to the Clerk three working days in advance of the meeting.

(2019- Declarations of Interest 20) To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary and other interests, and the nature of 384 those interests relating to items on the agenda.

(2019- To consider co-option to fill 1 Vacancy 20) 385

(2019- Minutes 20) 386.1 To agree and sign the minutes of the Annual Parish Council meeting held on 8 386 October 2019. 386.2 To resolve any actions arising from the minutes of the Parish Council meeting.

(2019- Chairman’s update 20) Report attached. 387 Update on A1 Safety Advisory Group meeting and meeting with J Djanogly. 387.1 Proposal to co-opt Terry Hayward to the A1 Safety AG.

(2019- County and District Councillor Reports. 20) 388.1 To receive report from County Councillor. 388 388.2 To receive report from District Councillor: Report attached.

(2019- Finance 20) Report attached, Cllr S Ashwell 389 389.1 TO CONSIDER FINANCE ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATION FOR BUDGET AND PRECEPT FOR YEAR 01 APRIL 2020 TO 31 MARCH 2021 Proposal: The Council is asked to approve the recommended budget for Buckden Parish Council for the financial year 2020/21. Page 1 of 4

Parish Clerk: Ramune Mimiene, Buckden Village Hall Burberry Road Buckden PE19 5UY. Tel; 01480 819407 • It is proposed to set the Precept for 2020/21 at £139,055. • This is a rise of 67pence per week per ‘Band D-equivalent’ household. • For comparison 2019/20: Budget £97,882 plus an overspend (anticipated) of about £3,000, plus Grants. • In addition, our 2019/20 General Reserves were only 41% of Precept whereas national standards for Councils our size expect General Reserves to be close to 100% of Precept. • In four years the total Buckden Parish Council Reserves (cash in bank at year-end) have fallen by £66,000 (Earmarked plus General Reserves).

389.2 MANAGING OUR RESERVES TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS & NATIONAL REQUIRMENTS Proposal: The Council is asked to approve retention of the 2020/21 income to build the General Reserves.

389.3 TO NOTE GRANTS INVESTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUCKDEN PARISH RESIDENTS IN 2019/20.

389.4 GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR MONEY FROM BPC IN 2020/21 TO BE CONSIDERED Proposal: The Council is asked to approve the payment of these grants. If approved these payments will be made in early April 2020.

389.5 Finance Report: Cashbook and Bank Reconciliation to 31 Oct 19. Update.

389.6 To Approve Payments for Sanction.

(2019- To Consider Planning Committee Report, Cllr S Ashwell 20) Verbal update from the meeting. 390 (2019- To Consider Update from Large Planning Committee, Cllr M Hassall 20) Verbal update. 391 391.1 Update re: meeting with Lucks Lane site manager. A further Mill Road objection submitted.

(2019- Compliance Advisory Group, Cllr C Underwood 20) Report attached. 392 (2019- General Purposes and Cemetery Advisory Group, Cllr B Millard 20) Report attached. 393 393.1 Proposal: that Buckden Parish Council accept the new charges as attached for Buckden Cemetery as from the 1st January 2020. 393.2 Play area update and increase in vandalism around the village. 393.3 To consider a "welcome pack" for people moving into the village.

(2019- Highways and Road Safety Advisory Group, Cllr E Scott 20) Report attached. 394 394.1 Update on Pavements Survey.

(2019- Rights of Way and Trees Advisory Group, Cllr C Underwood 20) Report attached. 395

Page 2 of 4

Parish Clerk: Ramune Mimiene, Buckden Village Hall Burberry Road Buckden PE19 5UY. Tel; 01480 819407 (2019- Allotments Advisory Group, Cllr S Studd 20) Verbal update. 396 396.1 Thank you to Nisa for the donation of £500 towards the Notice Board for the Allotments.

(2019- The Buckden Cycle Route Advisory Group, Cllr A Burbidge 20) Report attached. 397 397.1 Cycle AG have drafted the FOI requests to Highways England, letter and map attached to the Agenda. Proposal: that the PC agree the letter to be sent to Highways England.

(2019- Update on Neighbourhood Plan, Cllr A Howell-Jones 20) Verbal update. 398 (2019- Meeting with Village Hall Trust, Cllr C Underwood 20) Quiz night update. 399 (2019- Digital Communications Advisory Group, Cllr M Hassall 20) Report attached. 400 400.1 Website.

(2019- Climate Change Mitigation Advisory Group, Cllr A Jones 20) Report attached. 401 401.1 Climate Change Event. Proposed Buckden Parish Council Community exhibition, workshop, information and consultation Climate Change event. Proposal to approve the plans for the ‘What on Earth Can Buckden Do?’ event.

401.2 National Community Energy campaign Proposal to approve the completion of the model resolution as outlined by Power for the People (Please see Appendix 2 in the report).

401.3 Electric Vehicle charging points Proposal to approve the first step of submitting (without obligation) to OLEV via Cambridgeshire County Council the principle of adopting Electric Vehicle charge points to Buckden.

401.4 Membership of the group Proposal to delegate authority to the Climate Change Mitigation AG to co-opt Chris Wright to the group.

(2019- To further consider Councillor Training, Clerk, update 20) Update. 402 (2019- Correspondence received 20) 403.1 Operation London Bridge – to agree what PC might do and who is going to take 403 responsibility. 403.2 Aging Well in Rural Britain.

(2019- Christmas lights, Cllr B Millard 20) The training update. 404

Page 3 of 4

Parish Clerk: Ramune Mimiene, Buckden Village Hall Burberry Road Buckden PE19 5UY. Tel; 01480 819407 (2019- Communication, Cllr A Howell-Jones 20) 405.1 Proposal to add Communication to the Agenda as a standing item. 405 (2019- Date of the next meeting 20) Tue 10 Dec at 7.30pm at the Village Hall. 406

7 November 2019

Page 4 of 4

Ramune Mimiene Clerk to the Council Buckden Village Hall Burberry Road Buckden St Neots

PE19 5UY Tel: (01480) 819407 Email [email protected] Buckden Cemetery Fees to commence from 1 January 2020

The resident’s rate for the cemetery charges apply onto to those whose primary residence is in the parish of Buckden at the time of the death. If any individual has a wish to be buried, or their ashes interred, in the cemetery at Buckden, but moves away from the parish, it is recommended that they purchase a burial/ashes plot prior to their move.

Non-Resident fees: • Burial Grant for a non-resident is £2,000. • Interment or Cremated remains are £200. ______

Residents or those who have already purchased burial rights:

Grant of Burial Rights Current Charge Proposed Charge Adult grave £240 - £260 Child’s grave (under 12 years) £130 – no change

Interment Up from £130 - £150

Ashes Adult cremated remains £130 - £150 Child under 12 years No charge Stillborn child No charge

Memorials 1) Burial Grave: a) Headstones of 90cm high and 60cm wide (including 1st inscription)* £85 up to £150 Additional inscription £40 no change – only admin work required 2) Cremated remains: a) Memorial 40cm high or b) a flat tablet 30cm x 30cm £60 - £80

Kerbs, vases, footstone, etc not permitted Search fee £25 up to £50

* inscriptions to be approved by Parish Clerk

Buckden Parish Council Advisory Groups and Committees Parish Year 2019-20 Advisory Chair Council Members Co-opted Members Clerk in Group/Committee attendance Allotments Stan Studd Martin Hassall, Stan Studd, Caroline Fred Day Underwood Buckden Cycle Routes Amy Burbidge Amy Burbidge, Elaine Scott Peter Emeleus, Martin Taylor Lynn Reynolds Cemetery and General Betty Millard Betty Millard, Elaine Scott Purposes Pauline Steel Communication and Digital TBC Martin Hassall, Anne Howell-Jones Des Foster Caroline Underwood and Dave Duncan Compliance Caroline All Chairs of Advisory Groups and Committees Clerk to Underwood attend Finance Sue Ashwell All Chairs of Advisory Groups and Committees Clerk to attend Highways and Road Safety Elain Scott Elaine Scott, Amy Burbidge, Stan Studd and Rick Screaton Clive Gillam Cycling AG Amy Burbidge Elaine Scott, Amy Burbidge Neighbourhood Plan Anne Howell- Martin Hassall, Anne Howell Jones, Mark Ward Jones John Thelwall, Allan Jones Planning Committee Sue Ashwell Sue Ashwell, Betty Millard and Kathy Render Clerk to attend Staffing WG Anne Howell Anne Howell-Jones, Betty Millard and Sue Clerk to Jones Ashwell attend

Planning Committee: Martin Hassall Martin Hassall, Anne Howell Jones Management of large Stan Studd, John Thelwall and Allan Jones planning applications Climate Change Mitigation Allan Jones Allan Jones, Anne Howell-Jones and Caroline Natasha Marsh WG Underwood Rights of Way and Trees Caroline Sue Ashwell, Amy Burbidge Melanie Storey Underwood Pauline Steel, Caroline Underwood

PC representatives on external groups A1 Road safety working Anne Howell-Jones group Buckden Parochial Charities Betty Millard Quarry liaison group Caroline Underwood Great Ouse Valley Trust Sue Ashwell & Caroline Underwood VHT Trustee Pauline Steel Roundabout Fiona Shirley (Non-Councillor), Betty Millard (Representing PC)

EV Chargers in Buckden Q&A in full, from October 2019 Buckden Parish Council meeting.

Summary. Installation costs vary depending on locations and distance from mains (most mains power cables run under road and pavements). Supply and installation costs are estimated now at;

Connection approx £5,000 per double charge point 7kW charge point £700. Total £5,700. 75% OLEV grant £4,275. Cost to BPC £1,425. per double chargepoint. Cost to BPC for two double chargepoints at two different locations £2,850.

There are 3 options available to BPC but these options will not be confirmed until CCC have finalised arrangements with Charging Network providers. Option (a) BPC pays remaining 25% of the chargepoint, cost as above. Option (b) Charging Network provider pays the 25% chargepoint cost. Option (c) BPC pays Charging Network provider to run the service.

No financial or other commitment is required by BPC until the above options are finalised, the matter will then be put before the council again. At that point should the council wish to proceed and then at a later date decide to withdraw, a cancellation cost will be made, to cover contractors costs.

As a council we should be looking forward to what conditions and facilities will be required by residents in the near and foreseeable future. Foresight and awareness of technology and innovations will meet the future requirements and health of Buckden and its residents.

SS – Do CCC believe that there would be sufficient usage in Buckden for this model to work? Remember, the only potential users of these chargepoints will be those residents who don’t have off-street parking, or visitors. Please remember that anyone can use these charge points, any resident, any visitor to Buckden, any on-route EV driver on the A1 or other nearby road, any shopper or tourist, as well as “residents without driveways”. Year one use would probably be low, year two (2022) is reckoned to be the year of price parity between EVs and combustion engined vehicles (taking into account lower electric fuel costs over years of ownership).

SS – Do you have details of any other costs, apart from Tesla; eg. Average rate, highest rate? Ecotricity; Rapid Charging costs 39p per kWh to charge your electric vehicle using an Electric Highway charge point (maximum stay of 45 minutes) Tesla; Rapid charging 25p per kWh. Shell stations; Rapid 25p/kWh (introductory price).

7kW charging posts will be a lower cost, some supermarkets absorb the cost and very often let their customers charge for free at their out of town stores. Charging networks for these 7kW chargers have various schemes including a monthly set charge regardless of use, or monthly membership fee plus a kW per hour charge, my feeling is 20p per kW would be a reasonable pricing (no membership fee), that could be discussed should option (a) be decided if that option is chosen by BPC at the later date of decision.

SS – How many kWh are typically required to charge a vehicle from 20% to 80% = 20kW and from 20% to 100% = 30kW In the case of a 40kWh battery and a 7kW charger (charging of the battery above 80% takes considerably longer to conserve the integrity of the battery life by reducing the input voltage).

SS – I feel this is too close to The Lion and The George and would be used by hotel guests at the expense of local residents. My preference would be to use the lay-by further north on the High Street, which is much closer to a number of houses with no off-road parking. Bigger picture, to encourage EV adoption as part of a cleaner healthier environment and longer term global preservation for future generations. Personally I cant see any harm in supporting local businesses whether successful, that provide major employment in the village, or small with potential growth. Whilst supporting householders without the advantage of having a driveway or indeed any other member of the community. Therefore seems to me, to be an even handed measure. I don’t believe it is the case that the lay-by further north has more homes without driveways/garages, as there is a large proportion of flats above shops in the High Street, the shops themselves, also in the High Street some pre 1890 homes, retirement complex behind George Hotel (50% of which are without) appropriate driveways, Church Street from High Street cottages to the right, Alms housing to the left and retirement homes beyond and to the right terraced cottages. All of these will be within the 5 minute walking distance prescribed by the OLEV grant. See also closing comments concerning exclusivity to hotels.

Likely Demand – Do we know the likely demand for on-street charging facilities? Is there sufficient to make it economically viable for either the Parish Council or a service provider? (Having looked on-line, the application process itself requires proof of current and future demand).

Shell has a program to introduce fast chargers to its forecourts, being rolled out across the country but only a very slow roll out to high population density locations such as within the M25 corridor. EV adoption is set to rise dramatically and most likely when 2 chargers are installed at Shell Buckden, EVs will significantly out number chargers available. In the same way as when internal combustion engined cars were introduced at the turn of the last century, when there weren’t any petrol stations at all, and pioneering motorists purchased petrol and spirits from chemists. But as those early vehicle adopters were constrained to where they could refuel, cars became more affordable, more cars needed refuelling and the market increased the number of fuelling stations, too the point where we are today, the same will happen with EVs... more EVs more charging points. Or to go back even further the Lion Coaching Inn catered for travellers passing through Buckden, then when coaching became more popular and affordable to more people, the George Coaching Inn then opened to fill the extra requirement.

Lion Hotel & The George –

We should encourage them to install chargepoints on their sites, otherwise there is a risk that hotel guests will use the village chargepoints and thereby deny them to local residents. For The George and Lion Hotels to be able to advertise EV charge points as a competitive advantage to its customers, it would have to have direct control over their use and availability and on that basis they will no doubt seek to have their own, for the exclusive use of their guests, and we should advise this to them as a council.

Costs & Subsidies –

Any scheme has to be, at the very least, cost-neutral to the Parish Council on an on-going basis. While keen to encourage the use of electric vehicles, we cannot be seen to be subsidising a small number of residents (who, in all probability given the current high cost of electric vehicles, will be middle-to-high earners). The option where the network provider pays the remaining 25% cost is cost neutral on an ongoing basis. Surely BPC pays for existing items and schemes that do not make a profit or are cost-neutral. EV prices are dropping, a new MG ZS all electric SUV is currently on sale at just over £21,000 (with grants) add to that cheaper running costs for the life of the vehicle (typically 3p per mile compared to 11p - 15p per mile for diesel). Then consider the second hand market for EVs that have been on sale since 2009, with cars like the Nisan Leaf, Renault Zoe, BMW i3, Volkswagen Golf, Tesla Model S, etc, making EVs more affordable for all. Remember also this OLEV grant is arguably directed at residents with relatively lower incomes, homes without driveways and or on site garages (with power).

If the Parish Council need to make a financial contribution (set-up costs and on- going costs), then, before we sign-up to the scheme, we need to consider what other ‘climate change ’mitigation opportunities are available which could benefit a larger number of residents for the same costs.

EV adoption benefits all residents, cleaner air (zero emissions from exhausts), promoting Cleaner transport by example to others and significantly reducing carbon emissions. There is no other Climate Change mitigation measure that is within our control that could have a bigger impact at the same cost threshold.

Outdoor air pollution is contributing to about 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK, say the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Pediatrics and Child Health. They say diesel emissions have been poorly controlled.

Burning petrol in a modern car releases an average of 275 grams of CO2 per mile driven. Assuming you drive it for 135,000 miles, it will emit a total of over 37 metric tons of CO2. An EV will emit Zero CO2 in the same period.

Electric Vehicles produce zero emissions at point of use, both diesel and petrol produce deadly emissions (try sitting in a car in an enclosed space with the engine running.... you will die) you could however do the same in an EV without any ill effects. Electricity production is becoming cleaner year by year in the past year 22.7% of power generated in the UK was zero carbon (wind, solar, hydro, storage, biomass) if you include nuclear (19%) this will bring the total non carbon generation of the grid to 48.1%. The remainder was mainly Gas and a very little coal (3.4%), these polluting energy sources were producing their pollution only locally from the relevant power stations that are generally sited safely away from centres of population.

Other pollution factors. Particulates from brake pad wear is far less with an Electric Vehicle probably 70 to 80% less because EVs use regenerative braking most of the time without the need to use any brakes. The regenerative braking is achieved by using the electric motor as a brake, and at the same time that produces electricity back into the battery.

Electric Vehicle adoption is essential and as a technology is available now, and an important first step for the overall transport strategy for the whole World. We need to start that trend right here in Buckden and as a parish council it is our responsibility to get that message out to our village. The clock is ticking in less than 11 years the world could be in decline as Climate Change becomes irreversible. We are part of that world and part of that eco- system and we would be passing on that decline to our children.

EV chargepoints would take parking spaces away from combustion engined vehicles. I don’t believe parking in Buckden is an issue 99% of roads are de-restricted with only School lane having yellow lines that are enforceable at school times only. As we know walking and cycling are the healthy option for short trips and journeys. Also as time passes EVs will increase in numbers at the expense of petrol and diesel cars, so the balance of parking spaces will naturally adjust ie; one more Electric Vehicle = one less petrol vehicle.

Who pays the electricity and maintenance costs after the installation?

If BPC takes on remaining 25% cost of unit, maintenance costs/profit would be the responsibility/benefit of BPC any maintenance costs could be factored into the price that BPC would levy as a charge to users (option (a). If CCC arranges for a Network Supplier to take on chargepoint this would be a near zero cost option, option (b) . The option BPC would be offered is not in our hands, my chosen option would be the zero cost / profit option (b). At this stage of the process BPC is simply expressing an interest to participate in this scheme and will be asked to sign up to the CCC/OLEV scheme at a later date, when this will then be put before the council again. CCC answer; Assuming the Council has paid the full cost for the unit, it would be your responsibility to pay for these, however charging prices could be set to recover these costs. If we can get a supplier to cover the 25%, I would look for them to pay the maintenance and electricity, although this of course is yet to be negotiated. I am just writing a request for quotations to understand costs etc associated with both approaches.

Do you have an example of typical annual maintenance costs in order to give an indication of the level of margin we would need to build in to costs? Maintenance for 2 chargepoint locations approx £500 per year. If as predicted initial use is light I feel sure maintenance cost would be half this. CCC Answer; Maintenance will likely be around the £500 per year – that would be for both of the chargepoints. The challenge will be in setting the charging price such that you can recover this, without a clear understanding of usage. The suppliers can advise on setting prices. This is one of the reasons I am keen to have the suppliers more heavily involved and am looking to do a single procurement – it is hoped that the proposition of up to 15 highly utilised chargepoints in the City will make the dispersed rural locations appealing option (b).

If operating on a‘ pay as you go’ basis, and the Parish Council needing to include an element of profit, we would need details of actual kWh costs before committing, in order to ensure that this approach is economically viable At present BPC pays its electric bill as an un-metered supply at an estimated amount of consumption. CCC Answer; Actual kWh costs for the electricity would depend on the supply contract you would set up – as both locations require a new connection, you would need to set up new suppliers (these could be with the same supplier the parish already uses). Similarly, some suppliers have set up specific EV charging accounts which may be of interest.

What is the expected lifespan of a charging point? And is there a manufacturers guarantee, Who would fund the replacement costs at end of life and is there a requirement to do so? Guarantee period expected to be 5 Years. Therefore actual lifetime should be substantially more, around the 10 year + mark.

This generation of chargers, possibly being superseded but still compatible and usable far beyond installation. Any replacement would be just the unit, the biggest part of the cost is the initial installation costs. CCC answers; For the purposes of the grant, OLEV require the chargepoints to be in place and operational for 3 years, after which time it is up to the owner to decide what they want to do. Lifespans vary, however I should expect it to be around the 10 year mark – currently turnover of units is really driven by improving technology. There will be manufacturer warranties – details of these will be included as a key point in the procurement. At end of life, the replacement cost would basically just be the cost of the unit, as the connections etc would already be in place. Note – the unit itself is the least cost part of the whole process. • One option would be for BPC to pay the operator to run the charge point service, and take on these costs within the contract. In return the operator would take the profit from the chargepoints use, option (c) This option would be the case should BPC cover the full cost of the chargepoint.

Do you have any indicative costs for this option; i.e. would Buckden Parish Council be expected to pay any costs on an annual basis? The First 3 years included in OLEV scheme. CCC Answer; The initial costs for this can be incorporated into the procurement (likely for the compulsory 3 year period that OLEV require). There after operations of the “back office” (the system which runs and enables payments) would be an annual fee, and you could procure this through ESPO Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation yourselves.

Also with this option would the operator retain any profit over and above the running costs meaning zero cost to Buckden Parish Council? CCC Answer; There are two profit areas for the operator in this instance: 1) Your fee for the service 2) They will add a small fee, to be paid by the chargepoint user, to cover the admin fees for processing card payments.

• If Parishes were to have the chargepoint operator pay for the 25% of costs that are not covered by the grant. The parish would own the major stake in the chargepoint, the operator would manage it, and take any profit from its use option (b).

If the Parish owns the‘ major stake’ in the chargepoint, what are our liabilities in this respect? There are 3 options available to BPC (a), (b) and (c) but these options will not be confirmed until CCC have finalised arrangements with Charging Network providers. This option would seem to my to be the worst scenario, option (c). CCC Answer; This is something yet to be established and will require discussion with a supplier.

What is the cost, if any, for obtaining a TRO? Presumably one required for each proposed site. What is the lead-time for getting a TRO approved? Presumably, this approval would have to be in place ahead of any commitment to install the charging points? Seems no cost involved.

CCC Answer; The TRO costs can be covered by the grant – this includes bay markings etc. I am in discussions with our streetworks teem currently regarding TROs, but their standard lead time is 8 weeks. You will need to commit to the project ahead of this, as I cannot officially apply for a TRO ahead of being offered the grant, however I will ensure no other costs will be incurred prior to TRO approval. If the TRO is not approved we can return to OLEV and discuss next steps – be that BPC leaving the project or identifying new locations.

Who is responsible for marking of bays, (public road) signage, etc. Would the Parish Council have to fund or make any contribution to this? CCC Answer; See previous answer.

What elements of the installation and set-up are classed as capital funding? CCC Answer; All of this is capital, the only bits excluded are project management time (ie yours and my time).

Who determines the tariff, and how easy is it to change tariffs (eg. Electricity prices increase or decrease) can this be factored into the tariff? CCC Answer; If BPC cover the 25%, then you will be wholly responsible for setting the tariff – the supplier can provide guidance on best practice here. You will be able to change this during the chargepoints lifetime by contacting the operator. Option (a). If the 25% is covered by the supplier there may be less leeway to set prices, as this is their mechanism for recoupling their investment, however I will be seeking to ensure this is a process discussed with yourselves as far as possible. Note, the supplier would not want to set costs too high as it would not be competitive with other locations. Option (b).

Buckden Parish Council should be looking to keep pace with a changing world and considering where possible to mitigate against Climate Change.

Buckden Parish Council

Chair Update 12th November 2019

I met with Jonathon DJanogly on 25th October to discuss issues with A1.

I have attached my notes of what was covered at the meeting, my subsequent letter to him and his somewhat inevitable response.

Points covered at Meeting with Jonathon Djanogly

The Roundabout

The situation on the A1 in Buckden and Southoe is deteriorating and Buckden Roundabout is increasingly unsafe and congested.

• A1 Improvements north of the roundabout, motorway standard to Brampton are increasing the speed of traffic approaching from the north • Concern that improvements at Black Cat will exacerbate queuing at Buckden and that the plans there do not accommodate a future A1 by pass. • Many older residents will no longer use it and are ‘trapped’ in the village • Several near misses reported by mothers driving children to school. (Buckden school attracts significant numbers of children from outside Buckden who use the roundabout and the Offord Crossing). • Petition in the village seeking safety improvements. • The roundabout is now a barrier to any development in the village • 2 developments, 500 properties, are on hold whilst the developers try to find a way of mitigating the impact of increased traffic volumes on congestion at the roundabout.

Potential Solutions

Tactical

Traffic lights are a potential solution, but investigation so far has not found a safe approach. Size of roundabout and surround are a major constraint. Location of petrol station problematic. Concern that HE is trying to find a quick and potentially sub optimal solution, funded by the developers, to ‘be seen to do something’.

Semi Strategic

Local bypass

Strategic

Full bypass as previously planned on several occasions.

Exits onto the A1 unsafe (Stirtloe and Southoe)

Major concern that the Stirtloe Lane exit is unsafe. Right angle exit entry at 60mph speed limit. No acceleration/deceleration lanes. Numerous near misses and two accidents reported prior to use of the road increasing.

Aware of recent presentation by Alistair Burt to Transport Committee. However, outcomes seem less than conclusive. Growing concern that government at all levels are prioritising development above safety. Subsequent letter to JD

Dear Jonathon

It was good to meet you on Friday and helpful to have the opportunity to discuss the various problems with the A1. As agreed, I have set out below some of the key issues which may help in a response to Baroness Vere and support your discussions with Highways England (HE).

The roundabout at Buckden is an increasing problem and its design capacity is being exceeded. Ironically the much needed improvements to the A1 to the north of the roundabout, which have created motorway standard road as far south as Brampton, mean that traffic is arriving at the roundabout at higher speeds and the necessity to stop after so many miles is an increasing frustration for drivers. From the north this stream of traffic is condensed from 3 lanes to 2 lanes approaching Buckden, creating a solid flow of traffic with very few gaps. Near misses are frequently drawn to the attention of the Parish Council, most notably from mothers taking children to school. A petition demanding safety improvements has begun in the village.

The proposed changes to the Black Cat roundabout have the potential to create a similar situation from the South. It is critical that the potential for an A1 bypass is included in the Black Cat plans. Unfortunately, Buckden is increasingly an anomaly on a nationally improving road network.

Two developments, Silver Street, an allocation in the Local Plan, and Mill Road (a total of circa 500 houses) are both currently ‘on hold ’due to traffic impacts. The latest data we have seen, from the developers own traffic assessments, predicts that should these developments proceed without significant improvements at the roundabout, a queue of 300+ plus cars is likely in Buckden High Street in the morning peak.

The landowners, the Church Commissioners are working with HE on a ‘traffic light ’solution. As discussed, we are not convinced that this is a viable tactical solution given the small size of the roundabout and its confined surroundings. We have not yet seen a proposal that is both safe and improves congestion. The diagram below demonstrates the problem.

I note that you are meeting Simon Amor from HE on 8th November. Undoubtedly this subject will arise. We are very concerned that an unsafe solution may be forced through to enable the developments to proceed and to enable HE to be ‘seen to do something’. We would be very happy to attend this meeting if we can be of assistance.

As you are aware there are also several highly dangerous junctions along this stretch of the A1, most notably at, Stirtloe, Diddington and Southoe. Diddington and Southoe both have inadequate slip roads onto the A1. In the case of Stirtloe Lane there is no slip road at all. The risks associated with a highly dangerous T-junction of a small lane and the main A1 trunk road are set to become more acute as 180 extra houses are under construction on a site next to this junction.

Whilst the concept of a ‘Users and Communities Fund ’or a ‘Safety and Congestion Fund ’are welcome we believe the minimum solution required is a bypass of Southoe and Buckden which could be compatible with a more strategic bypass solution in the future.

Thank you for your time on Friday. I hope the above is helpful.

Yours sincerely

JD Reply

Dear Mrs Howell-Jones

Jonathan has asked me to thank you for your email and for meeting with him on 25 October.

As you know, a General Election has now been called for 12 December and when Parliament is dissolved on Wednesday, there will no longer be any Members of Parliament until after the election. Unfortunately, this has made it necessary for Jonathan to cancel his meeting with Highways England on 8 November.

Subject to him being re-elected, he will re-arrange the meeting for early January. In the meantime, he has contacted Highways England about their formal response to the two planning applications in Buckden.

Kind Regards

Nikki

Buckden EV Charging points proposal.

*OLEV grant (Office for Low Emissions Vehicles) to parishes via CCC. For the benefit of households that do not have the opportunity to take advantage of the original OLEV grants to householders with driveways and garages. The grant is operated by OLEV and The Energy Saving Trust (https://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/transport/local-authorities/street-residential-chargepoint- scheme ) and is designed to provide communal EV charge-points for residents without access to off-street parking (ie without garages & driveways).

*These public Chargepoints will also encourage visitors, with Electric Vehicles to the village, to support local businesses as well as supporting our ever increasing awareness of Climate Change and environmental pollution issues.

*It has been established that no planning permission will be required to site these charge points in this part of the conservation area.

*This grant would cover 75% of the purchase & labour costs for the chargepoint The Parish would need to provide the remainder. The Parish is not able to apply for the grant directly, CCC would be applying on our behalf.

Others joining the scheme. Grafham Village Hall Alconbury Memorial Hall Waterbeach Old Recreation Ground Car Park Adam & Eve Car Park, Cambridge City Council Houghton & Wyton.

Some relevant questions answered.

Who pays the electricity and maintenance costs after the installation? This does depend on the set up. In the most basic scenario, the Parish is responsible for all electricity and maintenance costs. When setting the Pay as you go tariff, the parish could include a profit margin that would cover these costs.

The other option would be for BPC to pay the operator to run the charge point service, and take on these costs within the contract. In return the operator would take the profit from the chargepoints use.

Another funding mechanism the CCC is looking into, as it would be easiest for Parishes, would be to have the chargepoint operator pay for the 25% of costs that are not covered by the grant. While the parish would own the major stake in the chargepoint, the operator would manage it, and take any profit from its use. This however would only work if, overall, the number of parishes involved is sufficient to make economic sense to the operator, so CCC is looking to procure the chargepoints together.

Who decides which network operator is selected to provide the service? To maximise economies of scale to obtain the best service/price CCC would look to procure all the chargepoints for all parishes taking part at the same time. During the procurement process you could input on the facilities you would like to be included and I will feed this in to the specification. While there are a variety of operators available, many provide similar services.

Who is responsible for policing the charge point area (on a public road) with regard to unauthorised vehicles blocking the parking space?

As the location would be on a public road, a Traffic Regulation order (TRO) would be required. This will allow you to designate parking bays and signage. These are enforced by the Police and Traffic Enforcement Officers, in much the same way as other parking restrictions.

When will any payments need to be made? As the grant is paid in arrears, CCC do not expect the Parishes to pay for the full costs of works and await reimbursement. The intention would be for County to cover the upfront costs as we have the cash-flow to enable this. We will then make the claim for the 75% grant, with the Parish then reimbursing County the remainder. All costs will be agreed with yourselves ahead of expenditure. The idea is that this project would be cost-neutral for County. The grant is only paid to completed projects - as such, should you back out once costs have been incurred, you would be responsible for reimbursing the total to County. Nearer the time, a Memorandum of Understanding will be agreed between yourselves and County to cover this off.

What is the maximum amount of funding for each chargepoint? maximum allowed is; 75% of capital funding, up to £7,500 per chargepoint.

How many Electric Vehicles can one chargepoint charge at a time? One chargepoint can charge two Electric Vehicles simultaneously.

What type of connector would each chargepoint have? The current standard is and has previously been Combo type II, this connector will be compatible with 99% of all Electric Vehicles.

How long would each Electric Vehicle take to charge? First thing to take account of is Electric Vehicles will very rarely arrive with zero charge, secondly Electric Vehicles do not always require to charge to 100%, thirdly different Electric Vehicles have different capacity batteries. As an example an average modern EV may have a 40kWh capacity battery this would take on average; 7 kW charger From 20% to 80% 3 hours From 20% to 100% 5 hours 3.7 kW charger From 20% to 80% 6.5 hours From 20% to 100% 9 hours

What is a reasonable cost per kWh to charge users of the chargepoints? There are many variables with charges, minimum charges and connection charges, one of the best and lowest price schemes is Tesla, who charge a single flat rate of 25 pence per kWh.

What is the current cost of domestic electricity per kWh? The parish council may be entitled to a commercial rate? One of the lowest domestic tariffs is 15.1 pence per kWh.

What is the approximate cost of installing a chargepoint?

Connection approx costs £ 3000 One 3.7kW chargepoint £ 400 Total ex VAT £ 3,400. 75% OLEV grant = cost to BPC £ 850 per chargepoint.

Connection approx costs £ 3000 One 7kW chargepoint £ 700 Total ex VAT £3700 per chargepoint. 75% OLEV grant = cost to BPC £ 925 per chargepoint.

The cost to Buckden Parish Council could be nothing if a network chargepoint operator is chosen to operate the system.

My suggestion to the council would be to install one chargepoint (with two connections) to High Street location, below shows two chargepoints as illustrated originally, please imagine just one.

And a second location to Church Street, one chargepoint (with two connections).

Both locations are currently wide of the main traffic flow in what could be considered a lay-by situation, and conform with the OLEV requirement of being within five minutes walk of housing without driveways or a garage. I believe that having two separate locations would have the advantage of, not removing a block of four parking spaces in a row for other vehicles and would spread availability for EV’s to a wider span of the village.

Regards Allan Jones. Buckden Parish Coucillor - Large Scale Planning Committee.

This email or any attachment is confidential, intended for the addressee only. If the email has been mis-directed please delete it and inform the sender. The email does not contain any personal data as defined under the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (GDPR) however correspondence with the Council may be viewed by other authorised persons or organisations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). If you believe that you cannot process this correspondence without the personal data you must contact the Council to arrange a sharing agreement under the terms of the GDPR. - Please consider the environment before printing any email.

Buckden Parish Council 6 November 2019, District Councillors Report

Buckden Roundabout

Highways England have returned the latest proposals from Church Commissioners/Pell Frischman for further review, based on concerns on safety, (via Martin Hassall) The main A14 routes will open in mid December, with link roads due for completion over the next year. Local congestion is to be expected.

Petition PE19 and SG19

I have submitted a request to our MP for legislative reviews with the National Audit Office, to allow Highways England to use up to date traffic data for this area. I have also requested focussed research via the HOC Library Service on issues relating to a west A1 by pass and recent Infrastructure legislation and funding parameters for the East/West Arc.

Until a new Government is elected, Electoral Law prevents any response and both this and the Petition is on hold.

School Funding

Buckden CofE Primary School is set to receive an additional 8.73% increase in funding per pupil for 2020-21 (Percentage change in pupil-led NFF funding. This relates to Conservative Government pledges, and lobbying by our MP Jonathan Djanogly on behalf of Cambridgeshire Schools.

A quote from Jonathan can be found at https://www.hcca.org.uk/news/jonathan-djanogly-mp- welcomes-funding-boost-schools-cambridgeshire

More improved services at HDC

Huntingdonshire District Council Conservatives continue to deliver on their Manifesto pledges by implementing yet more measures to ensure an effective and efficient council, having recently introduced a new a document upload facility to support customers applying for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support.

The following link gives full details https://www.hcca.org.uk/news/hdc-conservatives-continue- improve-services

Rural mobile phone coverage

Just announced is a new £1 billion deal (brokered by the Conservative Government) with mobile phone operators, that will eliminate virtually all areas of poor mobile coverage in rural areas across the country.

The new deal will see the four main mobile providers –EE, O2, Three and Vodafone – coming together to invest a network of new phone masts, as well as upgrading existing ones, that they can then all share. This will be known as the Shared Rural Network.

The move will bring 4G coverage to 95 per cent of the UK by 2025. The Conservative Government will then commit up to £500 million to eliminate total not-spots–those hard-to-reach areas where there is currently no coverage from any operator.

Hamish Masson District Councillor Buckden Ward

Cycling Group Report 4 Nov 2019

1. We have drafted the attached FOI requests to Highways England. Motion - that the PC agree the letter to be sent to Highways England.

2. The non compliance of Highways England with their own Cycling Design Standard has been raised by Daniel Zeichner MP to the CEO of Highways England at a recent Parliamentary Transport Cttee meeting. This is a video of him responding to the local MP’s question: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/f64f3547-f0b9-4b2d-a107- 0347ef5a6693?in=11:40:02&out=11:40:59 In short the Chief Exec will go away and delve further. The Cambridge Cycle Campaign have followed this up with a letter setting out the non compliance on the A14 and elsewhere and are citing examples identified in our LCWIP. We await further reports.

3. Highways England A14 team have removed broken signs etc at the junction with Silver Street, but have not sorted the sign. We are now chasing the A1 maintenance team.

4. The County Council have provided information about what is public highway around the location of three possible sitings for cycle parking. (its attached).

Amy

November 2019 Buckden Parish Council

Report from Finance Advisory Group Chairman Page 1 of 5

Part 1: BUDGET & PRECEPT RECOMMENDATIONS Part 2: MANAGING OUR RESERVES TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS & NATIONAL REQUIRMENTS Part 3: GRANTS INVESTED IN BUCKDEN BY PARISH COUNCIL IN 2019/20 Part 4: GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR MONEY FROM BPC IN 2020/21 TO BE CONSIDERED

Appendix A: Flowchart for setting & managing the BPC budget - annual cycle Appendix B: Actions from Finance Advisory Group 29th Oct 2019; key dates for budget & Precept setting

Part 1: TO CONSIDER FINANCE ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATION FOR BUDGET AND PRECEPT FOR YEAR 01 APRIL 2020 TO 31 MARCH 2021

Motion before Council: The Council is asked to approve the recommended budget for Buckden Parish Council for the financial year 2020/21. • It is proposed to set the Precept for 2020/21 at £139,055. • This is a rise of 67pence per week per ‘Band D-equivalent’ household • For comparison 2019/20: Budget £97,882 plus an overspend (anticipated) of about £3,000, plus Grants (see Part 3). o In addition, our 2019/20 General Reserves were only 41% of Precept whereas national standards for Councils our size expect General Reserves to be close to 100% of Precept. o In four years the total Buckden Parish Council Reserves (cash in bank at year-end) have fallen by £66,000 (Earmarked plus General Reserves).

How has the recommended budget been set? The proposed budget and associated management of income and reserves has been set after discussion of all group and committee proposals for 2020/21 expenditure. These discussions tested assumptions and reviewed proposals against the priorities set by the Council and the requirements of the auditors. The resulting draft budget for consideration by Council addresses those and provides a sound basis for the Parish Council to continue to provide services and support for Parish Residents in the year ahead. The Finance Advisory Group is aware that it may need to take over some responsibilities which are being cut by HDC & CCC because their budgets are under pressure, but no specific sums have been included for this.

The budget recommended by the Finance Advisory Group (all group/committee chairmen) would mean an increase of approximately 42%. Whilst this is significant percentage increase the Parish Precept is a very small proportion of the overall Council Tax to be paid by each household, as illustrated below for 2019/20. Parish/Town Council Total 2019/20 Parish Precept Council Tax (Band D)1 2019/20 Brampton £1,868.96 £121.29 Buckden £1,830.90 £83.23 i.e. 4.54% of total Council Tax Godmanchester £1,848.82 £101.15 Huntingdon £1,915.78 £168.11 Offord D’Arcy & Offord Cluny £1,843.22 £95.55 St Neots £1,884.51 £136.84

1 When comparing Council Tax charges the measure used by central government and available on ‘My Cambridgeshire’ website is the sum to be paid by a home rated as Band D.

November 2019 Buckden Parish Council

Report from Finance Advisory Group Chairman Page 2 of 5

The Councils listed in the table on page 1 have been chosen for their proximity to Buckden. Apart from the Offords, all these Council are like Buckden in that their area provides a broad range of services e.g. GPs, Pharmacy, and shops used by people from neighbouring areas.

The Income & Expenditure proposals agreed and recommended to full Council by the Finance Advisory Group on 29th October 2019 are provided as a separate excel workbook. Paper copies of this workbook will be provided at the November Council meeting.

Impact of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on Council Precepts The other Councils listed have in the past and/or are currently receiving non-Precept income in the form of their share of CIL for houses built within their Parish/Town. The costs of infrastructure e.g. improvement of paths or community facilities using CIL have therefore been factored into their financial plans.

Investigation on behalf of Buckden Parish Council has identified the likely amount of CIL which will be received by Buckden Parish Council in connection with the Lucks Lane development. In year one (2020/21) this will be about £49,000. However, as we have no certainty about when in-year this will be received the day to day running of the Council’s activities and planned improvements e.g. PC match funding agreed to support the Local Highways Initiative bid to improve safety on Mill Road, all depend on money raised through the Precept.

Part 2: MANAGING OUR RESERVES TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS & NATIONAL REQUIRMENTS

Motion before Council: The Council is asked to approve retention of the 2020/21 income to build the General Reserves. NOTE: CIL will be in Earmarked Reserve (because of legal constraints on how it is spent) but, until/unless linked to specific works, spending of CIL funds will require prior Council approval on a case-by-case basis. By retaining the income this year as General Reserves the proportion of the Precept held in that way will reach 73%. As we are also proposing to reduce the Earmarked Reserves significantly compared to 2019/20 (down from £69,494 to £23,450) the retention of income is recommended as an essential step to provide operational resilience in a year when the CIL income is relatively small and its timing uncertain, and the demands on the Parish Council from the effects of HDC and CCC cuts are not yet known, due to differences in timing of budget setting set by HDC. In addition, this year there are significant uncertainties in the planned income. Some are new income- generating proposals and some uncertainties are the result of matters beyond our control e.g. use of the Cemetery and advertising in The Roundabout. Functional/Operational Differences Between General & Earmarked Reserves • General Reserves - These may only be committed (spent) after formal agreement of the Full Council, following discussion of a proposal for previously un-budgeted expenditure • Earmarked Reserve items - Group Chairman can use these in-year by agreement in advance with the Responsible Financial Officer (Clerk) and Council Finance lead, as the full Council will have effectively already agreed Earmarked Reserves as Contingency for the Designated or Restricted purpose.

November 2019 Buckden Parish Council

Report from Finance Advisory Group Chairman Page 3 of 5

Part 3: TO NOTE GRANTS INVESTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF BUCKDEN PARISH RESIDENTS IN 2019/20 In 2019/20 Councillors have worked hard and been effective in securing and using almost £21,000 of externally funded grants for the benefit of the Parish. These have been: • Round-about-Buckden walk £5,510 • Local Walking & Cycling Investment Plan £9,000 • Neighbourhood Plan £4,377 plus £4,00 direct to advisers

Without these grants these projects would have been unable to happen either at all or at this key point in time. The Councillors plan to work hard in the coming year to raise grant funding for other projects. Where new grant-funded projects for 2020/21 are already known and match-funding from the Parish Council is required by the donor organisations, allocation for the Parish share has been made withinthe budget.

Part 4: GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR MONEY FROM BPC IN 2020/21 TO BE CONSIDERED In July 2019 Buckden Parish Council adopted a new Policy for the management of applications for Donations (up to £200 each) and for Grants. This year two applications for Buckden Parish Grants were received by 30th September with all information supplied as set out in the policy. The Finance Advisory Group considered these applications and is recommending that they are funded from the 2020/21 Precept. The applications were for: Organisation Summary of purpose, as stated by applicants Amount of grant applying recommended 1st Southoe & To contribute to general funds of this scout group to help to £400 Buckden Scouts support attendance of 40 Scouts at the Kanderstag International Scout Camp, Switzerland 27 Jul to 2 August 2020. Total cost of the BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY: “The Buckden community benefits activity estimated at by having circa 60 of its young people in the Scout Group taking £25,000. part in an exciting programme of activities from kayaking to coding. A 2018 report says Scouts are 17% more likely to show leadership skills and work well in teams, and they were a third more likely to support their communities too”. Buckden Village To provide for the maintenance of the grounds to keep grass in £5,520 Hall Trust good order and weeds suppressed. This cost does not include mowing the grass. Total cost for grass To ensure the main sports of football & cricket can be facilitated maintenance with this and provide for a pleasant grass area for other activities e.g. contractor (excluding childrens’ play, walkers, dog walkers, village fete & Buckfest. BPC’s handymen & BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY: “The Village Hall Trust provides contractor facilities for educational, recreational, business and sports for the contributions) £5,909 whole village and surrounding areas. This application is to supplement (for a specific but generally beneficial purpose) the fees charged to users of the facilities”.

Motion before Council: The Council is asked to approve the payment of these grants. If approved these payments will be made in early April 2020. The use of the funds will be audited at the end of the financial year, in line with the Policy.

November 2019 Buckden Parish Council

Report from Finance Advisory Group Chairman Page 4 of 5

Appendix A: Budget setting and management cycle summary:

This cycle is repeated each year, starting in October. • Clerk: create summary of expenditure on first 6 months of the BPC financial year and share with Council. • Group/Committee Chairmen: propose a budget with & for their group/committee for the next financial year; show what may be funded by grants or sponsorship. Budget to cover: o Need to do (to maintain at least core facilities for residents) o Want to do (aspirational/potential e.g. projects or development of PC activities) o Carried forward-any previously agreed cash allocation, e.g. when Council has agreed match- funding for a grant application (RFO/Finance lead hold details) • Clerk: propose budget changes for her areas of responsibility e.g. subscriptions and administration • Staffing Advisory Group: review requirements and propose changes • Finance lead (SA) to receive group proposals and clarify matters arising • Finance Advisory Group1: collectively reviews all proposals, including applications to BPC for grants to be paid out from Precept and recommends changes to be included in draft budget November • Finance Lead and Clerk: use Finance AG recommendations to prepare a draft budget • Proposal for budget uplift and therefore Precept for next financial year • All Councillors: review proposals and consider priorities • Feedback and discussion at the meeting December • RFO and Finance lead present final budget proposal and therefore Precept, in light of the feedback and discussion at November Council meeting • Councillors: must agree final budget and Precept • RFO to submit agreed Precept figure to Hunts District Council (2019 deadline is 12th December) November to March • RFO and Finance lead: monitor expenditure and refine end-of-year cash forecast • Group Chairmen: update RFO and Finance lead on expected income and expenditure before year- end April • Finance Advisory Group: review end of year group out-turn and budgets for the new financial year o Consider impact of outturn on General Reserves o Consider matters which may be raised by Auditors (internal & External) July • Finance Advisory Group: review year to date and advise of any changes to plans • Briefings for new Chairmen (where required)

NOTES: In October the paired Finance & Compliance Advisory Groups will focus only on budget setting for Precept. In January these paired groups will focus only on compliance issues April & July meetings of these “paired” groups will cover Finance and Compliance as separate, sequential meetings

1 Finance Advisory Group is all Group/Committee Chairmen plus the Clerk (who is our Responsible Finance Officer-RFO). This is the same membership as the Compliance Advisory Group.

November 2019 Buckden Parish Council

Report from Finance Advisory Group Chairman Page 5 of 5

Appendix B: Notes from Finance Advisory Group

Meeting 29th October 2019 PURPOSE: Review of proposed budget for 01April 2020 to 31 March 2021

Attendance: Every group and committee chairman as well as the Clerk (our Responsible Financial Officer).

Action Who? Deadline Check amendments made at the meeting to the first draft budget - Income & SA Completed Expenditure plan and add/remove explanatory notes as appropriate before presentation of proposal to full Council. Proposed increase 67p per week2 per Band D-equivalent household Revise layout of Reservations calculations to reflect agreement at meeting. SA Completed Remove detail from draft of General Reserves (as that detail was to illustrate what had been removed from 2019/20 Earmarked Reserves for 2020/21). Produce a note for full Council on the functional impact of Earmarked vs SA Draft General Reserves. completed DRAFT shared with Finance AG Information included in Nov19 Finance Report on budget & Precept Review option costs for Cemetery Memorials Stability Testing; confirm costs RM & 16 Nov19 in budget plan 2020/21 for this safety measure; work with PCC to review SA Churchyard (using volunteers). Worst-case scenario included Review Cemetery Income assumption once intended price increases are RM & 10 Nov 19 factored into plan. Proposal to Council November 2019 BM Done Collate info on grant income invested recently in Buckden and share with AH SA/RM 10 Nov19 for potential use in preparing residents for news about increase in Precept Done Included in November 2019 Finance Report to full council Collate documents to be circulated to full Council and send to RM before SA 06 Nov19 Agenda is agreed by Council Chairman. Sent 30Oct19 Done Note short-term key dates re Precept • 12 Nov 19 - Finance group proposal for Budget & Precept to be discussed at Council meeting; amendments to be made (SA) if required to create the “Final” version • 03 Dec19 “Final” version of budget to be provided to AH (as Chairman) & RM (RFO) for inclusion in December Council agenda • 10 Dec 19 Formal sign-off by Council of budget • 12 Dec19 RFO (Clerk) must submit Precept request to HDC (to meet their ALL deadline) o Jan/Feb 2020 notice expected from HDC as to whether proposed Precept has been accepted; can then publicise as required o April 2020 Council Tax notices to be circulated showing % increase and total value for Parish element of the Council Tax

2 Finance Advisory Group’s proposal for budget would create a Buckden Parish Precept of approximately £118.33 (BandD) a year (actual value may vary slightly as the calculation is based on the number of Band D-equivalent households are recorded by HDC in January 2020). GENERAL PURPOSES ADVISORY GROUP

Report for Parish Council Meeting on 12 November 2019

The Advisory Group have not met this month but this is an update of matters needing attention

Cemetery Attached are the proposed changes to cemetery fees to commence from 1st January 2020. Ramune and I have compared our charges with other local Parishes and have distributed our findings to the GP Advisory Group. The charge for Burial Grant for Non-residents is now in line with Little Paxton.

It should be noted that there will be two new additional cemeteries in the area within the next two years. HDC has given planning permission for one in Godmanchester and one in Abbots Ripton.

Proposal: that Buckden Parish Council accept the new charges as attached for Buckden Cemetery as from the 1st January 2020

Churchyard Tidy up of brambles etc I am chasing up the Young Offenders Service to see when they hope to work on the clearance.

Betty Millard November 2019

Grant funding sources Buckden PC Good websites for sources of funding:

Cambridgeshire Community Foundation - https://www.cambscf.org.uk/home.html

https://www.disability-grants.org/community-grants-charities-trusts.html

https://www.grantsonline.org.uk/search/grants

http://www.huntsforum.org.uk/funding-advice-and-support - offers free access to grant finder websites and critical friend reviewer of bids. Might be good to use for our next CIL funding bid?

Top tip for grant bids

Copy the words used in the requirements in your application Ones I have found that might be particularly useful Amey Community Fund: £10-40,000. Object D: "The provision, maintenance or improvement of a public park or other general public amenity. Projects which do not relate to a park must relate to another amenity. According to the 2010 guidance, "An amenity is something that makes the environment more pleasant or comfortable and/or improves the aesthetic qualities of an area for the general public", it is within 10 miles of the nearest landfill (Brampton), needs match funding of 11% and be ready to start (i.e. have secured the majority of your funding, have planning permission, have identified builders etc) within 3 months from when you submit your expression of interest. Says cycle paths, streets etc can be funded – so as long as its public space. https://www.cambscf.org.uk/amey-community-fund.html This would be good for works to the Spinney, the Buckden-Brampton cycle improvements

Mick George Community Fund http://www.grantscape.org.uk/fund/mick-george-community-fund/criteria/ £5-50,000. 11% match funding required.

Anglian Water Flourishing Environment Fund - £2-10,000 for works possibly to the Valley area for habitat creation/improvement of wetland habitats, surveys and signage/interpretation. No match funding required and must be spent within 18 months of the award. Info via the Cambs Communty Foundation.

Tesco– Bags of Help Projects range from improving community buildings and outdoor spaces, to new equipment, training coaches and volunteers, and hosting community events. Every two months they hand out grants of up to £4,000, £2,000 and £1,000. This means we’re providing up to £4 million funding for communities every two months. Advice from Joanne Pearson at Huntingdon Tescos who is their community champion via email: [email protected] >; Would fund the cemetery path

One Stop - Carriers for Causes administered by Groundwork UK up to £1000 for any local community projecsts – application underway for cycle parking on the High Street

Microsoft Research Limited Fund Grants up to £2,000 for enviro projects that are publicly accessible. Info via the Cambs Communty Foundation. – Possible funding for the Valley, Village Green or local footpaths?

Urban tree planting - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/urban-tree-challenge-fund-application-form

Sports projects – relevant for the VHT pavilion/storage https://www.sportengland.org/funding/community-asset-fund/ - sporting opps https://www.sportengland.org/media/11425/community-asset-fund-guide-january-2017.pdf Cambridgeshire Rural Fund Grants of up to £5,000 are available for projects addressing issues in rural communities via Cambs Community Foundation. Might be possible to gain funding for poor quality footpaths and getting better access to local bus services for disabled people – ie dropped kerbs and white lines. Also good for things like Friends in Deed to support people suffering from loneliness http://www.bernardsunley.org/eligibility.html - won’t fund the parish council but would VHT. Offers one-off grants for capital projects, i.e. new buildings, major refurbishments, transport and equipment. Would be good for the new sports buildings/storage. https://garfieldweston.org/what-we-support/community/ - small community grants for volunteer type projects https://www.onefamily.com/your-foundation/community-grants/community-grants-faqs/ - only can access if someone who banks with them nominates it https://www.persimmonhomes.com/community-champions/winners - only a £1000 but very easy to apply, and you can apply each month even if unsuccessful before. Must be a charity and this is to match other funding. Worth looking at using for cycle stands, for the dropped kerbs, would work for new tree planting programmes

Hopkins Charitable Fund The Hopkins Charitable Fund offers grants of up to £2,000 for charitable, voluntary and community groups and social enterprises that are addressing need within Cambridgeshire. Projects in East Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire. The fund will accept applications for both core costs and project costs, with a particular (but not exclusive) interest in addressing homelessness, deprivation and supporting vulnerable people. This fund will not accept applications for building and maintenance costs. – This would be good for making routes more disabled friendly. Via Cambs Community Fund More tangential ones!

The Cambridgeshire Technology Fund makes small grants to support charitable projects across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough where the application of new technology improves people's lives. Grants of up to £3,000 are available for innovative, creative projects which link charitable groups with the latest technological innovations in Cambridgeshire. For example, interactivity software for the blind/visually impaired or deaf/HOH, or smart technology to assist the elderly to live more safely at home. Possible one for the future

The D and J Lloyd Community First Fund offer grants to support voluntary and community groups working in Cambridgeshire to: 1.Provide support and relief to those that are in need, in particular those suffering financial hardship, illness, social isolation or homelessness or negative effects of old age. 2.Promote the arts , in particular but not exclusively work to help those at a disadvantage to take part in arts activities. 3.Protect the environment and or sites or buildings of historic or architectural importance. 4.Promote learning, skills development and education (excluding areas of statutory responsibility) to those that are marginalized or excluded from society.

HIGHWAYS AND ROAD SAFETY ADVISORY GROUP UPDATE NOVEMBER 2019

Key Issue 1 Perry Road Work is being planned and will be complete in new year but before end of financial year

Suggestion of using MVAS units not supported due to the need for BPC to maintain them. This may result in an increase in the amount of funding required to install permanent speed signs

Rick to confim the extra cost to instal permanent signs

2 Speedwatch All contacts and current member details shared with new co-ordinators Training dates not yet updated for Autumn Co-odinators will regroup with trained speedwatch volunteers to decide on next speedwatch events 3 Road Survey Partial road survey completed by Clive and Vikki Brooks

Elaine to collate all feedback and share with CCC 4 Mill Road LHI bid submitted to CCC. No confirmation of whether bid successful available as yet 5 LCWIP As a result of AB meeting with CCC, advised to do an audit of where best to place dropped kerbs and double-yellow lines.

School parking raised in LCWIP and again by parishoners and an increasing problem

Walking review of existing lines and potential new lines carried out by AB, CG and SS

4.11.19 Highways England Copy to Cambridge Community Foundation A14 Legacy Fund Copy to Clerk Brampton, Grafham and Ellington Parish Councils Copy to Huntingdon Walking and Cycling Campaign

Graham Hughes, Director for Economy, Transport and Environment,Cambridgeshire County Council

Cllr Peter Downes Dear Sirs, Freedom of Information Request relating to the design of the shared cycle/pedestrian paths alongside the B1514 Further to our letter of 12th September, Buckden Parish Council would like to raise the following FOI requests:

1. What public consultation was undertaken during the DCO process to amend the plans? Buckden PC made the County and Highways England aware of the importance to our residents of being able to use this connection and we are therefore very annoyed to find that the plans have been changed to make this impossible without engaging with local people who have been looking forward to utilising this route. 2. Can you provide the Inspector’s report to show why they objected to the new footway being connected under the existing A1 bridge– as what has been provided is at best useless, and at worst dangerous. 3. Can you provide information to show that the Inspector felt all this work should be left to the cash strapped County Council? 4. Can you clarify when the decision to leave the Byway open to traffic was taken? 5. Please can you provide copies of the Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 safety audits for the junctions and walking/cycling infrastructure along the B1514. .

Clearly, a cycle route is only as good as its weakest point, and we reiterate that we think this is a great shame for Highways England to have spent so much money and effort in creating elements of what could be a great new path network, for the weakest links to render it much less useful, and in some cases, dangerous. We are also alarmed that the County Council, which has very limited funds for cycling, is being asked to pick up the tab for work that hasn’t been done as originally consulted upon. Yours sincerely,

Amy Burbidge Buckden Parish Council l Highways England reply (by email) Dear Ms Burbidge

Thank you for your letter of 12 September relating to cycle provision around the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

Whilst I understand your request that whilst on-site the project could undertake the additional work you’ve identified to make the further enhancements, unfortunately neither the project budget nor powers secured through scheme’s Development Consent Order allow for this.

Although the scheme’s Development Consent Order gave the scheme consent to make Mere Lane Byway suitable for construction traffic, it will remain the responsibility of Cambridgeshire County Council as the Highways Authority. We therefore don’t have the powers to prohibit vehicles using it once the scheme is complete. With request to signalling the lights, again this is a Cambridgeshire County Council road and such changes would therefore fall outside of Highways England’s powers.

With regards to the cycle way at Buckden Road, while this was shown in the original application drawings, it was not consented. Our plans were modified in many areas in response to the inspectors’ report and it is not therefore in the scope of the scheme to continue this path further. However I hope you’ll be pleased to hear that we’re continuing to work with Cambridgeshire County Council to develop a programme that will extend connectivity and improve accessibility for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders outside the scheme boundary once it is the main scheme is complete. I know that you’ve already sent the feasibility study through to Mike Davies so please be assured that the improvements you’ve identified will be considered as part of that programme.

Finally, with regards to the junctions you’ve highlighted, I can confirm that these accesses have been built as consented and have been through a road safety audit which deemed them acceptable. It is not therefore in the scope of scheme to amend them as you have suggested.

I’m sorry that we will not be able to pursue the suggestions you’ve suggested but assure you we will continue to work with Cambridgeshire County Council following completion of the scheme to ensure that opportunities to extend positive outcomes for non-motorised users are maximised.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. If you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to get in touch on 0300 123 5000 or email [email protected].

Kind regards

Indre Parker Correspondence Manager Complex Infrastructure Programme Highways England | Woodlands | Manton Lane | Bedford | MK41 7LW Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk

Original BPC letter; 12.9.19 Highways England Copy to Cambridge Community Foundation A14 Legacy Fund

Dear Sirs, Buckden-Grafham Cycle Path Group Buckden Parish Council has for some time been looking to create a safe family cycling route to Grafham Water, which is a popular local leisure cycling destination. It frustrates villagers that at present, the Perry Road is so unsafe, that people have to put their bikes in their car to drive there, in order to then cycle the excellent path round the Lake itself. Off road routes are not currently possible due to land ownership issues and existing footpaths are not legally, or physically, capable of being cycled upon. However, the new shared paths and the levelling of the Mere Lane Byway, provided as part of the A14 works provide an excellent new opportunity for an alternative route to Grafham. We have secured funding from the A14 Legacy Fund (copied in) to undertake a feasibility study into what is needed along the route to enable cycling. I attach a copy of a presentation which accompanied our bid to the A14 Legacy Fund which explains the planned route with map and photos, also cross referenced to the table below. This feasibility work has highlighted that there are a number of areas within the Highways England A14 Project works which are underway which could, with some amendment, make our route possible. We would like to ensure that these works are completed before HE leaves this part of the site, as it would be much easier to resolve these matters whilst you are working here, than subsequently. In addition, one element is shown on the approved plans, and does not appear to have yet been implemented. I have listed them on the table below, and have attached the full draft feasibility study for your reference, noting that this proposes measures outside the current project area of the A14, which the Parish Council will seek to fund through other means. Therefore, please could you respond on the issues highlighted from the Feasibility Study and how to resolve them. We do not want to miss this opportunity. Clearly, a cycle route is only as good as its weakest point, and it would be a great shame for Highways England to have spent so much money and effort in creating elements of what could be a great new path, for the weakest links to render it much less useful, and in some cases, dangerous.

I would be grateful if you could respond promptly so that this can be reported back to the various Parish Councils within which the Feasibility Study area covers.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Burbidge Buckden Parish Council

Location Issue Image Suggested action by HE 1 Mere Lane The Byway has been flattened and Blacktop surface a 3m wide strip to allow Byway levelled, so it is possible now to cycle for .cycling/wheelchairs on it with a mountain bike. But its large rubble surface means that it is We note that there is a proposal, still inaccessible for normal bikes, and for under consideration, to create a new pushchairs/ wheelchairs. In addition, roundabout at the southern end of the there is concern that the byway could Byway – and this would give an be used as a cut through. opportunity to improve the access for bikes/wheelchairs and equestrians, whilst also preventing vehicular use.

2 A1 Bridge This section of Buckden Road cannot Signalised solution: provide for cycling for all in its current Add an additional traffic stage to the signal form because people would have to mix control at the current overbridge. This with traffic under signal control. People would allow a stage for 2-way cycling wishing to access the byway to head between the byway and the cycle track, west would have to turn right across which currently ends east of the A1. The traffic leaving the A1 and this is a risky time required for cycle traffic would be manoeuvre. There is no provision for relatively short. pedestrians other than a 1m hard strip under the overbridge with no buffer from traffic.

3 Brampton Part of the work has included the Continue the path to connect to the bridge Road path provision of a new 3m wide footway, as shown in the original scheme incomplete “nonmotorised user” path shared by consent. people walking, cycling and riding horses.The path currently ends on the approach to the A1 overbridge and with the “cyclists rejoin carriageway” sign, it appears that the new provision simply ends. This is not as shown on the approved drawings which shows the NMU provision going right up to the bridge and not forcing cyclists to go on this dangerous piece of road where traffic has just left the A1 and is travelling at speed. We consider the current situation very dangerous as it effectively gives the impression that people can cycle safely, and then abandons them at a dangerous point. 4 Side road The NMU path is compromised at the Amend junction radii to slow speeds. accesses on side road junctions and accesses as “Bending out” the cycle track from the Brampton cyclists need to check behind them main road at each junction or access by at Road and the before crossing and the entry radii are least 5 metres would mean that the cycle new large which promotes high speed entry track and access road would cross at right roundabout adding to the safety risks for people angles, thereby giving drivers and cyclists cycling. The crossing points do not better visibility of each other. Cyclists have flush kerbs in all cases and the especially would not have to look behind ramps down/ up from carriageway level to see traffic. The radii of the side road with reduce the comfort for some users. and accesses should also be tightened to Our observations at the roundabout reduce turning motor traffic speeds. For suggest that the geometry invites high the junction, if traffic flows prove a little

entry and exit speeds. The two-lane higher, then an island of at least 2.5m western approach gives some concern should be that in the event of slow-moving traffic provided to allow people to cycle (and in one lane, people wishing to cross will walk) across in two parts. become “masked” by stationary vehicles. We also consider that the A layout more akin to a Dutch rural equestrian part of the crossing will be roundabout would control driver entry and problematic in terms of people being exit speed and set the crossing point back able to judge a gap in the two directions from the circulatory area to give people of traffic within which to lead / ride a crossing a better view of drivers leaving horse. the roundabout, and also drivers more time to see people crossing ahead. Priority would remain with motor traffic, but entries

to the roundabout would be single lane width.

Report from Climate Change Mitigation Group November 2019

1. Climate Change Event The group has made outline plans and begun to seek contributors to establish the feasibility of an event, to be staged at Buckden Village Hall in January 2020. A good date to tie in with residents New Year’s resolutions and plans.

The proposal: • The event would be titled ‘What on Earth Can Buckden Do?’ • A free to the public event, to cover all aspects in the Climate Change arena including, Transport, Ecology, Home, Energy, Food, Re-cycling, Single use plastics, Wildlife and Education. • The purpose of the event is to, engage Buckden residents and interested people in discussion and local action in relation to climate change, as well as informing them about what is being done locally and to help them consider what they could do personally to make a difference. The event would also be family friendly with attractions, like face painting, balloons and games etc. • The event would need to be advertised in the local press and backed up by a leaflet drop to all households in the village (3000 people) these costs would be covered by sales of Tea, Coffee and small snacks at the event. • The event would include an exhibition / workshop / talk, staged in the main hall of the Millennium Hall and possibly side rooms (depending on demand). Each exhibitor would be allocated free of charge a space 3 x 2m to create their own display stand, lined up alongside either side of the main hall. Each organisation would have the opportunity to provide a speaker to address the hall with a 20 minute slot on their chosen subject, on the hour with time included in that to take questions from the audience. • Although the format is not fully decided the event could end with all of the previous speakers on stage for the final hour in a ‘Question Time ’style format. • We have established and reserved free space at the Village Hall for Saturday 11th January 2020 between 1pm and 8pm (times still to be finalised).

We have contacted many organisations to ascertain their level of interest. We have had so far a very positive early response from the many emails we have sent out, including positive reservations for display stands so far including: o Cambridgeshire County Council Energy Projects, o Huntingdon District Council Waste Minimisation, o CPRE Campaign for Rural England, o PECT Peterborough Environmental City Trust, o Buckden EV owners Stand. o Buckden School.

Speakers willing to speak so far; o Tim Lancaster former Director at the Carbon Trust in both UK and China and Vice-Chair of Climate Strategies. o Tracey Hipson CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England. o Emily Bolton. Energy Projects Officer. Cambridgeshire County Council.

o Stefan Haselwimmer Climate Emergency. o (Unnamed Speaker) PECT Peterborough Environment City Trust. o (Unnamed Speaker) Buckden School. o Mark Ward RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

All the Above have promised to commit should this event be approved and endorsed by Buckden

Parish Council.

Speakers still to be confirmed; British Antarctic Survey, Pippa Heylings, (Chair, Climate Change and Environment Committee Member for Histon, Impington and Orchard Park South Cambs District Council), ‘Just Have a Think ’YouTube channel, Jonathan Djanogly, Environment Agency, Anglia Water, Wildlife Trust, Woodland Trust, National Grid and Greenpower. Local media would be invited to cover the event including local papers, Look East and Anglia TV.

We are aware as I know you are, that Climate Change is the No 1 priority for the World and for all of civilisation. Buckden Parish Council, although a small council, wish to set A Big Example to other parish councils, district councils, county councils and indeed all levels of government above. In pursuit of this we know major actions must be taken on a worldwide basis to prevent a climate catastrophe.... This is our first step. “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” (Chinese proverb. ascribed to Laozi).

Proposal for Buckden Parish Council To approve the plans for the ‘What on Earth can Buckden Do?’ event

2. National Community Energy Campaign (Comments in italics) supported by Jonathan Djanogly

Local Supply of Electricity Subject to this Act (See attached Appendix1) an electricity generator may be a local supplier and may set local prices. A local supplier must have a local supply licence. A local supplier must pay any costs and adhere to any regulations set by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. The purpose of this Act (attached Appendix 1) is to encourage and enable the local supply of electricity. o This could benefit Buckden, Buckden Parish Council and any other council, who wish to set up, small community power generation and distribution schemes (to local residents), this bill therefore decentralises the grid. o This is now possible because of the reduced cost of solar panels, wind turbines and source heat pump technology. o The benefits would be mainly reducing C02 emissions, reducing dependence on Gas and other fossil fuels, reduced energy costs and possibly creating an income stream. o The current law only allows power generation by major power generating companies, such as NPower, British Gas, etc.

There is a strong case for to support this legislation both on environmental grounds and as a possible future source of income for the parish.

Proposal for Buckden Parish Council To approve the completion of the model resolution as outlined by Power for the People (See attached Appendix 2)

3. Electric Vehicle Charging Points Following the distribution of the paper outlining the proposals for installing electric vehicle charging points in Buckden, there has been email discussion about the proposal. A Full and detailed report, answering all concerns has been prepared as a separate report because of its size, it is a separate attachment “BPC EV Questions and Answers”

Proposal for Buckden Parish Council to approve the first step of submitting (without obligation) to OLEV via Cambridgeshire County Council the principle of adopting Electric Vehicle chargepoints to Buckden

4. Membership of the group We have had interest from a resident who has recently moved in to the village in joining the group. He has been invited to the next meeting of the group, we would wish to have the authority co-opt him if this is agreed at the meeting. Proposal for Buckden Parish Council To delegate authority to the Climate Change Mitigation Advisory Group to co-opt Chris Wright to the Group.

Appendix 1 Local Electricity Bill A BILL TO Enable electricity generators to become local suppliers and set local costs of electricity; to give certain duties to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets; and for connected purposes. Purpose of this Act The purpose of this Act is to encourage and enable the local supply of electricity. Local Supply of Electricity Subject to this Act an electricity generator may be a local supplier and may set local prices. A local supplier must have a local supply licence. A local supplier must pay any costs and adhere to any regulations set by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. Duty of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) It shall be the duty of OFGEM to issue local supply licences to an electricity generator if, in the opinion of OFGEM, that generator understands, is capable of complying with and will comply with the conditions of that licence. In accordance with the purpose of this Act OFGEM shall ensure that 1. (a) the cost of a local supply licence and any related costs are proportionate to the size or projected size of a generator’s business; and 2. (b) the regulations that a generator must adhere to are as simple and straightforward as possible. OFGEM must, after consultation, specify the radius to which a local supply licence shall apply, and may specify different radii to different local supply licences. Before making any decision pursuant to subsection (3) OFGEM must consult (a) Local authorities; (b) Existing local generators; (c) Organisations representing existing or proposed local generators; and (d) Such other person who, in its opinion, have an interest in this matter. 4 Interpretation 5 1) (2) (3) In this Act — ‘local supplier ’is a person who supplies electricity only to customers within a specified radius of the generation of that electricity. ‘local supply licence ’is a licence granted to a local supplier to supply electricity in accordance with this Act. ‘business ’includes individuals and not for profit organisations. Citation, Commencement and Extent This Act may be cited as the Local Energy Act. This Act shall take effect on the day it receives Royal Assent. This Act shall apply to England, subject to the agreement of the Welsh Assembly Government, to Wales and, subject to the agreement of the Scottish Government, to Scotland. Debbie Abrahams Peter Aldous David Amess Ian Austin Hannah Bardell Henry Bellingham Richard Benyon Mhairi Black Peter Bottomley Graham Brady Tom Brake Alan Brown Fiona Bruce Ruth Cadbury Ronnie Campbell Maria Caulfield Alistair Carmichael William Cash Douglas Chapman

Simon Clarke Rosie Cooper Ronnie Cowan Angela Crawley Edward Davey Geraint Davies Martyn Day Jonathan Djanogly Martin Docherty-Hughes Steve Double Rosie Duffield Jonathan Edwards Charlie Elphicke Nigel Evans Tim Farron Marion Fellows Caroline Flint Presented by Jeremy Lefroy supported by George Freeman Patricia Gibson Roger Godsiff Zac Goldsmith Bill Grant Kate Green John Grogan Robert Halfon David Hanson Harriet Harman Trudie Harrison Helen Hayes James Heappey Drew Hendry Wera Hobhouse Kate Hoey Kevin Hollinrake Adam Holloway Kelvin Hopkins George Howarth Andrea Jenkyns Diana Johnson Darren Jones Graham Jones Susan Elan Jones Stephen Kerr Peter Kyle Ben Lake Norman Lamb Oliver Letwin Stephen Lloyd Jonathan Lord Tim Loughton Caroline Lucas Angus MacNeil Anne Main John Mann Sandy Martin Kerry McCarthy John McNally Mark Menzies Layla Moran Andrew Mitchell Anne Marie Morris Grahame Morris Brendan O'Hara Neil Parish John Penrose Rebecca Pow Marie Rimmer Douglas Ross Lloyd Russell-Moyle Antoinette Sandbach Andrew Selous Barry Sheerman Tommy Sheppard Gavin Shuker Dennis Skinner Ruth Smeeth Angela Smith Henry Smith Gareth Snell Alex Sobel Julian Sturdy Derek Thomas Martin Vickers Giles Watling Catherine West Matt Western Philippa Whitford Daniel Zeichner

Appendix 2 COUNCIL DRAFT RESOLUTION

That Buckden Parish Council

(i) acknowledges the efforts that this council has made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy;

(ii) recognises that councils can play a central role in creating sustainable communities, particularly through the provision of locally generated renewable electricity;

(iii) further recognises

* that very large financial setup and running costs involved in selling locally generated renewable electricity to local customers result in it being impossible for local renewable electricity generators to do so,

* that making these financial costs proportionate to the scale of a renewable electricity supplier's operation would create significant opportunities for councils to be providers of locally generated renewable electricity directly to local people, businesses and organisations, and

* that revenues received by councils that became local renewable electricity providers could be used to help fund local greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures and to help improve local services and facilities;

(iv) accordingly resolves to support the Local Electricity Bill, currently supported by a cross-party group of 115 MPs, and which, if made law, would make the setup and running costs of selling renewable electricity to local customers proportionate by establishing a Right to Local Supply; and

(v) further resolves to

* inform the local media of this decision,

* write to local MPs, asking them to support the Bill, and

* write to the organisers of the campaign for the Bill, Power for People, (at 8 Delancey Passage, Camden, London NW1 7NN or [email protected] [5]) expressing its support.

The Compliance Advisory Group update for Parish Council November 2019

Standing Orders The Clerk circulated proposed wording for holding a ballot when more than one resident is applying to fill a Parish Council vacancy. No comments were received we have therefore amended the Standing Orders include a ballot procedure.

Finance Regulations The Chair of the Finance Advisory group and the Chair of the Compliance Advisory group agreed with the Clerk the revisions received from NALC and the Finance regulations have been amended accordingly .

Terms of Reference The list of membership of Advisory Groups and Committees has been updated (copy attached). The Chair of CAG and the Clerk are working to ensure that all Terms of Reference are in the same format and where common wording is required this is included.

Next meeting of the group Tuesday 21st January 7.00pm the focus will be to agree priorities for policy and procedures development.

Report from Rights of Way and Tree Group following meeting of 14th October 2019

Attendees Caroline Underwood CU, Chair Pauline Steel PS, Amy Burbidge AB, Melanie Storey MS, Secretary

Apologies: Sue Ashwell SA

Current and Future projects Round about Buckden All the leaflets are now on the website for the Round-about- Buckden Walk. They are under a separate tab and look very good. http://www.buckdenparishcouncil.org.uk/Round-About- Buckden.html

Ouse Valley Way The accessibility of this path continues to cause concern; things to note and areas for action: • Part of the path is closed for installation of measures to help preserve eels • It was noted that the section of the Ouse Valley Way that is in a poor condition is on land managed by Cambridgeshire County Council • The AG will focus on cutting back the hedges to allow safe access along the path in the new year • CU will attend an Ouse Valley Trust meeting to be held on 30 November and seek to find out how the scheme for maintaining the path that the Council responded to in October is actually going to be implemented.

Project for 2020-21 • It was agreed another project will be to determine the viability of creating an accessible path for wheelchair users around the lake on the Village Hall Trust’s land • It was agreed that a bid for funding would be made against the A14 Legacy Fund if the Village Hall Trust is content for the project to proceed. They have subsequently agreed to this

Footpaths • It was decided to accept the quote from Shelley Signs for designing and printing the historic walking leaflet of £765 plus VAT (VAT will be recovered) • It was noted that the annual check of footpaths is due to be completed by 31 October • It was noted that the Church Commissioners’ have stated that they do not own the land over which the footpath B7 crosses • It was agreed that mapping land ownership would create a useful reference document • It was noted that a response has been received from Savilles/AWA concerning issues with the Ouse Valley Way and footpath B14 • In respect of the section of footpath B14 passing immediately along the side of the AWA works, the company is planning to assess its condition • The reply confirmed that they do not own any section of the Ouse Valley Way • It was noted that leaflets are available to hand to residents to seek their views on trying to establish additional footpaths • It was noted that the Parish Council has not received a response to its letter to Cambridgeshire County Council on future support to the Ouse Valley Way path • It was noted that 5 people have responded to the request in the Roundabout for volunteers to keep footpaths clear a further reminder will be out in the Roundabout.

Item 4 Trees • It was noted that a quote of £2,700 had been received to undertake the work identified through the annual tree condition check • It was decided that the work on tree 073 should go ahead as a matter of priority • It was agreed that 2 other quotes would be sought for the remaining work • The replacement tree tags have been sourced and will be fixed to the trees shortly

Item 5 Budget • The spend to date has been £144, leaving £1,553 available in the budget • It was proposed that a bid for £700 for tree and £700 for footpath work should be made during the 2020-21 budget round plus a bid for tree planting of £500