SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL COUNCILLORS’ BULLETIN – ISSUE DATE 4TH DECEMBER 2002
CONTENTS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR COUNCILLORS
1. Councillor Required to Serve on Management Committee of SOFA
2. Committee Meetings for the Forthcoming Week
CABINET MINUTES 28TH NOVEMBER 2002
Recommendations to Council: 5. Members’ Allowances 6. Bourn And Linton Funding For Pre-Feasibility Studies
Decisions By Cabinet: 7. Cambridge Airport Study 8. South East Regional Airport Strategy (SERAS) 9. Consultation On Options For Regional Planning Guidance 14 For The East Of England To 2021 10. Risk Management Policy 11. Housing Repairs And Maintenance Contracts 12. Housing Capital Programme 13. Community Safety Best Value Review 14. Arts Capital Grant Aid 2002-2003
CONSERVATION ADVISORY GROUP MINUTES 27TH NOVEMBER 2002
DECISIONS MADE BY PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR HOUSING
1. To approve the purchasing of Council Land at Litlington to secure off-street parking
2. To refuse the sale of Council Land at Whittlesford
3. Provision of Tied Accommodation for a Member of Staff at Milton Country Park
4. Grants awarded to Papworth Housing Advice Service, Cambridge Women's Aid, Cambridge Women and Homelessness Group, Cambridge SOFA and Cambridge Crenians
5. Housing Allocation Appeals and Management Transfers
DECISIONS MADE BY PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR CONSERVATION
1. To award a Historic Building Grant of £6,985 (50%) for re-roofing Cottage at Carlton
INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Decisions Made By Community Development Partnerships Manager • The awarding of £210 for the Sawston Arts Festival • The awarding of £500 to a Talented Young Footballer
2. Historic Building Grants Authorised by Conservation Manager • £3,400 Lotfield Street, Orwell • £440 High Street, Fen Ditton • £985 45 North Road, Whittlesford • £900 1 High Street, Hildersham • £250 31 High Street, Hinxton
3. Buildings Added to the Statutory List Following the Serving of Building Preservation Notices or as a Result of Spot-Listing Requests
4. Traffic Proposals Made by Cambridgeshire County Council at Meldreth
5. Call-in Arrangements
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR COUNCILLORS
Councillor Required to Serve on Management Committee of SOFA
Cambridge SOFA (Shifting Offered Furniture Around) SOFA is an organisation that offers affordable furniture, household goods, electrical goods and paint for anyone who receives benefits or a low income. They have asked South Cambridgeshire District Council to appoint a Member or officer to serve on its Management Committee. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and the Director of Housing and Community Services feel that it would be more appropriate for the representative to be an elected Member interested in housing issues. Any expressions of interest in representing the Council on SOFA should be sent to Ian Senior in the Committee Section at South Cambridgeshire District Council, 9-11 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1PB (Tel: 01223 443028, e-mail: [email protected]) by 18th December 2002.
More details about SOFA can be found on the Directions Plus web site: www.directions-plus.org.uk/az/shift_off_furn_around_sofa.html
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
th th FOR THE WEEK OF 9 – 13 DECEMBER 2002
THURSDAY 12TH AT 10:00AM CABINET COUNCIL DECEMBER (Contact Officer Susan May) CHAMBER 2002 AT 2:00PM AUDIT PANEL COM. ROOM 1 (Contact Officer Patrick Adams)
AT 2PM CAMBOURNE DEG CAMBOURNE (Contact Officer Holly McKenzie)
FRIDAY 13TH AT 9:30AM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROOM 317 DECEMBER PORTFOLIO HOLDERS’ 2002 MEETING (Contact Officer Ian Senior)
CONSERVATION ADVISORY GROUP
At a meeting of the Committee held on 27th November 2002 at 2.00pm
PRESENT: Councillor SJ Agnew - Chairman Councillor NN Cathcart – Vice-Chairman
Councillors: Councillor RF Collinson Councillor Dr JPR Orme Councillor Dr JA Heap Councillor AW Wyatt
Co-opted Member: Councillor Mrs MP Course
Councillors Mrs JA Muncey and Mrs DSK Spink (Portfolio Holder for Conservation) attended the meeting by invitation.
Councillors Mrs JM Healey (Chairman, Development and Conservation Control Committee), RGR Smith and JH Stewart (Vice-Chairman, Development and Conservation Control Committee) sent their apologies for absence.
1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
2. MINUTES
The Group authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 16th October 2002.
At the request of the Chairman, the Ecology Officer briefly updated the Group on the Willingham Watercourse (Minute no. 7) and the Willow Pollarding Project (Minute no. 8).
3. PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF KEY LISTED BUILDING AND PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Advisory Group considered proposed criteria for its consideration of key listed building and planning applications and a proposed reporting mechanism in line with the Council’s corporate and conservation objectives.
The Chairman commented that, while the Advisory Group had an important role to play, this should not be at the expense of the prompt resolution of relevant applications
The Conservation Manager highlighted paragraph 2.1 of the report, which listed the kind of substantial and significant applications, which the Advisory Group might wish to consider. Members concluded that the question as to whether or not an issue was substantial and significant was one of judgement.
The Advisory Group discussed the value of attending relevant site visits, either as a Group or as part of a pre-arranged visit by the Development and Conservation Control Committee. Members identified the criteria for requesting site visits, and noted that local Members requiring such a visit as part of the proposed process under
discussion, could request one via the Portfolio Holder for Conservation or Conservation Manager.
AGREED that substantial and significant Listed Building and Planning applications be considered either as part of regular Conservation Advisory Group meetings or, in urgent cases, by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Group in consultation with the Conservation Manager and Portfolio Holder for Conservation, preferably at least two weeks before the Development and Conservation Control Committee meeting, and that an appropriate response be then submitted for inclusion in the Planning Director's report to the Development and Conservation Control Committee.
4. REVIEW OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION SECTION
Further to the Advisory Group’s meeting on 16th October 2002 (Minute no. 5 refers), the Conservation Manager gave a PowerPoint presentation, focusing on current departmental workload, work parameters, priorities, timescale and broad objectives.
The Portfolio Holder endorsed the idea of publicising widely the efforts being made by the Council in terms of conservation. In connection with the grant scheme however, she reminded Members that there was currently pressure to re-examine levels of such expenditure right across the Council. Members asked that the final document be bound and produced to a high standard.
RECOMMENDS that the Cabinet endorses publication of the Operational Plan for the Conservation Section for the period up to April 2004, and confirms it as the basis for the Continuous Improvement Plan.
5. DESIGN GUIDE
The Conservation Areas and Design Officer gave a PowerPoint presentation, focusing on the Design Guide’s role in helping to improve the ‘Quality of Life’ in South Cambridgeshire, and its importance as a key target in the Best Value Performance Plan for 2002-2003. The intention was that the Design Guide, ultimately, should be adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
The Conservation Areas and Design Officer highlighted the following aspects of the Design Guide:
• its significance in helping to develop a vision for the future • its role in ensuring greater efficiency • the opportunity to stimulate debate • encouragement of partnership working • holistic thinking • the definition of diversity within the District • the identification of design principles
The Portfolio Holder for Conservation drew Members’ attention to the experience gained with the Cambourne Design Guide, and raised the issue of funding, possibly jointly with outside organisations.
Councillor RF Collinson highlighted the importance of promoting the benefits of a district-wide Design Guide in the face of possible scepticism as to its value. For example, it related well to village appraisals, and would be less expensive than developing individual design guides on a village-by-village basis.
Councillor Dr JA Heap said that the Council should encourage Developers to bring forward proposals that reflected those ‘ground rules’ and priorities it had identified in the Design Guide.
Members discussed the value of examining design issues in Europe and elsewhere in the UK as a way of expanding the horizon and investigating good examples of new mixed housing areas. They were conscious though of the negative impact on design guide matters that could result from external pressure, such as that from central Government in connection with densities. On that point, the Vice-Chairman hinted that villages might have to expand should the Council decide on ecologically-based design principles in the countryside and still fulfil its duty to provide a specific increased level of housing.
RECOMMENDS to the Portfolio Holder for Conservation
that the development of a Design Guide be endorsed, and that appropriate measures be taken to
(1) raise awareness of the importance of good new design by training, information and debate. (2) consult and liaise with key team players such as developers, architects and designers in the area
RECOMMENDS to Cabinet that, subsequent to the above-mentioned steps having been taken to the satisfaction of the Portfolio Holder, the Design Guide be adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
6. CHURCH OF ST. DENIS, EAST HATLEY
The Conservation Manager updated the Advisory Group on progress being made with the repair of the redundant church of St. Denis in East Hatley.
Members noted the various responsibilities of the District and County Councils, and of the Parochial Church Council. The building itself was both a Grade II* Listed Building and a local nature reserve. The footprint of the building was owned by South Cambridgeshire District Council.
The Advisory Group noted the financial implications of the proposed building survey contained in paragraph 3.1 of the report.
AGREED
(1) that the Conservation Advisory Group endorse the action of the Portfolio Holder for Conservation and Conservation Manager to initiate the removal of the ivy and undertake a building condition survey and consolidation works, as outlined in the report; and
(2) that the Conservation Manager be requested to report back to the Conservation Advisory Group upon receipt of the detailed building condition survey to seek instructions on the future use of the building.
7. PROPOSED WAR MEMORIAL REPAIR AND RESTORATION INITIATIVE
The Advisory Group considered a report seeking its support to develop an initiative to repair and restore parish War Memorials within the District. The initiative would take the form of a district wide survey to identify where the memorials were and their condition. The scheme would identify any memorials in need of care and repair with a view to facilitating a maintenance scheme for these structures.
The Council had received a letter of support from the Friends of War Memorials
Members broadly welcomed the initiative, especially proposals to encourage, and financially support, parish councils to become involved in conserving such historic structures.
RECOMMENDS to Cabinet that the War Memorials’ Repair and Restoration initiative be supported, and that the sum of up to £10,000 be allocated from the South Cambridgeshire District Council Historic Buildings’ Grant budget for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 to finance individual repair schemes.
8. PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT OF THE POND AT HISTON GREEN
The Advisory Group considered a report outlining the Ecology Officer’s proposal for the enhancement of Histon Green Pond.
The report explained how a partnership project between Histon Parish Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council (Conservation and the Land Drainage Sections) could achieve a range of benefits for all parties concerned.
The Ecology Officer gave a PowerPoint presentation demonstrating the environmental and aesthetic enhancements that could be achieved through the use of appropriate techniques and materials.
Members made the following points:
• £20,250 was a substantial sum to spend on a single project • the Environmental Health Department should be asked to contribute financially, given that this is an awarded watercourse • the pond is prone to flooding, and any enhancement work should be able to withstand such an event if not actually prevent it • such a world famous feature as Histon Green pond had an important educational role to play, given its proximity to the Nursery school • there has to be some certainty that the silting works will solve current problems on a long term basis • some funding might be available from waste disposal agencies
Councillor AW Wyatt proposed that, while the proposed scheme was a good one, other options, particularly less expensive ones, should be considered before a final
decision was made on whether or not to proceed. This proposal was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.
The Conservation Manager clarified the position by explaining that, in any event, the Council would need to go out to tender first, before being able fully to assess alternative proposals and their relative cost implications
RECOMMENDS to the Portfolio Holder for Conservation:
(1) that the Ecology Officer develop an enhancement scheme for the pond at Histon Green up to tender stage and report the design options and tender costs back to the Conservation Advisory Group; and
(2) that, once the cost implications are clear, additional financial contributions be sought from the Land Drainage section of the Environmental Health Department and other external sources.
9. STORM DAMAGED TREES
The Advisory Group considered a report prepared in the wake of the storms on 27th October 2002.
The Trees and Landscape Officer gave a PowerPoint presentation, indicating the kind of damage that had been caused. He concluded that, given the particularly severe damage caused to the “veteran Oak” at Shudy Camps, the only realistic option was to dismiss any aesthetic considerations in favour of pollarding solutions designed to conserve this historic tree. He would shortly be meeting with consultants to consider work required to the crown.
Members discussed the principle of the Council supporting this work financially.
RECOMMENDS to the Portfolio Holder for Conservation
(1) that tenders be sought with a view to conserving the “veteran Oak” tree at Shudy Camps, and that financial support of up to £500 for the necessary work be advanced out of the Tree Surgery Grants’ Budget for 2002-2003; and
(2) that the potential to use the timber from the damaged tree as the fabric for a public art work is investigated and reported back to the Conservation Advisory Group.
10. FUTURE THEMATIC PRESENTATIONS
Members discussed the idea of receiving themed presentations on a bi-meeting basis.
AGREED that the Conservation Manager should arrange for presentations to be made in connection with the work of the County Archaeology Department, biodiversity and public art, and that Members of the Development and Conservation Control Committee should be invited to attend where appropriate.
11. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Conservation Advisory Group was arranged to take place on Thursday 30th January 2003 in Committee Room 1, beginning at 2.00pm.
______
The meeting closed at 5.12pm ______
CABINET MEETING
At a meeting of the Cabinet held on the 28th November 2002 at 9.30a.m.
PRESENT: Mrs DSK Spink – Leader RT Summerfield – Deputy Leader
Councillors: Dr DR Bard, CC Barker, JD Batchelor, Mrs EM Heazell, SJ Kime and Mrs DP Roberts
Councillors Barrett, Bryant, Elsbury, Mrs Hughes, Kindersley, Dr Orme, Mrs Smith, Stewart and Mrs Sutherland were also in attendance, by invitation.
______
Presentations ______
1. SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE HEALTH PROFILE
Dr D Kanka, Director of Public Health with the South Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trust (SCPCT) presented a summary of the latest health profile of the population of South Cambridgeshire. Local priorities are to reduce the level of morbidity and premature mortality caused by coronary heart disease and to reduce the level of accidents, particularly falls among the elderly. While the rate of coronary heart disease was consistently lower in South Cambridgeshire than the national average, it was the major cause of premature death and ill health in the region and the rate was high compared to Europe. The number of accidents causing fatality was higher than the national average, with 40% of incidents due to falls. Dr Kanka commented that the report was prepared before information from the 2001 Census had become available.
The following items were discussed:
• How would the SCPCT address the issue that pockets of deprivation were higher in areas closer to the borders of South Cambridgeshire? It was uncertain how the situation would be addressed and it needed identification as an area of concern. PCTs needed to work together, as many residents in border villages were registered with neighbouring PCTs. • Did the statistics regarding falls differentiate between accidents and ones caused by health issues such as circulatory trouble or multiple medications? The statistics were concerned primarily with falls causing death and a more specific data collection method was needed, as was an analysis of falls causing injury possibly leading to further falls. • Which factors were causing the disparity between life expectancy rates for members of social classes I and II and members of social classes IV and V? The lower social classes were traditionally slower to change lifestyle habits, specifically smoking, physical activity and diet, although there were individuals in all classes whose behaviour differed from the majority. Changes would be brought about more quickly once basic needs such as food, adequate housing and access to medical services were satisfied. • An elderly person who had suffered a fall could be charged for residential care, and that charge could increase if the person needed further nursing care. These extra funds were to be met by the individual. Were there plans to change this?
Dr Kanka was unable to answer as this matter was under review nationally but agreed to liaise with the Environmental Health Officer and reply at a later date.
Cabinet thanked Dr Kanka for his presentation.
2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO SERVICES – CONTACT CENTRE (CAMBRIDGESHIRE DIRECT)
The Assistant Director of ICT and Bill Newman, Programme Manager at Cambridgeshire County Council, gave a presentation on the CASCADE project and the Cambridgeshire Direct Contact Centre. The contract between the County Council and their software providers, SX3, was to be signed on 29th November and the contact centre building at Compass Point, St Ives, was due for completion by the end of the year. The transfer of services from South Cambridgeshire District Council to the contact centre would take place between September and December of 2003. There had been consultation with other district councils in the county, at least some of whom were likely to join the project.
The following comments were raised:
• Would queue times be kept to a minimum? Call volumes had been analysed and the centre would be structured around these figures, with efficient but cost- effective staffing levels. The amount of staff would be comparatively higher than in a profit-driven call centre to ensure faster service delivery. • How would customers be identified when they first call the centre? There would not be discrimination against villages outside CB postcodes and the centre would provide service to anyone who pays council tax in Cambridgeshire.
Councillor Mrs DJ Roberts expressed her unhappiness with the project, noting she supported the work currently done by the reception staff. Councillor Dr DR Bard stated the contact centre would replace calls being forwarded to voicemail systems or being returned to the switchboard.
Cabinet thanked the Assistant Director (ICT) and Mr Newman for their presentation.
______
Procedural Items ______
3. MINUTES
Regarding Minute 1 of the 18th November 2002: Minutes, Councillor Mrs Roberts noted she had attended the informal meeting of Cabinet with concern and had left one hour before it ended. She stated that she believed in the integrity of Management Team but reserved the right to be critical of events when members were kept unaware of decisions made. She further stated she would not attend any future informal meetings to which the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee and other non-Cabinet members were not invited. The Leader stated that the Minute was a true record and noted that the Head of Legal Services had confirmed Cabinet was allowed to have informal meetings.
Councillor SJ Kime drew attention to the fact that his comments referred to in Minute 1 had not been recorded in the minutes of the meeting on 31st October. It was understood the minutes of 18th November could not be amended to include comments from an earlier meeting.
The Leader was authorised to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 18th November 2002 as a correct record, subject to the amendments to Minute 5, Financial and Policy Review, as circulated at the meeting (see Appendix A to these Minutes). It was noted that the estimated sum to be funded from capital receipts had not been specified in the resolution at the time, but had been left to the Finance and Resources Director to complete.
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs DSK Spink declared an interest in Item 6 (Bourn and Linton Funding for Pre-feasibility Studies) as the local member for Bourn.
Councillor Kime declared a prejudicial interest in Items 7 (Cambridge Airport Study) and 8 (South East Regional Airport Strategy) as the owner of a freight forwarding company.
Councillor Dr Bard declared an interest in Item 12 (Housing Capital Programme) as a trustee of Ward Charity, which owned the field adjacent to the Lynton Way scheme at Sawston. ______
Recommendations to Council ______
5. MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES
The Chief Executive presented the report of the independent panel on Members’ Allowances and noted their recommendations were achievable within the current estimates. The recommendations were based both on diaries submitted by members, which 36% of members had completed, and on cost of living increases. The amount of time spent on the job rather than the public perception of the importance of a position was considered for special responsibility allowances.
It was clarified the loss of earnings payments to independent and parish members of the Standards Committee was £27.65 per meeting not exceeding four hours.
Cabinet
RECOMMENDED to Council
the Members’ Allowance Scheme as set out by the independent panel.
6. BOURN AND LINTON FUNDING FOR PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Councillor CC Barker presented the report, which sought to secure the release of funding from the Land Drainage Infrastructure Improvement Fund for pre-feasibility studies at Bourn and Linton. This item had been approved at a meeting of the Land Drainage Advisory Group before it was determined it was not in the remit of the Portfolio Holder to decide, and required full Council approval. He asked that paragraph 4 of the report be amended to read, “…it would be necessary to obtain Council authority for this expenditure as it is outside the budget framework”. He noted that the fund could only be used for awarded watercourses and drainage and asked that, instead of the recommendation in the report, Cabinet recommend full Council give general approval for the Environmental Health Portfolio Holder to use infrastructure
funding for land drainage purposes, including the purchase of plant. This would speed decision making.
It was noted, however, that feasibility studies would cover any of the villages in danger of flooding and that by releasing some funds itself, the Council could tap into the much larger source from the Environment Agency. The local members commented that parishes were already contributing to their own surveys, which would feed into the larger study, and Councillor Batchelor pointed out that DEFRA funding would not be forthcoming without this initial stage.
It was further noted that the Environmental Health CIP £110,000 bid for land drainage equipment would be financed from the infrastructure fund. However, the existence of the fund did not currently permit its use without Council approval as the proposed expenditure had not been approved as part of the budget process. Cabinet
RECOMMENDED to Council
that general approval be given to the Environmental Health Portfolio Holder to use the Land Drainage Infrastructure Improvement Fund for land drainage purposes including the purchase of plant. ______
Decisions made by the Cabinet and reported for information ______
7. CAMBRIDGE AIRPORT STUDY
Councillor Kime presented the item, which advised Members of the conclusions of the study into the implications of, and opportunities for, the relocation of Cambridge Airport and Marshall Aerospace and to determine this Council’s response to it. He noted that this would be a good opportunity to set a formal policy regarding Cambridge Airport and Marshall Aerospace. He felt the third recommendation in the report, promoting Alconbury Airfield as an alternative site for Marshall Aerospace and a Cambridge regional airport, should be removed as this was a commercial decision for the companies involved and it was inappropriate for the Council to indicate its preference for potential re-location sites.
The Principal Planning Policy Officer responded that further consideration of re-location sites, including the impact on local communities, was needed. The Planning Policy Advisory Group had felt it appropriate to identify Alconbury as a preferred site in recognition of its favoured position on the shortlist of sites.
Cabinet took a vote and unanimously
AGREED that the following points form the basis of the Council’s view of the Cambridge Airport Study:
(a) the Cambridge Airport Study confirms the importance of Marshall’s to the local and sub-regional economy, which reflects the view of the District Council, which is that the Marshall group makes an important contribution to the economy of the Cambridge area; (b) given the importance of Marshall’s and Cambridge Airport to the local economy, any relocation should only take place if and when the Company considers that it is appropriate and that a suitable alternative location can be secured which would retain within the sub-region the economic contribution it makes;
(c) there is no indication in the Study to demonstrate that redevelopment of Cambridge Airport could come forward at an early stage in the Structure Plan period and therefore the Airport should not be relied upon to fulfil the Sub- Region’s development requirements in the period up to 2016.
8. SOUTH EAST REGIONAL AIRPORT STRATEGY (SERAS)
Councillor Kime presented the report, which aimed to determine the Council’s response to the consultation by the Department for Transport on the South East Regional Airport Strategy (SERAS). He reported that Kent County Council had won their legal challenge on 27th November and thus the final SERAS study would include Gatwick. Cabinet commented on the original study which had not considered Gatwick.
Councillor Kime noted the great advantage to people living in South Cambridgeshire to have easy access to regional, local and national airports, but also the cost to the environment. The Planning Policy report highlighted the contradiction between the government’s commitment to sustainable transport, as outlined in PPG13, and the low level of taxation on aviation fuel compared to fuel tax on road traffic vehicles. While a local authority would not normally comment on a central government issue such as fuel tax, it was appropriate to do so in this case as the SERAS study made mention of it.
The Principal Planning Officer noted that the generally accepted figure for government subsidisation of the aviation industry was £6-7 billion per annum.
Members requested the inclusion of environmental health assessment and quality of life considerations in the Council’s response and the removal of references to Marshall Aerospace.
Councillor Mrs GJ Smith reported the following items from a regional meeting, which she had attended as a representative of the Planning Policy Advisory Group:
• 89% of residents in Uttlesford did not support the full range of expansion at Stansted; • there was a feeling the SERAS study did not represent joined-up thinking with other government policies, such as pollution and sustainable transport; • if development were to go ahead, the aviation industry, not residents, should pay for enhancements to infrastructure; • government subsidisation of the aviation industry was hampering spending in other areas, such as infrastructure; • there were mixed responses to expansion at Luton; • Norwich was keen to expand but not mentioned in the SERAS study; • Huntingdonshire District Council would value the inclusion of comments regarding heavy freight and night-flying as these were their main concerns; • emergency situations were not covered in the SERAS study, but delegates thought comment would be useful [Cabinet felt alternative provision would be made anyway] • a hub airport was not welcomed as it was predicated on unlimited expansion regardless of demand; and • the SERAS statistics on noise pollution had been calculated over a 24 hour period and thus were inaccurate since night flights were not being made and division by 24 diluted the true figures.
Cabinet
AGREED to make the following formal response to the Department of Transport (listed in no particular priority order):
(a) Government should consider environmental impacts and introduce a tax regime which properly reflects the true environmental cost – which would manage future demand in a way consistent with Government’s overall objectives on sustainable transport, and which is currently applied to surface travel.
(b) There would be significant advantages, in terms of regeneration in giving priority to the development of regional airports outside the south-east. Manchester in particular has the potential to develop further as a hub airport. Whilst it is accepted that this could not totally substitute for additional capacity in the south- east, it would reduce the overall additional capacity needed in the south-east with there being less environmental problems as a result.
(c) Objects to major additional capacity at Stansted Airport, as this would impact on carefully planned strategies contained within RPG 6 and the Deposit Structure Plan, and have serious implications in relation to noise, urbanisation, development pressures and traffic. The District Council is particularly concerned about the potential impact on the quality of life in the Cambridge Sub-Region and considers that nothing should be done that would have an adverse impact on the Cambridge sub-region and on the city of Cambridge itself. In particular, it wishes to emphasise the disadvantages of reaching Stansted by surface travel, with any further development at Stansted inevitably putting even greater stress on the M11 and A14.
(d) Supports further expansion of Luton because of its employment regeneration opportunities and the ability to support additional support housing.
(e) Supports the development of regional air facilities at Alconbury – subject to further feasibility and transport studies. The priority for Alconbury should be the potential to develop an aerospace business cluster together with a regional airport rather than a small national budget carrier or freight airline facility (which would involve night flying) which would serve national rather than sub-regional needs. In any case, development at Alconbury should only take place following the full upgrading of the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge.
(f) Acknowledges that there is little scope for further development at Cambridge Airport.
(g) If major capacity has to be provided in the south-east, then Cliffe offers the best opportunity to develop an international hub airport with significant opportunities for regeneration in the Thames Gateway.
(h) There is a need for further data to allow the exact areas which would be affected by each of the options to be considered.
(i) There should be an independently funded health impact assessment on each option carried out by the Department of Health or the Regional Office.
9. CONSULTATION ON OPTIONS FOR REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE 14 FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND TO 2021
Councillor Kime presented the suggested responses to consultation on options for Regional Planning Guidance 14 for the East of England and noted the philosophy behind them:
• to raise the Eastern Region into the top 20 European Regions and have it remain there; • to present a broad approach to development across the region; and • to continue the philosophy behind RPG6, accepting continued growth in the Cambridge Sub-Region.
The additional housing requirements set out would be met with the new developments in Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire and the market towns. Councillor Kime supported the review of the Metropolitan Green Belt and allowing towns close to London to grow in order to realise their own economic potential and to minimise commuter journey to London. He noted that amendments to the recommendations had been circulated before the meeting.
Councillor Mrs Roberts noted this consultation had also been sent to Parish Councils and expressed concern that it might be a difficult exercise for some. She hoped the District Council would speak for Parish Councils in its response. A summary of the District Council’s responses would be forwarded to the Parish Councils as an example, but it would be made clear that Parish Councils were not required to make the same responses.
Cabinet
AGREED that the responses to the questions in the RPG14 Options Consultation as set out in the report and Appendix A be forwarded to the East of England Local Government Conference as the considered response of South Cambridgeshire District Council.
10. RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY
Councillor RT Summerfield presented the Risk Management Policy and recommended the proposal. He endorsed the appointment of the Finance and Resources Director as the senior manager responsible for Risk Management. Cabinet
AGREED
(a) to approve the Risk Management Policy; (b) to note the steps being taken to implement the Policy; (c) to consider its own role, both collectively and individually in promoting effective Risk Management; and (d) to appoint the Finance and Resources Director and, upon implementation of the Council’s new organisational structure, the Resources Director, as the senior manager responsible for Risk Management.
11. HOUSING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
Councillor Mrs EM Heazell introduced the report and conveyed apologies from the Director of Housing and Community Services who was representing local housing officers at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. She asked members to consider the report, which reviewed the contractual process and extending Housing Refurbishment, Heating Service and Response Maintenance Contracts, against the background of:
• moving away from compulsory competitive tendering; • the depot being shortly to remove and thus not in a good position to tender; • the forthcoming PricewaterhouseCoopers report; and • the interim report of the stock condition survey currently being analysed by staff.
She reported that members had recently toured Rule and Parker, the current Heating Service contractor, and had been very satisfied with their work and that they had recently hired ten additional staff members. She acknowledged that there had previously been criticism of Rule and Parker, but realised it was unfair to expect them to clear the backlog left by their predecessor and still work to the high level set.
The Leader confirmed that it was legal to extend contracts which were satisfactory. The Scrutiny Committee had been concerned about the further contract extensions but these concerns had been addressed by the Head of Shire Homes. The Committee had, however, requested that a timetable of contract extensions be included.
Cabinet AGREED
(a) that the existing Housing Refurbishment Contracts be extended to 31 March 2004 in order that programmes of work established within each of the three contracts be completed; (b) that the Refurbishment Programme be subject to review once the Stock Condition Survey had been evaluated and a new programme developed / approved; (c) that the existing Heating Contract be extended to 31 March 2004; (d) that a partnership arrangement for the delivery of the Response Maintenance Service across the District be negotiated with Commercial Services, retaining Cambridge City Services to provide all or part of the South Area works; and (e) that a timetable and strategy be devised to ensure a renewal of contracts / partnership arrangements in April 2004.
12. HOUSING CAPITAL PROGRAMME
Before this item was presented the Leader reported that the Council had been congratulated by GO-EAST on its “very robust” Housing Strategy and added her own congratulations to Denise Lewis, the Acting Assistant Director of Housing Development and Strategic Services.
Councillor Mrs Heazell introduced the report, which proposed changes to the housing capital programme in respect of the current financial year and asked Cabinet to agree a provisional housing capital programme for 2003/04. She noted that paragraph 11 of the report should read, “…as explained in paragraph 28 of this report”. Amended figures were distributed to members, requesting an additional £0.6 million rather than an additional £1.1 million LASHG. The change was requested because the Sawston Lynton Way scheme would not be ready to proceed in the current financial year whereas the scheme at The Maltings, Gamlingay could meet the deadlines for grant applications and go ahead before 31st March 2003. The Sawston scheme would be included in the 2003/04 programme.
Councillor Dr Bard reported that Sawston Parish Council was fully behind the Lynton Way scheme and had set up a residents’ meeting to discuss the concerns raised regarding traffic, access and loss of views. He did not feel the objections would be impossible to overcome and the architect had been asked to incorporate the residents’ comments and return plans to a further Parish Council meeting in January.
Councillor Mrs Heazell explained the Barton and Whittlesford communal room schemes were not supported by local residents so further consultation would not go ahead. Councillor Mrs Roberts questioned whether the Council was being prevented from making improvements by objections from residents who might not be living there in a few years, and whether future residents might benefit from communal rooms. The Head of Shire Homes stated that residents had been very clear on their views and were concerned with the current, not future, use.
Councillor Mrs Spink suggested that there might be a policy issue to consider: whether to build regardless of current resident opinion when a facility might benefit future residents. Councillor Mrs Heazell felt the current residents’ opinion must be respected but agreed to explore the idea of encouragement by showing examples.
Councillor Mrs Heazell highlighted the high numbers of surrenders of Equity Share leases but added that the Council had a legal objection to buy back the properties.
Cabinet AGREED
(a) that the revisions to the Housing Capital Programme in respect of the current and next financial years, outlined in the report of the Housing and Community Services Director and the accompanying Appendices, together with the substitution of The Maltings, Gamlingay for Lynton Way, Sawston outlined at the meeting, be authorised; (b) that the provisional revised Housing Capital Programme Estimates including an additional £600,000 LASHG for 2002/03 and Estimates for 2003/04 be approved in principle; (c) that virements be approved from the Grants to Housing Organisations programme as follows: (i) £10,000 to the Homelessness budget for the provision of emergency accommodation to avoid a projected overspend on Bed & Breakfast in 2002/03; and (ii) £10,000 for consultation to be carried out as part of the Homelessness Review that will need to be carried out to comply with the new Homelessness legislation.
13. COMMUNITY SAFETY BEST VALUE REVIEW
Councillor Mrs Roberts reported that the review had been commended by the Scrutiny Committee and expressed her pleasure and gratitude at the work the officers had been doing, in particular the Community Safety Officer. She stated that a second Community Safety Officer post had been created, to be filled by January. The new post would be part-funded by the Community Safety Partnership and thus did not feature in the Council’s Workforce Plan.
The review was welcomed, and Cabinet APPROVED the Community Safety Best Value Review.
14. ARTS CAPITAL GRANT AID 2002-2003
Councillor Mrs Roberts introduced the report and recommended Cabinet approve capital grant aid for Wysing Arts, which satisfied the existing grant criteria. She said she was pleased to see Councillor Mrs Spink on the board at Wysing Arts and that there was now a strong and able group with solid directorship. She noted the substandard condition of the buildings at the site, but had advised Wysing Arts that funding for new build could at present be considered only for the coming year. The
Arts Development Officer stated that the proposals had been highlighted in the Arts strategy “Lighting the Way”.
Councillor Mrs Heazell, before leaving the meeting for a prior engagement, reported the Cambridge Women’s Resources Centre had spoken to her of their very strong support for programmes at Wysing Arts.
On other issues raised it was noted that:
• this grant aid was separate from that for village projects • a formal warning that funding from the Council was unlikely to continue could be given • that Wysing Arts worked with villages, schools and other Districts
Councillor Barker queried the budget proposals in the application and stated many were built on the assumption of funds, for example, £40,000 per year in one-off donations. He also queried the VAT status and had received confirmation from Customs and Excise that Wysing Arts would be charged VAT on new build. He felt Cabinet should not make a commitment to funds at this date, but postpone their decision until they were in full receipt of the facts.
The Arts Development Officer responded that the Wysing Arts Board were to register for VAT status as soon as possible, that the Arts Council grant application process was extremely thorough and the SCDC funding was conditional upon Wysing Arts finding funds from other sources.
A vote was held and by four votes to two, Cabinet
AGREED to approve the application from Wysing Arts for a grant of £60,000 in 2002-2003 and to note that the organisation has applied for £70,000 in 2003-4 and £75,000 in 2004-5 but that no commitment can be made for future years until and unless finances at South Cambridgeshire District Council permit. ______
Standing Items ______
15. FORWARD PROGRAMME There were no matters arising.
16. MATTERS REFERRED BY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE No matters were referred other than the additional recommendation to the Housing Repairs and Maintenance Contracts report (see Minute 11).
17. RE-LOCATION OF OFFICES TO CAMBOURNE Nothing to report.
18. REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL BY CONSULTANTS The consultants hoped to present a report to Cabinet on 12th December.
______
The meeting closed at 13.45 ______
Item 5, Cabinet Minutes 18th November 2002, Amended
5. FINANCIAL AND POLICY REVIEW
This item had been withdrawn from the previous meeting at the request of the Portfolio Holders in order to have informal discussions with Management Team and bring practical suggestions to this meeting. These talks had been held on Monday 4th November 2002 and a summary of the discussion, listing possible budget reductions put forward as alternatives to the recommendations of the Management Team for containing the 2003/04 revenue budget at £14.514m, was included with the agenda. Concern was expressed by the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee at the appearance of a “secret” meeting of Cabinet based on a public document, although it was noted no decisions had been made. Councillors Mrs Roberts and Mrs Heazell supported such informal meetings being open to other members but not the public, with Councillor Mrs Heazell noting they could serve as training for members wishing to sit on Cabinet in the future.
As a result of the informal meeting, cost centre managers had been asked to identify whether further budget reductions were achievable. Nothing had been reported to the Finance and Resources Director, but offers of reductions were made at the meeting:
Conservation, Heritage Initiative Fund to £75,000 Planning and Economic Development additional £40,000
The Finance and Resources Director, while appreciating the difficulty involved in achieving the target of £14.514 million approved by Council, advised that:
• as reported in July, even with a budget of £14.514m, projections showed that the underlying Council Tax for 2003/04 would be £116, increasing to £135 and £141 in the subsequent two years; • updated projections of capital receipts indicated that there would be insufficient funds by 2006/07 to meet known expenditure plans, so continuing to use capital receipts at a level of £400,000-500,000 would be unsustainable; and • the scope for significant underspending was considerably reduced because of the £1.7m already stripped out of the 2003/04 base budget.
The effect of a reduction in recreation and leisure grants on villages was discussed and it was noted that, while an immediate cut would have detrimental effects, in the longer term it was likely to be dual use schemes which were no longer funded. Preparations could be made now for that eventuality.
Two different proposals were put forward:
For approving the original recommendations from Management Team: • Following a separate strategy might not meet the budget of £14.514m; • Concern about the percentage rise in Council tax versus the cost of inflation; • It was unwise to produce a strategy which was unsustainable in the long- term; • Concern that capitalisation would not cease once it was no longer necessary and what would happen when capital receipts ran out.
For capitalisation of schemes were possible to reduce the revenue budget: • There were substantial reserves which could be accessed for years at the rates being proposed and should be used to support projects taxpayers want; • PricewaterhouseCoopers recommended community work be given a higher profile and necessary funds must be available; • Capital expenditures could be turned on or off as required and in case of a shortfall or when capital receipt expenditures ran out, funding could be switched back to revenue; • Management Team recommendations for reductions on cycleways and economic development grants had been based on misapprehensions about the nature of their funding and use.
A vote was held and, by five votes to two, Cabinet
RECOMMENDED
(a) that the following reductions be made to the baseline budgets for 2003/04 for the preparation of the detailed revenue and capital estimates:
Budget area Reduction Conservation – Maintenance of redundant churchyard walls £ 8,000 Heritage Initiative fund to £ 75,000 (NB reserve, not revenue budget)
Planning and Economic Development – Architects Section £ 27,000 Road Safety schemes £ 40,000 New town settlement design consultants £ 10,000 Economic development grants £ 20,000 Hired and contracted services £ 10,000
Community Development – Recreation and Leisure £100,000
Tourism and Community Planning – 6% £ 4,400
(b) that such relevant expenditure as necessary be funded from capitalised receipts to contain the revenue budget for 2003/04 at £14.514m, and that Council policy on the funding of capital expenditure be revised accordingly to permit the use of capital receipts up to a maximum of £500,000 to fund other General Fund capital expenditure in addition to Information Technology and new offices. [The estimated sum to be financed from capital receipts equalled approximately £463,000. This figure was not given at the meeting but was calculated by the Finance and Resources Director by taking the shortfall of £682,000 from the original report and subtracting the items listed above.]
DECISIONS MADE BY PORTFOLIO HOLDERS
Decisions Made By Portfolio Holder For Housing
Two Applications to Purchase Council-Owned Land
Location Decision Reasons Adjacent to 2 Approve the sale of an area of To secure a small capital receipt Abington Road, land on the southern side of 2 for the Council and provide off- Litlington Abington Road, Litlington to street parking for the owners of 2 the owners of that dwelling for Abington Road. the construction of a hardstanding (Option 3 in the report).
Location Decision Reasons Adjacent to 10 Butts Sale refused. • To retain the character of the area and Green, Whittlesford open aspect of the junction of Butts Green and Lettice Martin Croft. • To preserve visibility from the parking bay. • To keep open the Council's options with regard to any future change of use.
Provision of Tied Accommodation for a Member of Staff at Milton Country Park
Subject Decision Reasons Identification of Approval, in principle, to the To provide accommodation within a suitable tied designation of a low-demand reasonable travelling distance of the accommodation in one or two bedroom bungalow park to ensure the provision of an respect of Milton in a village within 10 miles of effective out-of-hours service. Country Park Milton Country Park
Housing Grants 2003-2004
The following grant applications are to be included in the Housing General Fund Estimates for 2003/04.
Subject Housing Grant Awarded Cambridge Crenians £2,500
Cambridge SOFA £3,250 Cambridge Women and Homelessness Group £3,187 Cambridge Women's Aid £6,961 Papworth Housing Advice Service £5,000
Agreed to allocate a total of £21,898, but to retain the £1,000 applied for by Cambridgeshire ACRE, pending consultation with Planning Department officers in connection with grant aid already advanced to the organisation during the current year, and clarification that any further grant from the Housing General Fund would not be spent on activities simply duplicating those already carried out by the District Council.
Subject Decision Reason Housing Allocation To award Mr W B a The household need to move for Appeals and Management Transfer medical reasons Management (E/02/006) Transfers To award Miss F Transfer The household require a move due to (S/02/005) medical circumstances into a larger property
To award Mr RC a Mr RC needs alternative Management Transfer accommodation following the (S/02/006) deteriorating medical condition of his parents
To award Ms S a Ms S requires alternative management transfer accommodation following difficulties that (S/02/007) have severely affected her health
To award Miss F a Miss F requires a transfer to a house management transfer from a flat for medical reasons (S/02/009)
To award Mr and Mrs O a Following the death of a relative this Management transfer household require alternative ground (S/02/010) floor accommodation for this family
To award Miss P a The transfer is required to provide transfer (S/01/012) suitable alternative accommodation for this family
To award Mrs D a The family require accommodation of a management transfer more suitable size for their needs (W/02/001)
To award Mrs F a The household need to move for management transfer medical reasons (E/02/011)
To award Miss F a transfer Miss F has a young child and her (S/02/012) accommodation is on the third floor
To award Mr & Mrs N a The family have experienced difficulties management transfer locally and wish to move for social (S/02/013) reasons
To award Ms S a Ms S requires alternative management transfer accommodation following difficulties (W/02/003) resulting from her limited mobility
To award Miss M a Miss M requires a transfer following transfer (S/02/014) assistance by the Homeless Section
Whittlesford Drainage It is proposed to recharge the owners of Repairs carried out for 28 the properties in accordance with properties in Duxford apportioned costs. Road and Mill Lane Whittlesford
Decision Made By Portfolio Holder For Conservation
Subject Decision Reasons Mr D Aguilar Acre To award a Historic Building For re-roofing using Cottage, Acre Road Grant G/7/02 of £6,985 (50%) Cambridgeshire gault clay pegtiles Carlton from Burwell that will meet the aims of the Historic Buildings Grant policy and will encourage the use of local materials and enhance the appearance of this historic building.
INFORMATION ITEMS
Decision Made By Community Development Partnerships Manager
Applicant Description Benefits Sawston Arts Awarding of a £210 Project Grant Aid for The organisation will Festival the Sawston Arts Festival, November promote four Early English 2002 – April 2003 Music events, a poetry evening and an Arts in Cambs on Tour performance as part of the festival and aim to meet new audience targets from the local community.
Applicant Description Benefits Nuala Schwartz To award a Talented Young Sports Helping a talented young Performer Grant of £500 to Nuala who sports performer reach her has been selected to train and play for potential. Colchester United Centre of Excellence. She is an improving footballer with a bright future.
Historic Buildings Grants Authorised By Conservation Manager
Applicant Historic Buildings Grant Awarded Description Mrs E Morley G/4/02 £3,400 (40%) For reinstating traditional 26/28 Lotfield timber casement windows Street, Orwell
Mr S Hobart 21 G/13/02 £440 (10%) For rethatching the front roof High Street, Fen slope, repairing and rewiring Ditton the longstraw thatched roof.
Mr S Beck, G/14/02 £985 (10%) For rethatching the front roof Lantern Cottage, slope, repairing and rewiring 45 North Road, the longstraw thatched roof. Whittlesford
Mr N D Morton, 1 G/20/02 £900 (10%) For rethatching, reridging Church Cottage, and rewiring the longstraw High Street, thatched roof. Hildersham
M R Stratton & G/9/00 £250 (50% of the increased This is in addition to the Dr. J Breuer, The costs). £3,925 already agreed for Old School, 31 reinstating longstraw thatch. High Street, Hinxton
Buildings Added to the Statutory List Following the Serving of Building Preservation Notices or as a Result of Spot-Listing Requests
• Brook Cottage, Kingston Road, Great Eversden - Grade II
• Barn, De Freville Farm, High Green, Great Shelford - Grade II
• The Cottage, Fowlmere Road, Newton - Upgraded from Grade II to Grade II*
Traffic Proposals made by Cambridgeshire County Council
Advert in Order Name of Order Details local in Order made Press force
Meldreth: Subject to exceptional provisions contained in 18 Nov 28 29 Article 4 of the Order, no person shall, without the 2002 November Nov authority of a police officer in uniform or a traffic 2002 2002 warden, cause or allow any vehicle to wait between 8.30am and 9.30am, and 2.45pm and 3.30pm Monday to Friday inclusive in those parts of High Street specified in the Schedule to the proposed Order. A person wishing to question the validity of the Order or any of its provisions on the grounds that it is not within the powers conferred by the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 as amended, or that any instrument made under that Act has not been complied with, must apply to the High Court before 30th December 2002.
Call-in Arrangements
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee or any five other Councillors may call in any executive decision recorded in this bulletin for review. The Committee Manager must be notified of any call in by Thursday 12th December 2002. All decisions not called in by this date will be implemented.
The call in procedure is set out in full in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution, ‘Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules’, paragraph 12.