NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a meeting of HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, PATHFINDER HOUSE, ST MARY'S STREET, HUNTINGDON PE29 3TN on WEDNESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2007 at 2:30 PM and you are requested to attend for the transaction of the following business:-

A G E N D A

PRAYER

The Bishop of Ely, Bishop Anthony Russell, will open the meeting with prayer.

APOLOGIES

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. PETITION

To invite Nita Tinn and Gary Mardlin to present a petition containing 128 signatures submitted by the Offords Action Group regarding their "Preference for the 'Brown Route' as the route which has the least harmful overall impact for all communities concerned" in terms of the proposed improvements of the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton.

The petitioners have submitted the following reasons for their position –

"♦ the number of properties which will suffer an increase in noise nuisance by 2029 is less than for any other route, whereas the number who will benefit from less noise is greatest; ♦ the shorter viaduct over the Great Ouse and the railway on the Brown Route significantly reduces the environmental and visual impact; ♦ although initially more expensive, when viewed over the 60 year lifetime of the road the differences are minimal and therefore cost should not influence the decision."

2. MINUTES (Pages 1 - 10)

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 6th December 2006.

3. MEMBERS' INTERESTS

To receive from Members declarations as to personal and/or prejudicial interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any Agenda item. Please see Notes 1 and 2 below.

4. BY ELECTION - 15TH FEBRUARY 2007

The Returning Officer to report on the person elected to the Office of District Councillor at the by-election held on 15th February 2007 in the Warboys and Bury Ward.

5. FINANCIAL PLAN, MEDIUM TERM PLAN AND 2007/08 BUDGET: UPDATE AND ADJUSTMENTS (Pages 11 - 50)

The Council is requested to consider the Cabinet's recommendations on the Financial Strategy, Medium Term Plan for 2008/12, the 2007/08 Budget, related Prudential Indicators and the Treasury Management Strategy (see also Item Nos. 85 and 86 of the Report of the meeting of the Cabinet) and in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 draft resolutions as to the levels of Council Tax in 2007/08 for the various parts of Huntingdonshire District.

A report by the Head of Financial Services is enclosed.

(Members are requested to note that the information contained in the Annex C should be treated as provisional at this stage.)

6. A14 ELLINGTON TO FEN DITTON - FURTHER PUBLIC CONSULTATION (Pages 51 - 74)

Further to Agenda Item No. 1, to consider and respond to the latest public consultation by the Highways Agency regarding the proposed improvement of the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton.

A report by the Head of Planning Services is enclosed.

7. MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES (Pages 75 - 82)

To consider a report by the Head of Administration summarising the conclusions of the Independent Remuneration Panel following their recent review of Members' Allowances. (A copy of the Panel's report has been circulated separately.)

8. REPORTS OF THE CABINET, PANELS AND COMMITTEES

(a) Cabinet (Pages 83 - 156)

(b) Standards Committee (Pages 157 - 158)

(c) Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery) (Pages 159 - 162)

(d) Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Support) (Pages 163 - 166)

(e) Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Corporate and Strategic Framework) (Pages 167 - 170)

(f) Development Control Panel (Pages 171 - 174)

(g) Employment Panel (Pages 175 - 176)

(h) Corporate Governance Panel (Pages 177 - 180)

(i) Elections Panel (Pages 181 - 182)

9. ORAL QUESTIONS

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules (Section 8.3) of the Council's Constitution, to receive oral questions from Members of the Council

10. MEMBERSHIP OF CABINET, COMMITTES AND PANELS

To review the membership of the Council's Committees and Panels.

11. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: SECTION 85

The Chief Executive to report on absences of Members from meetings.

Dated this 13 day of February 2007

Chief Executive

Notes

1. A personal interest exists where a decision on a matter would affect to a greater extent than other people in the District –

(a) the well-being, financial position, employment or business of the Councillor, a partner, relatives or close friends;

(b) a body employing those persons, any firm in which they are a partner and any company of which they are directors;

(c) any corporate body in which those persons have a beneficial interest in a class of securities exceeding the nominal value of £5,000; or

(d) the Councillor’s registerable financial and other interests.

2. A personal interest becomes a prejudicial interest where a member of the public (who has knowledge of the circumstances) would reasonably regard the Member’s personal interest as being so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Councillor’s judgement of the public interest.

Please contact Ms C Deller, Democratic Services Manager, Tel No 01480 388007/e-mail: [email protected] if you have a general query on any Agenda Item, wish to tender your apologies for absence from the meeting, or would like information on any decision taken by the Council.

Agenda and enclosures can be viewed on the District Council’s website – www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk (under Councils and Democracy).

If you would like a translation of Agenda/Minutes/Reports or would like a large text version or an audio version please contact the Democratic Services Manager and we will try to accommodate your needs.

Agenda Item 2

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES of the meeting of the COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Pathfinder House, St Mary's Street, Huntingdon PE29 3TN on Wednesday, 6 December 2006.

PRESENT: Councillor P A Swales – Chairman.

Councillors J D Ablewhite, M G Baker, K M Baker, Mrs M Banerjee, I C Bates, J T Bell, Mrs B E Boddington, P L E Bucknell, E R Butler, Mrs J Chandler, K J Churchill, Mrs D E Collins, S J Criswell, J W Davies, P J Downes, J J Dutton, RWJ Eaton, R S Farrer, J E Garner, A N Gilbert, D A Giles, P M Godfrey, Mrs C A Godley, J A Gray, N J Guyatt, A Hansard, D Harty, C R Hyams, Mrs P J Longford, Mrs S A Menczer, P G Mitchell, I R Muir, M F Newman, R Powell, Mrs D C Reynolds, T V Rogers, J M Sadler, T D Sanderson, L M Simpson, C J Stephens, G S E Thorpe, R G Tuplin, J S Watt and R J West.

APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence from the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors R W D Bailey, D B Dew, J D Fell, D J Priestman, K Reynolds and Ms M Wheeler.

38. PRAYER

The Reverend Canon R. Arguile, Vicar of St. Neots opened the meeting with Prayer.

39. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

(a) Councillor J Taylor

The Chairman paid tribute to Councillor J Taylor who had died after a long illness on 26th October 2006 having served as a District Councillor for the Warboys and Bury Ward for nine years. Councillor P J Downes, Leader of the Opposition and Councillor P L E Bucknell led tributes to Councillor Taylor and Members observed a minute’s silence in his memory.

(b) New District Councillors

The Chairman welcomed Councillors P M D Godfrey and R S Farrer to their first meeting of the Council following by- elections in the Earith and St. Neots (Eaton Ford) Wards respectively.

(c) Council Successes

The Chairman was pleased to congratulate both the

1 Members and Officers involved in the success of two projects which had received national recognition. Members noted that the Council had been short-listed in the Royal Town Planning Institute's National Awards for its work with partners on the regeneration of Oxmoor, Huntingdon and the Environmental Protection Team had received an award from the Noise Abatement Society for its Noise Education Programme for Young People.

(d) Chairman’s Reception

The Chairman encouraged Members to contact his Personal Assistant regarding their attendance at his reception which would be held at Hinchingbrooke House on 8th December 2006.

40. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 27th September 2006 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

41. MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Councillors Mrs D E Collins, R S Farrer, D A Giles, D Harty and A Hansard declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute No. 45 (Item No. 71) by virtue of their membership of St. Neots Town Council.

Councillors I C Bates, Mrs B E Boddington, S J Criswell, P J Downes, J J Dutton, R S Farrer, D Harty, C R Hyams and K Reynolds declared a personal interest in Minute No. 45 (Item No. 80) by virtue of their membership of Cambridgeshire County Council.

Councillor I C Bates declared a personal interest in Minute No. 45 (Item No. 83) as the District Council’s representative on Cambridgeshire Horizons.

42. BY ELECTIONS - 12TH OCTOBER AND 23RD NOVEMBER 2006

The Chief Executive reported that Messrs P M D Godfrey and R S Farrer had been elected to the office of District Councillor at the by- elections held on 12th October in the Earith Ward and on 23rd November 2006 in St. Neots (Eaton Ford) Ward for terms of office expiring in May 2007 and May 2008 respectively.

43. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: SECTION 87 - WARBOYS WARD

The Chief Executive reported that, following the death of former Councillor J Taylor, a by-election would be held in the Warboys and Bury Ward once the appropriate requisition had been received.

44. GROWING SUCCESS - CORPORATE PLAN

Referring to a report by the Head of Policy (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Leader, Councillor I C Bates, thanked the Working Group comprising Members of both Overview

2 and Scrutiny Panels which had undertaken a detailed review of the Corporate Plan leading to the production of the updated version which was being considered for adoption by the Council.

Members were reminded that the Corporate Plan included a series of targets set against specific objectives directed towards achieving the Council’s aims and priorities. Councillor Bates also drew attention to Section 2 of the booklet “Growing Success” and highlighted the results of a 2006 survey which had suggested that 91% of people were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with Huntingdonshire as a place to live and felt safe in their local area. In relation to the suggestion that 23% of residents felt unsafe after dark, the Leader indicated that he would raise the statistic with the Chief Constable, Cambridgeshire Constabulary at a forthcoming meeting.

In reply, the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Councillor P J Downes indicated his support for the Corporate Plan and emphasised the importance of the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Panels in challenging and monitoring the progress and outcome of the targets set.

Having acknowledged that the Council’s performance would continue to be monitored, it was

RESOLVED

that the Council’s Corporate Plan – “Growing Success” (as updated) be adopted (nem com).

45. REPORTS OF THE CABINET, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

(a) Cabinet

Councillor I C Bates, Leader and Chairman of the Cabinet presented the Report of the meetings of the Cabinet held on 28th September, 19th October, 9th and 30th November 2006.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 52 and in response to a question from Councillor Mrs S A Menczer regarding the inability of the physically disabled in the District to use their concessionary bus passes before 9.30 am to travel to work, the Executive Councillor for Environment and Transport, Councillor N J Guyatt explained that the principal authorities in Cambridgeshire had indicated their support for the extension of the concessionary scheme before 9.30 am but had been unable to progress the proposal due to a lack of funding and that the District Council would support a campaign to achieve an extension to the scheme's operating hours.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 54 and in response to a question from Councillor Mrs S A Menczer regarding the process followed for the replacement of play equipment, the

3 Executive Councillor for Leisure, Councillor Mrs J Chandler confirmed that the views of young people were invited on any decision to provide a skateboarding facility in the District and that expert advice on the play value and suitability of new equipment was obtained. However, she offered to check with appropriate Officers as to whether the Council consulted with primary schools over replacement equipment.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 57 and in response to questions from Councillors M G Baker and J E Garner, the Leader with the assistance of the Executive Councillors for Planning Strategy and for Headquarters and IT, Councillors P L E Bucknell and L M Simpson replied that a report on a car parking strategy should be available in the New Year, that the archaeological works to the car park to the front of Pathfinder House had been deferred until February, that the Council was aware of the issues relating to car parking for staff which had been raised at the Employee Liaison Advisory Group and would be considered further once the Operations Centre had been completed, that these discussions also would involve parking in Huntingdon town centre and that work had commenced on the Operations Centre which would be called “Eastfield House”.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 64 and in response to questions from Councillors P J Downes, Mrs M Banerjee and J A Gray, the Executive Councillor for Environment and Transport, Councillor N J Guyatt replied that the draft Environment Strategy would adopt an aspirational approach and identify the positive contribution the Council was already making through its services, policies, strategies and regulatory activities and that he would welcome the input of the Overview and Scrutiny Panels on the content of the draft strategy.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 67, Councillor R J West expressed his and his colleague ward councillor's gratitude for the transfer of Council owned land at Cranfield Way, Buckden to the Nene Housing Society for the purpose of the construction of 10 affordable homes.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 71, Councillor D Harty expressed his support for the transfer of land to the rear of 17 – 22 The Maltings, Eaton Ford to St. Neots Town Council for the purposes of a new community centre and was hopeful that the co-operation achieved on this project was an indication of a developing relationship between the two authorities.

………………………………………………

4

In connection with Item No. 73, the Executive Councillor for Finance, Councillor T V Rogers opened his address by commending the contributions made by the Liberal Democrat Group, individual councillors and the Overview and Scrutiny Panels to the budgetary process and reminded Members that whilst the exercise undertaken to identify savings for both 2006/07 and 2007/08 had been successful, other significant savings in the order of £4.7m would be required in future years. Members were reminded that the Government’s capping policy restricted the Council’s ability to raise Council Tax, to maintain and enhance services and resource improvement plans. Having also described the position in respect of capital revenue reserves, the Executive Councillor suggested that Council Tax should increase by 5% in 2007/08 but that the financial plan would be subject to continual review.

In response and having acknowledged the work which had resulted in a balanced revenue budget, Councillor P J Downes, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group expressed his disappointment that some but not all of the proposals submitted by his Group had been accepted. However, he indicated that he was hopeful that there would be a further opportunity to consider the suggestions made and to generate further savings to enable the Council to remain flexible in responding to unforeseen expenditure such as, for instance, that which might arise following the adoption of the Environment Strategy.

On the same subject, Councillor J A Gray commended the Leader and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Officers for their work on the budget but suggested that this prudent approach would be needed in future years if costs were to continue to rise faster than resources.

Whereupon, on being put to the vote, the recommendations contained in Item No. 73 were declared to be CARRIED

………………………………………………

Upon being put to the vote, the recommendation contained in Item No. 74 was declared to be CARRIED.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 83 and in response to a question from Councillor P J Downes, the Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy, Councillor P L E Bucknell replied that the District Council had benefited from the support received on major planning and other issues via its membership of Cambridgeshire Horizons and that the value of the organisation would continue to be scrutinised by the District Council’s representatives.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

5

RESOLVED

that, subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the Report of the meetings of the Cabinet held on 28th September, 19th October, 9th and 30th November 2006 be received and adopted.

(b) Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery)

Councillor S J Criswell presented the Report of the meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery) held on 3rd October and 7th November 2006.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 16 (e) and in response to a question from Councillor Mrs S A Menczer regarding disabled people with high support needs, Councillor Criswell replied that the Panel would be interested to hear from relevant groups and that he would pursue the issue as a future Agenda Item.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery) held on 3rd October and 7th November 2006 be received and adopted.

(c) Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Support)

Councillor J A Gray presented the Report of the meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Support) held on 10th October and 14th November 2006.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Support) held on 10th October and 14th November 2006 be received and adopted.

(d) Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Corporate and Strategic Framework)

Councillor J A Gray presented the Report of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Corporate and Strategic Framework) held on 14th November 2006.

………………………………………………

6

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Corporate and Strategic Framework) held on 14th November 2006 be received and adopted.

(e) Development Control Panel

Councillor P G Mitchell presented the Report of the meetings of the Development Control Panel held on 16th October and 20th November 2006.

………………………………………………

Upon being put to the vote, the recommendation contained in Item No. 17 was declared to be CARRIED.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meetings of the Development Control Panel held on 16th October and 20th November 2006 be received and adopted.

(f) Employment Panel

Councillor Mrs B E Boddington presented the Report of the meeting of the Employment Panel held on 22nd November 2006.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meeting of the Employment Panel held on 22nd November 2006 be received and adopted.

(g) Corporate Governance Panel

Councillor C J Stephens presented the Report of the meetings of the Corporate Governance Panel held on 27th September and 29th November 2006.

………………………………………………

Upon being put to the vote, the recommendations contained in Item No. 8 were declared to be CARRIED.

………………………………………………

7

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that, subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the Report of the meetings of the Corporate Governance Panel held on 27th September and 29th November 2006 be received and adopted.

(h) Licensing and Protection Panel

Councillor J M Sadler presented the Report of the meeting of the Licensing and Protection Panel held on 24th October 2006.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 7 (a) and in response to a question from Councillor R Powell, Councillor Sadler reported that revised conditions in relation to signs on licensed vehicles would be implemented early in the new year.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meeting of the Licensing and Protection Panel held on 24th October 2006 be received and adopted.

(i) Licensing Committee

Councillor J M Sadler presented the Report of the meetings of the Licensing Committee held on 24th October and 27th November 2006.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meetings of the Licensing Committee held on 24th October and 27th November 2006 be received and adopted.

(j) Elections Panel

Councillor D Harty presented the Report of the meeting of the Elections Panel held on 2nd October 2006.

………………………………………………

In connection with Item No. 2 and in response to questions from Councillor M G Baker and P J Downes, Councillor

8 Harty encouraged Members to respond to the public consultation on the Parish Electoral Review of the District but anticipated that it would be 2008, at the earliest, before any proposals for change might take effect.

………………………………………………

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

that the Report of the meeting of the Elections Panel held on 2nd October 2006 be received and adopted.

46. ORAL QUESTIONS

In accordance with the Council’s Procedure Rules (Section 8.3 of the Council’s Constitution), the Chairman proceeded to conduct a period of oral questions addressed to Executive Councillors and Panel Chairmen as follows:-

Question from Councillor J J Dutton to the Executive Councillor for Housing and Public Health, Councillor Mrs D C Reynolds

In response to a question requesting the relaxation of a Dispersal Order in Huntingdon town centre, particularly when dealing with young people, Councillor Mrs Reynolds replied that any concerns the questioner might have should be raised directly with Cambridgeshire Constabulary who had responsibility for policing the Order. Councillor Sadler added that the Community Safety Partnership were hoping to progress, subject to funding being made available, a proposal to locate a skateboard park on open space at Stukeley Meadows and that the Dispersal Order had been made for Chequers Court, Huntingdon because of intimidation and vandalism to shop fronts.

Question from Councillor G S E Thorpe to the Leader of the Council, Councillor I C Bates

In response to a question regarding the new Local Government White Paper “Strong and Prosperous Communities”, the Leader replied that he did not intend to respond to the Government, at this stage, by expressing any views on the content of the document.

Question from Councillor P J Downes to the Executive Councillor for Environment and Transport, Councillor N J Guyatt

In response to a question regarding the consultation exercise organised by the Highways Agency relating to the proposed improvement of the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton, Councillor Guyatt concurred with the views of the questioner and expressed his disappointment at the quality of the presentation given by the Agency. In the light of the comments made by Members, the Leader undertook to raise the District Council’s concerns directly with the Agency.

Question from Councillor T D Sanderson to the Executive Councillor for Operations, Councillor Mrs P J Longford

In response to a question regarding the condition of the footpath

9 crossing Views Common from Stukeley Meadows to Hinchingbrooke, Councillor Mrs Longford acknowledged that there were difficulties in maintaining the cleanliness of the path given its route across grazing land but that she would investigate the issues raised.

47. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: SECTION 85

The Chief Executive reported that there were no absences of Members from meetings for consideration in accordance with Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.

48. MEMBERSHIP OF CABINETS, COMMITTEES AND PANELS

RESOLVED

(a) that Councillor R J West be appointed to the Development Control Panel;

(b) that Councillor P M D Godfrey be appointed to the Overview and Scrutiny (Service Support) Panel to replace Councillor P A Swales;

(c) that Councillor R S Farrer be appointed to the Licensing and Protection Panel/Licensing Committee and the Standards Committee; and

(d) that Councillor J E Garner be appointed to the Elections Panel.

The meeting concluded at 4.10pm.

Chairman

10 Agenda Item 5

Financial Plan, Medium Term Plan and 2007/08 Budget: Update and Adjustments

Report by the Head of Financial Services

1. PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this report is to link the various aspects of the Financial Plan, the MTP and the 2007/08 budget together so that the necessary formal decisions can be made. It also provides revised tables following the reporting of two adjustments to Cabinet at their meeting on the 1 February.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 1 February the Cabinet discussed the report attached as an appendix (Item No. 85 of their Report later on the agenda refers). They took into account the comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Corporate and Strategic Framework) meeting which took place on the 30 January (Item No. 6 of their Report refers) and the consultation meeting with members of the local business community held on 31 January.

2.2 The Cabinet were informed of two changes. The first related to the correction of the figures relating to the gross capital cost and external contributions for Housing Benefits. There was no change to the net cost which feeds into the budget.

2.3 The second change resulted from a letter from the Government received on 31 January which announced that, 10 months into the financial year, the Government were no longer going to honour a long term agreement relating to compensation for changes to specific grants (the commutation adjustment). This allowed a sum of revenue expenditure to be funded from capital reserves each year allowing revenue reserves to be maximised. Thus this change has the effect of reducing revenue reserves which are an important part of the Council’s strategy in spreading its savings over a manageable period.

2.4 The initial reduction in revenue reserves is estimated at £246k but the compensating increase in capital reserves allows a reduction in planned borrowing to fund capital spending. As the cost of repaying borrowing exceeds investment returns the overall impact steadily reduces so that it has fallen to £183k by the end of the strategy period. The financial strategy included £2,286k of revenue reserves so reduction to £2,103k still exceeds the currently assumed minimum of £2M. Thus there is no need to change the savings profile and changes to other figures are very minor. If the Council had not had adequate reserves the impact would have been significant.

11 2.5 Because of these two changes it has been necessary to revise figures in the following tables and the Treasury Management Strategy.

Annex Budget/MTP/Financial Strategy A1 Revenue Budget A2 Capital Budget A3 Annex B to Cabinet Report showing latest MTP changes in green. A4 Annex C to Cabinet Report showing MTP and highlighting changes in green. A5 Annex D to Cabinet Report – Financial Summary A6 Annex D1 to Cabinet Report – Savings Summary A7 Annex E to Cabinet Report – Service Budgets

B Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Code (Updated version)

2.6 The Cabinets recommendations are shown in Item No 86 of their Report in relation to the Treasury Management Strategy.

2.7 The proposal to increase the 2007/08 Band D Council Tax, by just £5.22 per year or 10p per week, to £109.91 is recommended by the Cabinet and is presented in the prescribed format for the formal resolutions at Annex C.

3. DECISIONS

3.1 In the light of the Cabinet’s recommendations the Council is invited to:

i Approve the proposed Budget, MTP and Financial Plan (Annexes A4, A5 and A7). i Approve the revised Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators at Annex B. i Approve the Band D Council Tax of £109.91 for 2007/08 and the formal resolutions shown in Annex C.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Working Papers - Files in Financial Services

Contact Officer: Steve Couper, Head of Financial Services 01480 388103

12 ANNEX A1

REVENUE BUDGET 2006/07 2006/07 2007/08 Original Forecast Budget Budget** Service Spending £000 £000 £000 Environmental Services 8,659 8,326 8,384 Planning 3,448 2,993 2,658 Community Services 6,894 7,016 7,226 Community Safety 1,185 1,091 924 Housing Services 5,232 4,622 5,893 Highways and Transportation 2,380 2,239 2,103 Corporate Services 4,777 4,488 4,928 Other Expenditure Contingencies -693 -2 -686 Other Expenditure -10,790 -10,031 -9,309 (mainly reversal of Capital Charges) Investment Interest -2,786 -2,936 -2,587 Council Total 18,305 17,806 19,534

Funding Government Support (RSG & NNDR) -10,892 -10,892 -11,650 Collection Fund Deficit (- surplus) 74 74 -7 Council Tax -5,961 -5,961 -6,313 Deficit – from Reserves -1,527 -1,027 -1,565 -18,305 -17,806 -19,534

** In this table and Annex D there have been a few movements of cost centres between Services from the original approved figures to ensure comparability.

13 ANNEX A2

CAPITAL BUDGET 2007/08 Budget Gross Grants & Net Contributions £000 £000 £000 Recyclingn 72 -72 Drainage and Sewers 30 30 Public Conveniences 443 443 Economic Development 1,042 609 433 Leisure Events and Facilities 154 154 Joint Leisure Centres 3,090 3,090 Community Initiatives 12 12 Parks and Open Spaces 72 72 Housing Serviceso 520 1,299 -779 Private Housing Support 1,463 335 1,128 Homelessness 2,529 480 2,049 Housing Benefits 225 166 59 Community Safety 23 23 Transportation 1,086 207 879 Public Transport 132 132 Car Parks 222 222 Environmental 528 1,756 -1,228 Improvementsp Technical 1,525 1,525 Operations Division 216 216 Offices 5,496 5,496 IT related 1,236 1,236 Other 158 158 TOTAL 20,202 4,924 15,278 Notes nincludes a government grant that will offset past expenditure. oincludes the re-sale of mobile homes bought to house tenants during the remediation work at the Mobile Home site. pincludes contributions from the County Council to fund past expenditure on the Oxmoor.

14 ANNEX A3

MTP CHANGES since December Report REVENUE IMPACT NET CAPITAL COST 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010 2011 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010 2011 Bid Scheme 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 No. £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 336 Huntingdon Impressions Expansion - rephasing -4 -4 -147 147 22 CCTV Improvements - rephasing -2 -1 -45 12 33 626 Wireless Working - combined scheme split into parts but proposal for this element 44444-83163 omitted in error 634 Customer First - correction of error 33 33 33 33 33 33 15 300 Pathfinder House Improvements and One Stop Shop - mainly rephasing, also price 175 107 198 -27 21 -9 67 1,936 -249 -1,484 789 -997 19 base changes for non-fixed price element Inflation - higher gas and electricity costs from recent retendering 107 100 95 95 95 Capital inflation adjustment – Reviewed and adjusted 1234 71618309 VAT non-reclaimable capital – Reviewed and adjusted 4 10 17 22 23 25 263 288 253 88 33 67 Other rephasing -1 29 -29 sub-total 205 256 353 129 179 152 -32 2,198 226 -1,215 895 -934 95 Changes to Commutation adjustment 117 66 33 -4 -12 -12 -120 -74 -44 -8 Revised Total 322 322 386 125 167 140 -32 2,078 152 -1,259 887 -934 95 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ANNEX A5 BUDGET MTP FORECAST FINANCIAL SUMMARY 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 2006/7 BUDGET/MTP before savings 19,331 20,706 22,610 24,999 26,858 27,820 28,999 30,160 31,324 32,539 33,727 35,085 36,446 Interest and Borrowing Variations 4 -330 -195 -38 57 67 109 92 68 54 52 45 29 MTP Variations ** -158 831 848 714 784 918 871 941 926 960 1041 867 822 Technical -142 -129 -1 129 66 31 -40 30 15 49 130 -44 -89 Revised Timing -601 -168 -46 -173 -158 -116 -105 -105 -105 -105 -105 -105 -105 Revised Timing with Extra Cost -9 -108 -158 -94 -7 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 New Unavoidable 262 747 508 556 545 568 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 New 2011/12 109 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 New Urgent 10 167 159 171 171 174 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 January Cabinet Report Variations 205 256 353 129 179 152 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 Change to Commutation Adjustment 117 66 33 -4 -12 -12 -12 -12 -12 -12 -12 -12 -12 Other Variations -345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revised Total before savings 18,832 21,207 23,263 25,675 27,699 28,805 29,979 31,193 32,318 33,553 34,820 35,997 37,297

24 2006/07 Total Savings Required -1,026 -1,573 -2,157 -2,792 -3,342 -3,892 -4,442 -4,992 -5,492 -5,776 -5,826 -5,764 -5,696 Extra Savings Required 0 -100 -286 -421 -641 -861 -1,081 -1,301 -1,076 -792 -742 -804 -867 Revised Savings Total -1,026 -1,673 -2,443 -3,213 -3,983 -4,753 -5,523 -6,293 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,563 NEW FORECAST 17,806 19,534 20,820 22,462 23,716 24,052 24,456 24,900 25,750 26,985 28,252 29,429 30,734 % increase 14.8% 9.7% 6.6% 7.9% 5.6% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 3.4% 4.8% 4.7% 4.2% 4.4% Use of revenue reserves 1,027 1,565 1,953 2,651 2,914 2,210 1,522 819 465 436 376 159 0 Budget Requirement 16,779 17,969 18,867 19,811 20,802 21,842 22,934 24,081 25,285 26,549 27,876 29,270 30,734 % increase 9.8% 7.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% FUNDING Government Support -10,892 -11,650 -12,162 -12,684 -13,033 -13,391 -13,759 -14,138 -14,526 -14,926 -15,336 -15,758 -16,192 Collection Fund Deficit 74 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Council Tax -5,961 -6,313 -6,705 -7,127 -7,770 -8,451 -9,175 -9,943 -10,758 -11,623 -12,540 -13,512 -14,543 COUNCIL TAX LEVEL £104.69 £109.91 £116.17 £122.86 £133.27 £144.23 £155.81 £168.02 £180.89 £194.46 £208.75 £223.82 £239.69 % increase 5.0% 5.0% 5.7% 5.8% 8.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% Remaining revenue reserves EOY 17,173 15,608 13,655 11,004 8,090 5,880 4,358 3,539 3,074 2,638 2,262 2,103 2,103 Remaining capital reserves EOY 29,414 15,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest included in net budget -2,936 -2,587 -1,631 -939 -809 -679 -581 -520 -489 -472 -458 -450 -452 ** Excluding the two items included in the savings list ANNEX A6

2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ SAVINGS SUMMARY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 TARGETS Last Year's Target -1,026 -1,573 -2,157 -2,792 -3,342 -3,892 -4,442 -4,992 -5,492 -5,776 -5,826 -5,764 -5,696 Additional Savings Identified in December 0 -100 -250 -350 -450 -550 -650 -725 -780 -780 -780 -780 -780 Additional Savings Identified January -36 -71 -191 -311 -431 -576 -296 -12 36 -24 -92 Savings variation February 5 New Savings Target -1,026 -1,673 -2,443 -3,213 -3,983 -4,753 -5,523 -6,293 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,563

IDENTIFIED Included in 2006/07 Budget -452 -450 -448 -446 -444 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 Detailed in Annex A -531 -1,086 -1,352 -1,398 -1,344 -1,485 -1,485 -1,485 -1,344 -1,485 -1,485 -1,485 -1,344 25 Assumed level of general underspendings -300 -150 -100 -50 -50 -50 Total Identified -1,283 -1,686 -1,900 -1,894 -1,838 -1,994 -1,944 -1,944 -1,803 -1,944 -1,944 -1,944 -1,803

Savings still to be Identified -543 -1,319 -2,145 -2,759 -3,579 -4,349 -4,765 -4,624 -4,624 -4,624 -4,760 Surplus savings 257 13 ANNEX A7 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Environmental Services £000 £000 £000 Refuse Collection 3,683 3,638 3,521 Recycling 872 663 595 Drainage & Sewers 589 550 595 Public Conveniences 278 295 306 Environmental Health 1,816 1,772 1,930 Closed Churchyards 31 36 22 Street Cleaning & Litter 1,390 1,373 1,413 8,659 8,326 8,384

Planning £000 £000 £000 Development Control 1,152 1,384 1,227 Building Control 255 254 291 Planning Policy & Conservation 1,210 1,317 1,310 Markets -69 -41 -68 Economic Development 300 287 -550 Tourism 436 450 441 Planning Delivery Grant 163 -657 7 3,448 2,993 2,658

Community Services £000 £000 £000 Corporate Events 220 178 213 Countryside 540 602 559 Community Initiatives 842 772 829 Parks 1,618 1,560 1,559 Leisure Policy 405 377 427 Leisure Centres 3,269 3,527 3,637 6,894 7,016 7,226

Community Safety £000 £000 £000 Community Safety 1,185 1,091 924 1,185 1,091 924

Housing Services £000 £000 £000 Housing Services 643 713 672 Private Housing Support 3,216 2,669 3,607 Homelessness 614 488 679 Housing Benefits 759 752 935 5,232 4,622 5,893

Highways & Transportation £000 £000 £000 Transportation Strategy 1,033 725 987 Public Transport 618 853 824 Highways Services 74 90 90 Car Parks 17 -97 -185 Environmental Improvements 639 667 386 2,380 2,239 2,103

Corporate Services £000 £000 £000 Local Taxation & Benefits 1,061 960 1,107 Corporate Management 2,334 2,001 2,238 Democratic Representation 1,145 1,086 1,141 Central Services 237 442 442 4,777 4,488 4,928

Other Expenditure £000 £000 £000 Contingency -693 -2 -686 Other Expenditure -10,790 -10,031 -9,309 Investment Interest -2,786 -2,936 -2,587 -14,268 -12,969 -12,582

Council Total 18,305 17,806 19,534

26 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Environmental Services £000 £000 £000 Refuse Collection Domestic Refuse 3,677 3,626 3,498 Refuse Policy 20 13 14 Trade Refuse -14 -1 10 3,683 3,638 3,521 Recycling Green Waste 80 52 82 Recycling Kerbside Collections 612 584 536 Recycling Policy 156 56 6 Recycling Sites 25 -29 -28 872 663 595 Drainage & Sewers Environmental Emergencies 0 0 0 Internal Drainage Boards 324 300 332 Nightsoil Collection 11 10 10 Watercourses 254 240 254 589 550 595 Public Conveniences Public Conveniences 278 295 306 278 295 306 Environmental Health Air Quality 84 104 103 Animal Welfare 131 121 141 Burials Under Health Acts 0 0 0 Caravans And Camping 5 5 6 Contaminated Land 151 170 179 Eh Health & Safety 199 202 215 Energy Efficiency 136 87 96 Environmental Health General 12 12 13 Food Safety 436 427 487 Health Promotion 93 45 41 Nuisances 274 293 311 Pest Control 97 105 106 Private Sector Housing 178 183 214 Travellers 17 17 18 1,816 1,772 1,930 Closed Churchyards Closed Churchyards 31 36 22 31 36 22 Street Cleaning & Litter Abandoned Vehicles 80 70 74 Chewing Gum Removal 17 17 17 Fly Poster/Graffiti Removal 65 63 66 Litter Control 92 83 89 Street Cleansing Operations 1,094 1,107 1,132 Street Cleansing Policy 11 12 13 Weed Control 31 21 23 1,390 1,373 1,413 8,659 8,326 8,384

Planning £000 £000 £000 Development Control Dc Advice 410 516 444 Dc Application Processing 460 573 509 Dc Enforcement 207 244 219 Dev Control Panel 75 51 54 1,152 1,384 1,227 Building Control Bc Best Value Review 0 0 0 Bc Promotion & Enforcement 220 233 244 B Regs Applications 35 13 38 Defence Estates 0 8 8 Sustainable Construction 1 0 0 255 254 291 Planning Policy & Conservation Biodiversity Action Plan 2 7 2 Cambs Historic Churches Trust 3 0 0 Conservation & Listed Build 286 252 205 Kimbolton Small Works 2 0 0 Local Plan 494 526 617 Planning Projects/Implement 168 268 228 St Neots Cap Scheme 0 0 0 Strategic & Regional Planning 86 61 57 Suppl Planning Guidance 13 30 23 Trees 155 175 178 1,210 1,317 1,310 Markets Farmers Markets 3 -5 3 Huntingdon Market -27 -26 -27 Markets Management 48 83 59 Ramsey Market -2 -1 -1 St Ives Bank Holiday Market -40 -40 -41 St Ives Market -52 -53 -62

27 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

St Neots Market 0 0 0 -69 -41 -68 Economic Development Business & Enterprise Support 193 229 253 Commercial Properties -122 -5 -165 Estates Management 45 42 46 Industrial Properties -143 -175 -353 Miscellaneous Properties -546 -196 -642 N N D R Discretionary Relief 34 39 40 Town Centre Management 840 354 271 300 287 -550 Tourism Tourism District Promotion 340 363 396 Tourism Information Centres 97 86 45 436 450 441 Planning Delivery Grant Planning Delivery Grant -311 -657 -211 Planning Grant Unallocated 474 0 219 163 -657 7 3,448 2,993 2,658

Community Services £000 £000 £000 Corporate Events Leisure Grants 196 155 194 Priory Centre 24 23 19 220 178 213 Countryside Barford Road Pocket Park 4 5 6 Coneygear Park 1 43 4 Countryside Management 163 158 160 Hinchingbrooke Country Park 231 250 249 Holt Island 2 2 2 Ouse Valley Way 2 2 2 Paxton Pits 107 112 105 Paxton Pits R&R Fund 2 2 2 Spring Common 27 27 29 540 602 559 Community Initiatives Com Initiatives - Housing 83 82 87 Com Initiatives - Leisure 75 75 80 Community Strategy 34 55 45 Equal Opportunities 31 45 44 Health For Huntingdonshire 33 37 34 Health For Hunt Yaxley 1 1 1 Hunts Learning Partnership 1 8 7 Local Agenda 21 28 32 103 Miscellaneous Grants 287 288 281 Oxmoor Action Plan 168 50 46 Social Inclusion Group 4 0 0 St Barnabus Ict Project -0 0 0 Yaxley Community Project 96 100 102 842 772 829 Parks Highways Amenities 43 31 46 Parks Contracts 876 -16 -31 Parks Management 639 1,482 1,484 Pavillions 45 52 54 Unallocated Land Survey 16 11 7 1,618 1,560 1,559 Leisure Policy Arts Development 195 177 209 Leisure Development 200 187 204 Policy And Strategic Mgt 10 13 14 405 377 427 Leisure Centres Huntingdon Leisure Centre 687 759 742 Leisure Centres Overall 38 38 39 Ramsey Leisure Centre 507 519 540 Sawtry Leisure Centre 470 517 505 St Ivo Leisure Centre 901 988 935 St Neots Leisure Centre 665 707 877 3,269 3,527 3,637 6,894 7,016 7,226

Community Safety £000 £000 £000 Community Safety C C T V 715 699 743 Community Safety 469 392 182 1,185 1,091 924 1,185 1,091 924

Housing Services £000 £000 £000 Housing Services Common Housing Register 12 9 20 Contributions To H R A 26 19 21

28 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Housing Advances 10 13 10 Housing Advice 111 163 146 Housing Developments 15 10 11 Housing Strategy 183 151 136 Mobile Home Park 28 127 39 Publicising Housing Services 6 6 6 Waiting List 252 216 282 643 713 672 Private Housing Support Home Improvement Agency 82 69 80 Housing Associations 2,058 1,486 2,225 Housing Surveys 32 49 25 Renovation/Improvement Grants 1,044 1,065 1,277 3,216 2,669 3,607 Homelessness Homelessness Management 383 232 404 Homeless Young Persons Advisor 3 1 1 Hostel Support 69 94 97 Invest To Save Schemes 10 0 10 Priority Needs Scheme 24 24 67 Rental Deposit Scheme 53 71 56 Supporting People Scheme 25 0 0 Temp Accommodation - B&B 47 66 43 614 488 679 Housing Benefits Housing Benefits Admin 533 445 579 Rent Allowance Local Scheme 23 21 22 Rent Allowance National Scheme 38 105 169 Temporary Accomodation Support 165 180 166 759 752 935 5,232 4,622 5,893

Highways & Transportation £000 £000 £000 Transportation Strategy Accessibility Improvements 29 28 25 Cycle Routes 44 41 23 Cycle Shelters 14 12 11 Environmental Management 24 39 25 Transportation Developments 727 460 729 Transportation Grants 85 86 88 Transportation Strategy 109 60 85 1,033 725 987 Public Transport Bus Shelters 44 47 50 Concessionary Fares 481 677 686 Huntingdon Bus Station 56 92 57 Rail Passes 5 5 5 St Ives Bus Station 32 32 26 618 853 824 Highways Services Highways Cyclic Mtce 1 0 0 Highways Management 73 90 90 74 90 90 Car Parks Car Park Management -230 -272 -355 Car Park Policy 247 175 170 17 -97 -185 Environmental Improvements Env Imps Feasibilty Studies 14 16 16 Env Imps Management 46 53 53 Environmental Imps Renewals 16 16 17 Gazebo R&R 1 1 1 Godmanchester Env Improvements 7 7 3 Huntingdon Env Improvements 200 200 87 Other Schemes 4 4 2 Ramsey Env Improvements 24 16 10 Small Scale Env Improvements 175 203 124 Somersham Env Improvements 4 4 2 St Ives Env Improvements 59 59 27 St Neots Caps Town 0 -0 -0 St Neots Env Improvements 88 88 45 639 667 386 2,380 2,239 2,103

Corporate Services £000 £000 £000 Local Taxation & Benefits Council Tax 943 833 926 Council Tax Benefits 134 122 158 N N D R Administration -16 5 24 1,061 960 1,107 Corporate Management Bank Charges 58 43 56 Customer First 331 255 241 External Audit 113 123 119 Information & Promotion 545 486 527

29 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Local Council Support 19 21 23 Pensions 228 230 245 Performance Management 211 97 203 Policy And Strategy 732 680 748 Public Accountability 62 46 48 System & Asset Management 45 29 36 Unallocated Central Overheads -8 -8 -8 2,334 2,001 2,238 Democratic Representation Civic & Ceremonial 14 14 14 Corporate Committees 275 270 288 Corporate Subscriptions 29 29 30 Member Allowances & Support 809 759 794 Twinning 19 14 15 1,145 1,086 1,141 Central Services Elections 342 361 373 Emergency Planning 94 105 106 Land Charges -310 -168 -188 Licences 111 145 151 237 442 442 4,777 4,488 4,928

Other Expenditure £000 £000 £000 Contingency Efficiency Savings Contingency -654 -6 -136 General Contingency 140 140 140 Other Contingencies -179 -136 -689 -693 -2 -686 Other Expenditure Capital Charges Reversed -10,266 -8,873 -8,268 Commutation Transfer -280 -160 -97 Pensions Liabilities Reversed -537 -1,126 -1,148 V A T Partial Exemption 293 128 204 -10,790 -10,031 -9,309 Investment Interest Interest Paid 82 164 84 Interest Received -2,868 -3,100 -2,671 -2,786 -2,936 -2,587 -14,268 -12,969 -12,582

30 ANNEX B

TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2007/08

This Treasury Management Strategy is intended to meet the requirements of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA’s) Code of Practice and the Government’s Guidance on Local Government Investments.

CASH FLOW

At any moment the Authority’s investments will consist of two distinct elements - cash flow and reserves.

Cash flow is the day-to-day impact of managing the flow of funds into and out of the Council and is dealt with in-house. For instance, the dates on which the County Council is paid its portion of the council tax will be different to the days the money is received from those living in the District. These cash flows will sometimes leave the Council with several million pounds to borrow or invest for a few days. It is often in the Council’s best interests to be a net-borrower for cash flow purposes as we would expect our Fund Managers to gain higher returns from their expertise and greater stability of the funds than the cost of the temporary borrowing. Generally the return of funds is only requested when there is an ongoing rather than intermittent need to borrow.

Reserves are more stable in that there will be a definite estimate of the amount that they will reduce or increase by during the course of the year but even this will fluctuate to some extent as a result of any variation in inflation, interest rates or general under or overspending.

GENERAL

Treasury Management actions will always, necessarily, be based on the market situation at the time which can fluctuate significantly from day to day. It is therefore inevitable that elements of this strategy are based on general intentions rather than on trying to guess, at this time, what will be good or bad interest rates in advance. The Council seeks advice from its professional advisors (Butlers) and its Fund Managers before making any major decisions. There is also a member advisory group, the Capital Receipts Advisory Group, that as well as meeting with the Fund Manager’s periodically is kept informed and/or consulted on Treasury Management matters.

THE COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL STRATEGY

The Council’s Financial Strategy is based on the following figures for reserves and borrowing:

2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ FORECAST 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M Remaining reserves 46.6 31.3 13.7 11.0 8.1 5.9 4.4 3.5 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 (End of year) Need to borrow In year 0 0 1.8 11.1 4.2 4.6 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.9 Cumulative 0 0 1.8 12.9 17.1 21.7 24.9 28.2 31.6 35.1 38.8 42.6 46.5

31 CURRENT POSITION

Most investment activity is carried out by the Council’s three Fund Managers who currently (January 2007) manage the following sums:

Investec £21.5m Alliance Bernstein (Alliance) £21.5m City Deposit Cash Managers (CDCM) £20.0m Total £63.0m

The sums with Fund Managers will exceed the Council’s revenue and capital reserves as a result of three factors: i Temporary borrowing in-house. i Temporary cash-flow surpluses. i Other reserves that are earmarked (e.g. S106 and R&R Funds).

The Council had no long-term borrowing at the date this report was prepared.

LONG-TERM BORROWING

As the Council’s reserves run out, as illustrated in the table above, there will be a need for long-term borrowing to finance the capital programme. The financial plan shows that this will not be until 2008/09 but effective treasury management involves borrowing when interest rates are judged to be at the best level, even if the funds have then to be invested until the money is required; borrowing in this way is allowed if it is for planned expenditure. The definition of planned expenditure is not precise and has therefore been discussed with our external auditor who is comfortable with the interpretation of it being included in our approved MTP. Hence, once Council has approved the MTP in February the figure will be £21.7M as highlighted above. Currently the equivalent figure is £10.8M.

The borrowing strategy includes the need to spread risk, so that the Council is never left with a high proportion of its debt becoming repayable at a single time or even in the same period of an interest rate cycle. When the Council borrows the repayment profile of the debt will need to be considered though this is not critical if the borrowing is from the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) which is a Government Agency to provide funds to government bodies at wholesale market rates. This is because they allow a borrower to reschedule their debt during the course of the loan based on a prescribed financially neutral formula. The combination of these keen rates and the option to reschedule means that local authority borrowing is normally from the PWLB rather than commercial bodies.

Interest rates are already being monitored on a daily basis so that if rates become attractive some early borrowing can take place. If rates become sufficiently attractive up to £21.7M will be borrowed from the market or, much more probably, the PWLB for an initial period, probably, in excess of 45 years

MANAGING THE REDUCTION IN RESERVES

The first part of this section is based on the assumption that no advance borrowing will take place in the next six months.

In recent years there have been only modest reductions in reserves due to their limited use for financing revenue, and capital expenditure being partially offset by capital receipts and deferred spending. However the proposed budget/MTP shows significant reductions in reserves over the coming five years as shown in the table below:

32 MTP RESERVES 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 £M £M £M £M £M £M Forecast position at end of 47 31 14 11 8 6 year

Investec and Alliance both utilise a broader and more volatile range of investments than CDCM. As our reserves fall we are less able to cope with such volatility so we will need to move our funds to managers such as CDCM or narrow our investment mandates to minimise volatility. As the level of investments reduces we also need to reduce the number of managers as there are clearly limits to the sizes of portfolios that are sensible or acceptable to fund managers.

The strategy has been to take funds equally from Investec and Alliance until the point is reached where there is insufficient to warrant two separate funds.

A change of policy at Alliance in recent months has led to this approach being reviewed as, whilst they are prepared to continue to manage our Fund as long as it exceeds £10M, they do intend to move out of the Local Authority market. Given their reduced interest in “our” market it would be appropriate to consider moving our funds away from them more quickly than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, after consultation with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group and the Council’s advisor, the £10M of funds required for return in February will all be taken from Alliance leaving their portfolio at £11.5m.

A further £5M is likely to be needed by about April and at that time it is proposed that we seek return of all the Funds from Alliance. In principle any funds not immediately needed by the Council would be added to CDCM’s portfolio but depending on the market situation at the time the flexibility to temporarily delay return of the funds or to temporarily transfer specific investments to Investec in order to optimise the Council’s position may be required.

Detailed consideration needs to be given to the Council’s mandates with Investec and CDCM over the coming months to begin to reduce volatility and long term commitments. This will take place in liaison with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group and the Council’s advisor. Whilst any change of this nature might reduce the Council’s overall medium term investment returns (volatility was only accepted in order to increase returns) there will be no increase in the risk of counterparties not repaying the Council’s investments.

Subsequently, as funds reduce further, the point will be reached where City Deposit Cash Managers, or an equivalent manager, looks after the whole fund based on a narrower more stable type of investments. This final reduction to one fund manager may not occur before 2008/09 but preparations may need to be made before the end of this calendar year in consultation with the CRAG.

If early borrowing takes place it is still proposed to move funds away from Alliance and close their fund during the year though the timing may be delayed if it is in the Council’s interests. It may also mean, depending on the scale, that the preparations for moving down to one manager are deferred but there will still be a need to review and modify existing mandates during the course of the year.

33 CATEGORIES OF INVESTMENT

The guidance on Local Authority Investments categorises investments as ‘specified’ and ‘non-specified’. This differentiation requires the types of non-specified investments that will be used to be defined in this Strategy

Specified investments are: i in sterling; i due to be repaid within 12 months; i not defined as capital expenditure in the capital finance regulations 2003; i with a body that has a high credit rating or it is made with the UK Government (gilts or CDs), or a local Authority.

Non-specified investments include all other types of investment and the types the Council proposes to use are described below: i corporate bonds which are issued by companies to cover their debt; i sovereign securities which are bonds issued by non-UK governments; i floating rate notes, securities where the interest changes in step with market conditions; i securities issued by supranational organisations such as the World Bank; i money market funds.

IN-HOUSE MANAGEMENT

The Fund Managers will be asked to return funds to the Authority as and when they are needed. There are significant changes in cash flow on a daily basis which result in the Authority moving from having funds to invest to a position of having to borrow. It will normally be financially advantageous to have some delay before funds are returned thus maximising the net return and minimising the need for in-house investment activity. It is expected that temporary borrowing will not normally exceed £20m at any one time.

The Council will need to approve a prudential indicator for the ‘authorised limit for external debt’; this combines temporary and long-term borrowing and a maximum of £41.7m is being recommended (£20m temporary plus £21.7m long term).

The fluctuating balance of the fund is managed internally to ensure that whilst sufficient sums are available on a daily basis to meet payments to creditors the investment return is maximised on those days where a surplus is held. Because of these constant fluctuations the majority of these sums are inevitably invested for short periods as time deposits with low risk counter-parties. Appendix A outlines the mandate for the internal funds and lists the approved counter-parties though it should be noted that these will change during the course of any year as credit ratings or size of building societies change.

Temporary borrowing will be restricted to that necessary for: i cash flow; i the cost effective staged return of our investments as they are needed to finance Council spending.

34 INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS USED BY FUND MANAGERS

In the shorter term, whilst the Authority still holds adequate reserves, it is not imperative that the investment returns are maximised in any one year thus allowing a medium term approach to fund management to be taken. Thus the current strategy is to accept fluctuations between years in return for greater returns. This in turn has an impact on the investment instruments permitted. No change to the investment instruments are therefore proposed immediately.

However, in order to ensure the Council will have the ability to recall funds as required in future years it is necessary to change the limits on CDCM’s investments immediately so that 50% are redeemable within one year. The result will only be achieved in stages as existing investments become due for repayment and reinvestment.

As referred to above, there will be a need to narrow the mandates shown at Annex B during the course of the year.

ADVISORS

The Council appointed Butlers as Treasury Management Advisors to assist in the choice of Fund Managers, develop the mandates and assist in monitoring the Managers’ performance. This has been beneficial given the large sums invested, the complexity of the wider range of instruments used and the ability to compare performance with that achieved by other Fund Managers. A tendering exercise was carried out in 2004/05 for the appointment of an Advisor, and Butlers was reappointed until December 2007. It is unlikely to be necessary to retain advisors once we have completed our moves to a single manager.

KEY POINTS

The Government Guidance recommends that certain aspects are highlighted. Most of these are covered within the mandates but they are listed below for convenience:

Definition of ‘high credit rating’ for specified investments

The Council’s mandates require all specified investments to have a short-term rating of a minimum of F1, as defined by the credit rating agency FITCH or an equivalent rating agency

The frequency that credit ratings are monitored

Butlers monitor the credit ratings of banks and building societies and notify your treasury management staff of any changes. Unless the Authority is notified of a variation it is assumed that the credit rating has not changed. Where a credit rating is downgraded that bank or building society will be removed from the counter-party list if its new rating is outside of the defined limits.

The procedure for determining the allowed categories of non-specified investments

Council approve the Strategy that sets out the allowed categories and relevant constraints. These are kept under review during the year by your officers, the Capital Receipts Advisory Group and Butlers (the Council’s professional advisor).

35 The categories of non-specified investments that can prudently be used during 2007/08

These are identified in the mandates at Appendix B.

The maximum amounts that can be held in each category, as a percentage of the total portfolio managed by each Fund Manager or as a sum of money

These are identified in the mandates at Appendices A and B.

Liquidity of investments

The time deposits managed by CDCM are the least liquid investments and their mandate specifies the maximum period for which funds may prudently be committed. The investments managed by Alliance Bernstein and Investec are all highly liquid. The procedure to ensure that there are sufficient funds to meet the cashflow needs of the Authority is for officers to maintain cash flow forecasts and to review the mandates of the Fund Managers with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group.

The minimum amount that will be held in 2007/08 in investments that are not long-term (over 1 year)

This requirement is stating the value of the investments that are short-term and therefore more liquid. Of the estimated temporary investments held as at 31 March 2008 of £33m, at least £19m will be for less than one year.

MANAGEMENT

The Director of Commerce and Technology and his staff, supported by the Council’s professional advisor, together with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group, will monitor the performance of the funds and raise any issues and concerns with the Fund Managers.

The Cabinet will receive quarterly reports on the performance of the funds and an annual report on the performance for the year.

GENERAL

The strategy is not intended to be a strait-jacket but a definition of the upper limit of the level of risk that it is prudent for the Council to take in maximising its borrowing and investment activities during 2007/08. Any changes that are broadly consistent with this Strategy and either reduce or only minimally increase the level of risk, are delegated to the Head of Financial Services, after consultation with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group in certain cases. Any other proposal to change this strategy will be referred back to the Council.

The Council’s Prudential Indicators are attached at Appendix C. They are based on data included in the budget report and this Treasury Management Strategy. They set various limits that allow officers to monitor its achievement. These indicators must be approved by the Council and can only be amended by the Council.

36 APPENDIX A

IN-HOUSE FUND MANAGEMENT

Duration of Fixed deposits up to and including 1 year investments Types of Fixed Deposits investments Deposits at call, two or seven day notice Money Market Funds Credit Ratings and See below Maximum limits The credit rating is the short-term rating issued by FITCH unless otherwise indicated Benchmark LGC 7 day rate

COUNTER-PARTY LIST LIMIT £2.5M SHORT TERM RATINGS BANKS (Rated F1 or better) Abbey National plc F1+ Alliance and Leicester F1+ Barclays F1+ Bradford and Bingley F1 Co-Operative F1 HBOS F1+ HSBC F1+ Kleinwort Benson P1* Lloyds TSB Group F1+ Northern Rock F1 Royal Bank of Scotland F1+

BUILDING SOCIETIES (Assets over £5 billion – Rated F1 or better) Britannia F1 Chelsea F1 Coventry F1 Leeds P1* Nationwide F1+ Portman F1 Skipton F1 West Bromwich F1 Yorkshire F1

ALL LOCAL AUTHORITIES, POLICE AND FIRE AUTHORITIES N/A

* Moody’s equivalent credit rating

37 LIMIT £1.5M SHORT TERM RATINGS BANK SUBSIDIARIES Wholly owned by F1 Rated banks RBS Trust Bank Ltd F1+ Ulster Bank Limited A1** Ulster Bank Ireland A1**

OTHER BANKS Allied Irish Bank F1+ Anglo-Irish F1 Bank of Ireland F1+ Bank of Scotland (Ireland) F1+ Bristol and West F1 Close Brothers F1 DePfa Bank F1+ Dexia Banque Internationale a Luxembourg A1+** HFC Bank F1 Irish Intercontinental Bank F1 KBC Bank NV F1+ Singer and Friedlander F1

OTHER INSTITUTIONS 3i Group Limited A1** Irish Life and Permanent plc F1

BUILDING SOCIETIES (Assets over £2 billion) Cheshire Dunfermline Newcastle Norwich and Peterborough Nottingham Principality Stroud and Swindon

LIMIT £1M SHORT TERM RATINGS BUILDING SOCIETIES (Assets over £1 billion) Scarborough

** Standard and Poor’s credit rating

38 APPENDIX B

EXTERNAL FUND MANAGER MANDATES

Alliance Bernstein and Investec Duration of Average duration of Fund must not exceed 3 years investments No individual investment shall exceed 10 years Types of Marketable securities issued or guaranteed by the UK Government (Gilts) investments Deposits made with or marketable certificates of deposit issued by approved banks (CDs) Sovereign and supranational securities, including floating rate notes (Bonds) Corporate, bank and building society securities, including floating rate notes, commercial paper, asset backed and perpetual securities (Corporate Bonds) Money Market Funds (MMFs) Credit Ratings Corporate Investments Standard & Poors AA- or Aa3 or above or equivalent A- or A3 or better, maximum term 3 years Non-Uk Governments and Supranationals AA- or Aa3 or above or equivalent for non-UK Governments AAA or Aaa for Supranationals Short-term Investments Standard & Poor’s A1/P1 or above or equivalent Money Market Funds AAA Maximum limits 50% Corporate bonds 20% Supranational and sovereign securities 50% Floating rate notes 75% Gilts 75% Corporate bonds plus Gilts 75% Corporate bonds + supranational and sovereign securities + floating rate notes + Gilts 50% Corporate bonds + supranational and sovereign securities + floating rate notes 20% with any one counterparty (except UK Government) for fixed deposits and CDs 10% per issuer for corporate bonds and FRNs 10% per issuer for securities guaranteed by non-UK EU Governments and supranational securities Benchmark 60% 3 month LIBID 40% 0-5 year gilt index.

CDCM Duration of 50% must be repayable within 12 months investments Up to and including 5 years maximum maturity No more than 25% may be invested for longer than 3 years Types of Fixed Deposits investments Deposits at call, two or seven day notice Credit Ratings F1+ by FITCH IBCA or equivalent Maximum limits £5m per institution and group for English and Scottish Clearing Banks and their subsidiaries, and Overseas Banks on list of authorised counterparties. Building Societies With assets more than £2,000m £5m With assets more than £1,000m £3m Other building societies in the top 25 £2m Benchmark 3 month LIBID

39 This page is intentionally left blank

40 APPENDIX C

CIPFA PRUDENTIAL CODE FOR CAPITAL FINANCE IN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS FOR 2007/08

Capital expenditure

1. Actual and Estimated Capital Expenditure

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Actual Forecast Estimate Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Gross 18,766 18,891 20,202 19,731 12,667 Net 15,868 14,686 15,278 19,148 12,193 Excludes investments treated as capital expenditure

2. The proportion of the budget financed from government grants and council tax that is spent on interest The negative figures reflect that the Authority is a net investor and so the interest earned is used to help fund the budget.

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Actual Forecast Estimate Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 -19% -17% -14% -9% -5%

3. The impact of schemes with capital expenditure on the level of council tax This calculation highlights the hypothetical impact on the level of Council Tax from new capital schemes that the Council has approved in the budget/MTP. It must ignore changes already approved, slippage, inflation and savings and so is based on relevant capital schemes in the MTP categories of Savings, New Unavoidable and New Urgent. The unusual pattern results from the fluctuating lost revenue as major maintenance is carried out on the Leisure Centres.

The actual planned change in Council Tax is different because of the impact of other variations and the use of revenue reserves.

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Estimate Estimate Estimate

Increase £4.98 -£3.08 £1.09 Cumulative £5.64 £2.56 £3.65

4. The capital financing requirement This represents the need for the Authority to borrow to finance capital expenditure. Whilst the Authority has capital reserves it will not have to borrow for capital purposes but may choose to do so:

31/3/06 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Actual Forecast Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 0 0 0 1,812 11,093 4,227 4,562

It totals £21.7m over the MTP period.

41 5. Net borrowing and the capital financing requirement Net external borrowing must not be used to finance revenue spending except in the short term. In the short term there are legitimate uses of borrowing to cover cash flow e.g. funding salaries pending receipt of council tax income or return of investments.

The forecast shows that capital reserves are expected to run out in 2008/09 and the Authority will then need to fund most of its capital expenditure from long-term borrowing. However it is permitted to borrow a certain amount in advance of the need to fund capital expenditure (see paragraph 7 below).

External debt

6. The actual external borrowing at 31 March 2006 There was £14.5m of short-term borrowing for cash-flow purposes.

7. The authorised limit for external debt This is the maximum limit for borrowing and is based on a worst-case scenario. It reflects the proposed revision to the Treasury Management Strategy which allows the Authority to borrow up to £10.8m in 2006/7 and up to an aggregate of £21.7m in 2007/8 to finance capital expenditure shown as to be financed from borrowing in the Medium Term Plan period if it appears that long term rates are attractive. The remainder of the limit relates to temporary debt for Cash Flow Purposes.

2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 Short term 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Long 15,000 21,700 24,900 28,200 Term Total 35,000 41,700 44,900 48,200

8. The operational boundary for external debt This reflects a less extreme position. Although the figure can be exceeded without further approval it represents an early warning monitoring device to ensure that the authorised limit (above) is not exceeded. It allows the management of the Council’s day to day cashflow and, in accordance with the Treasury Management Strategy, temporary borrowing to delay the return of funds from the Fund Managers if this is in the Council’s interests. The short term and long term elements of the operational boundary will be monitored separately

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 Short term 15,000 15,000 15,000 Long term 21,700 24,900 28,200 Total 36,700 39,900 43,200

42 Treasury management

9. Adoption of the CIPFA Code The Prudential Code requires the Authority to have adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in the Public Services. This has been adopted.

10. Exposure to investments with fixed interest and variable interest as a percentage of total investments. The parameters currently set for our Fund Managers could theoretically result in a significant amount of the funds being at variable rates as gilts and corporate bonds are deemed to be variable rate investments for the purpose of this indicator. In practice the exposure to variable rates is likely to be less.

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 Upper limit on fixed rate 100% 100% 100% exposure Upper limit on variable rate 60% 50% 50% exposure

11. Borrowing Repayment Profile The proportion of 2007/8 borrowing that will mature in successive periods The table refers to temporary borrowing for cash flow purposes; 100% will mature in less than 12 months. If long-term borrowing takes place it will all be for maturities in excess of ten years.

Upper limit Lower limit Under 12 months 100% 100% 12 months and within 24 months 0% 0% 24 months and within 5 years 0% 0% 5 years and within 10 years 0% 0% 10 years and above 0% 0%

12. Investment Repayment Profile Limit on the value of investments that cannot be redeemed within 364 days The limits set below will relate to the time deposits held by CDCM which are the only investments that are not immediately repayable. These limits are based on estimates of when the Council needs to recall funds to meet its Financial Strategy.

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 Investments over 14,000 13,250 7,800 364 days

43 This page is intentionally left blank

44 ANNEX C

Formal 2007/08 Council Tax Resolutions

(a) That the following amounts be calculated by the Council for 2007/08 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992 (the Act):- £

(i) the aggregate of the amounts which the 66,700,085 Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2) (a) to (e) of the Act Gross revenue expenditure including benefits and Parish Precepts

(ii) the aggregate of the amounts which the 45,176,156 Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32 (3) (a) to (c) of the Act Gross revenue income including reimbursement of benefits and use of reserves

(iii) the amount by which the aggregate at (b) (i) 21,523,929 above exceeds the aggregate at (b) (ii) above in accordance with Section 32 (4) of the Act Budget requirement (item I minus item ii)

(iv) the aggregate of the amounts payable into 11,649,631 the General Fund for the items set out in Section 33 (1) of the Act. Government support

(v) the aggregate of the amounts payable from 6,718 the General Fund for the items set out in Section 33 (3) of the Act Collection Fund surplus

(vi) the basic amount of Council Tax for 2007/08 171.81 in accordance with Section 33 (1) per band D District plus average Town/Parish property Council Tax

(vii) the aggregate of special items referred to in 3,554,747 Section 34 (1) Total Town and Parish Council precepts

(viii) the basic amount of Council Tax for 2007/08 109.91 for those parts of the District to which no special item relates

45 District Council Tax per band D property (ix) the basic amounts of Council Tax for 2007/08 for those parts of the District to which one or more special items relate in accordance with Section 34 (3) of the Act are shown by adding the Huntingdonshire District Council amount to the appropriate Parish Council amount in column "band D" set out in table 1 hereto

(x) the amounts to be taken into account for 2007/08 in respect of categories of dwellings listed in the different valuation bands in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Act are shown by adding the Huntingdonshire District Council amount to the appropriate Parish Council amount for each of the valuation bands in the columns "bands A to H" set out in table 1 hereto

(b) That the amounts of precept issued to the Council by Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridgeshire Police Authority and Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority for each of the categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands in accordance with Section 40 of the Act shown in table 1 hereto be noted.

(c) That, having regard to the calculations above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for 2007/08 for each of the categories of dwelling shown in table 2 hereto.

46 TABLE 1 BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND ABCDEFGH ££££££££

Cambridgeshire County Council 621.66 725.27 828.88 932.49 1139.71 1346.93 1554.15 1864.98

Cambridgeshire Police Authority 99.60 116.20 132.80 149.40 182.60 215.80 249.00 298.80

Huntingdonshire District Council 73.27 85.49 97.70 109.91 134.33 158.76 183.18 219.82

Cambridgeshire Fire Authority 34.92 40.74 46.56 52.38 64.02 75.66 87.30 104.76

PARISH COUNCILS :-

Abbotsley 39.15 45.68 52.20 58.73 71.78 84.83 97.88 117.46 Abbots Ripton 27.36 31.92 36.48 41.04 50.16 59.28 68.40 82.08 Alconbury 28.93 33.76 38.58 43.40 53.04 62.69 72.33 86.80 Alconbury Weston 19.11 22.30 25.48 28.67 35.04 41.41 47.78 57.34 Alwalton 13.02 15.19 17.36 19.53 23.87 28.21 32.55 39.06 Barham and Woolley 12.82 14.96 17.09 19.23 23.50 27.78 32.05 38.46 Bluntisham 81.55 95.14 108.73 122.32 149.50 176.68 203.87 244.64 Brampton 50.86 59.34 67.81 76.29 93.24 110.20 127.15 152.58 Brington and Molesworth 15.17 17.70 20.23 22.76 27.82 32.88 37.93 45.52 Broughton 21.71 25.32 28.94 32.56 39.80 47.03 54.27 65.12 Buckden 35.13 40.98 46.84 52.69 64.40 76.11 87.82 105.38 Buckworth 52.53 61.29 70.04 78.80 96.31 113.82 131.33 157.60 Bury 16.58 19.34 22.11 24.87 30.40 35.92 41.45 49.74 Bythorn and Keyston 5.44 6.35 7.25 8.16 9.97 11.79 13.60 16.32 Catworth 42.16 49.19 56.21 63.24 77.29 91.35 105.40 126.48 Chesterton 11.30 13.18 15.07 16.95 20.72 24.48 28.25 33.90 Colne 28.72 33.51 38.29 43.08 52.65 62.23 71.80 86.16 Conington 10.96 12.79 14.61 16.44 20.09 23.75 27.40 32.88 Covington 18.70 21.82 24.93 28.05 34.28 40.52 46.75 56.10 Denton and Caldecote 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Diddington 13.33 15.56 17.78 20.00 24.44 28.89 33.33 40.00 Earith 32.47 37.88 43.29 48.70 59.52 70.34 81.17 97.40 Easton 24.89 29.03 33.18 37.33 45.63 53.92 62.22 74.66 Ellington 27.07 31.58 36.09 40.60 49.62 58.64 67.67 81.20 Elton 18.39 21.46 24.52 27.59 33.72 39.85 45.98 55.18 Eynesbury Hardwicke 8.67 10.11 11.56 13.00 15.89 18.78 21.67 26.00 Farcet 31.58 36.84 42.11 47.37 57.90 68.42 78.95 94.74 Fenstanton 26.96 31.45 35.95 40.44 49.43 58.41 67.40 80.88 Folksworth and Washingley 34.53 40.29 46.04 51.80 63.31 74.82 86.33 103.60 Glatton 9.95 11.61 13.27 14.93 18.25 21.57 24.88 29.86 Godmanchester 32.48 37.89 43.31 48.72 59.55 70.37 81.20 97.44 Grafham 26.61 31.05 35.48 39.92 48.79 57.66 66.53 79.84 Great and Little Gidding 45.69 53.31 60.92 68.54 83.77 99.00 114.23 137.08 Great Gransden 21.83 25.47 29.11 32.75 40.03 47.31 54.58 65.50 Great Paxton 23.87 27.85 31.83 35.81 43.77 51.73 59.68 71.62 Great Staughton 23.58 27.51 31.44 35.37 43.23 51.09 58.95 70.74 Haddon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hail Weston 39.58 46.18 52.77 59.37 72.56 85.76 98.95 118.74 Hamerton 7.93 9.26 10.58 11.90 14.54 17.19 19.83 23.80

47 TABLE 1 Cont. BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND ABCDEFGH ££££££££

Hemingford Abbots 30.30 35.35 40.40 45.45 55.55 65.65 75.75 90.90 Hemingford Grey 23.13 26.98 30.84 34.69 42.40 50.11 57.82 69.38 Hilton 27.91 32.56 37.21 41.86 51.16 60.46 69.77 83.72 Holme 24.89 29.04 33.19 37.34 45.64 53.94 62.23 74.68 Holywell-cum-Needingworth 57.73 67.36 76.98 86.60 105.84 125.09 144.33 173.20 Houghton and Wyton 29.89 34.87 39.85 44.83 54.79 64.75 74.72 89.66 Huntingdon 56.62 66.06 75.49 84.93 103.80 122.68 141.55 169.86 Kimbolton 51.28 59.83 68.37 76.92 94.01 111.11 128.20 153.84 Kings Ripton 36.53 42.61 48.70 54.79 66.97 79.14 91.32 109.58 Leighton Bromswold 27.50 32.08 36.67 41.25 50.42 59.58 68.75 82.50 Little Paxton 33.64 39.25 44.85 50.46 61.67 72.89 84.10 100.92 Morborne 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offord Cluny 28.59 33.36 38.12 42.89 52.42 61.95 71.48 85.78 Offord D'Arcy 27.56 32.15 36.75 41.34 50.53 59.71 68.90 82.68 Oldhurst 9.03 10.53 12.04 13.54 16.55 19.56 22.57 27.08 Old Weston 7.41 8.64 9.88 11.11 13.58 16.05 18.52 22.22 Perry 23.81 27.77 31.74 35.71 43.65 51.58 59.52 71.42 Pidley-cum-Fenton 4.27 4.99 5.70 6.41 7.83 9.26 10.68 12.82 Ramsey 27.69 32.31 36.92 41.54 50.77 60.00 69.23 83.08 St.Ives 55.53 64.78 74.04 83.29 101.80 120.31 138.82 166.58 St.Neots 50.99 59.49 67.99 76.49 93.49 110.49 127.48 152.98 St.Neots Rural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sawtry 62.48 72.89 83.31 93.72 114.55 135.37 156.20 187.44 Sibson-cum-Stibbington 36.67 42.78 48.89 55.00 67.22 79.44 91.67 110.00 Somersham 39.39 45.96 52.52 59.09 72.22 85.35 98.48 118.18 Southoe and Midloe 40.34 47.06 53.79 60.51 73.96 87.40 100.85 121.02 Spaldwick 25.53 29.78 34.04 38.29 46.80 55.31 63.82 76.58 Steeple Gidding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Stilton 43.29 50.51 57.72 64.94 79.37 93.80 108.23 129.88 Stow Longa 33.33 38.89 44.44 50.00 61.11 72.22 83.33 100.00 Tetworth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 The Stukeleys 15.51 18.09 20.68 23.26 28.43 33.60 38.77 46.52 Tilbrook 15.57 18.17 20.76 23.36 28.55 33.74 38.93 46.72 Toseland 7.89 9.21 10.52 11.84 14.47 17.10 19.73 23.68 Upton and Coppingford 19.16 22.35 25.55 28.74 35.13 41.51 47.90 57.48 Upwood and the Raveleys 16.63 19.40 22.17 24.94 30.48 36.02 41.57 49.88 Warboys 25.19 29.38 33.58 37.78 46.18 54.57 62.97 75.56 Waresley 15.63 18.23 20.84 23.44 28.65 33.86 39.07 46.88 Water Newton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Winwick 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wistow 19.09 22.28 25.46 28.64 35.00 41.37 47.73 57.28 Woodhurst 15.25 17.80 20.34 22.88 27.96 33.05 38.13 45.76 Woodwalton 18.61 21.71 24.81 27.91 34.11 40.31 46.52 55.82 Yaxley 44.28 51.66 59.04 66.42 81.18 95.94 110.70 132.84 Yelling 5.71 6.67 7.62 8.57 10.47 12.38 14.28 17.14

2114.46 2466.92 2819.29 3171.72 3876.52 4581.36 5286.18 6343.44

48 TOTAL CHARGES TABLE 2 BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND A BC D E F G H £££ £ £ £ £ £ Abbotsley 868.60 1013.38 1158.14 1302.91 1592.44 1881.98 2171.51 2605.82 Abbots Ripton 856.81 999.62 1142.42 1285.22 1570.82 1856.43 2142.03 2570.44 Alconbury 858.38 1001.46 1144.52 1287.58 1573.70 1859.84 2145.96 2575.16 Alconbury Weston 848.56 990.00 1131.42 1272.85 1555.70 1838.56 2121.41 2545.70 Alwalton 842.47 982.89 1123.30 1263.71 1544.53 1825.36 2106.18 2527.42 Barham and Woolley 842.27 982.66 1123.03 1263.41 1544.16 1824.93 2105.68 2526.82 Bluntisham 911.00 1062.84 1214.67 1366.50 1670.16 1973.83 2277.50 2733.00 Brampton 880.31 1027.04 1173.75 1320.47 1613.90 1907.35 2200.78 2640.94 Brington and Molesworth 844.62 985.40 1126.17 1266.94 1548.48 1830.03 2111.56 2533.88 Broughton 851.16 993.02 1134.88 1276.74 1560.46 1844.18 2127.90 2553.48 Buckden 864.58 1008.68 1152.78 1296.87 1585.06 1873.26 2161.45 2593.74 Buckworth 881.98 1028.99 1175.98 1322.98 1616.97 1910.97 2204.96 2645.96 Bury 846.03 987.04 1128.05 1269.05 1551.06 1833.07 2115.08 2538.10 Bythorn and Keyston 834.89 974.05 1113.19 1252.34 1530.63 1808.94 2087.23 2504.68 Catworth 871.61 1016.89 1162.15 1307.42 1597.95 1888.50 2179.03 2614.84 Chesterton 840.75 980.88 1121.01 1261.13 1541.38 1821.63 2101.88 2522.26 Colne 858.17 1001.21 1144.23 1287.26 1573.31 1859.38 2145.43 2574.52 Conington 840.41 980.49 1120.55 1260.62 1540.75 1820.90 2101.03 2521.24 Covington 848.15 989.52 1130.87 1272.23 1554.94 1837.67 2120.38 2544.46 Denton and Caldecote 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 Diddington 842.78 983.26 1123.72 1264.18 1545.10 1826.04 2106.96 2528.36 Earith 861.92 1005.58 1149.23 1292.88 1580.18 1867.49 2154.80 2585.76 Easton 854.34 996.73 1139.12 1281.51 1566.29 1851.07 2135.85 2563.02 Ellington 856.52 999.28 1142.03 1284.78 1570.28 1855.79 2141.30 2569.56 Elton 847.84 989.16 1130.46 1271.77 1554.38 1837.00 2119.61 2543.54 Eynesbury Hardwicke 838.12 977.81 1117.50 1257.18 1536.55 1815.93 2095.30 2514.36 Farcet 861.03 1004.54 1148.05 1291.55 1578.56 1865.57 2152.58 2583.10 Fenstanton 856.41 999.15 1141.89 1284.62 1570.09 1855.56 2141.03 2569.24 Folksworth and Washingley 863.98 1007.99 1151.98 1295.98 1583.97 1871.97 2159.96 2591.96 Glatton 839.40 979.31 1119.21 1259.11 1538.91 1818.72 2098.51 2518.22 Godmanchester 861.93 1005.59 1149.25 1292.90 1580.21 1867.52 2154.83 2585.80 Grafham 856.06 998.75 1141.42 1284.10 1569.45 1854.81 2140.16 2568.20 Great and Little Gidding 875.14 1021.01 1166.86 1312.72 1604.43 1896.15 2187.86 2625.44 Great Gransden 851.28 993.17 1135.05 1276.93 1560.69 1844.46 2128.21 2553.86 Great Paxton 853.32 995.55 1137.77 1279.99 1564.43 1848.88 2133.31 2559.98 Great Staughton 853.03 995.21 1137.38 1279.55 1563.89 1848.24 2132.58 2559.10 Haddon 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 Hail Weston 869.03 1013.88 1158.71 1303.55 1593.22 1882.91 2172.58 2607.10 Hamerton 837.38 976.96 1116.52 1256.08 1535.20 1814.34 2093.46 2512.16 Hemingford Abbots 859.75 1003.05 1146.34 1289.63 1576.21 1862.80 2149.38 2579.26 Hemingford Grey 852.58 994.68 1136.78 1278.87 1563.06 1847.26 2131.45 2557.74 Hilton 857.36 1000.26 1143.15 1286.04 1571.82 1857.61 2143.40 2572.08

49 TOTAL CHARGES TABLE 2 Cont. BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND A BC D E F G H £££ £ £ £ £ £ Holme 854.34 996.74 1139.13 1281.52 1566.30 1851.09 2135.86 2563.04 Holywell-cum-Needingworth 887.18 1035.06 1182.92 1330.78 1626.50 1922.24 2217.96 2661.56 Houghton and Wyton 859.34 1002.57 1145.79 1289.01 1575.45 1861.90 2148.35 2578.02 Huntingdon 886.07 1033.76 1181.43 1329.11 1624.46 1919.83 2215.18 2658.22 Kimbolton 880.73 1027.53 1174.31 1321.10 1614.67 1908.26 2201.83 2642.20 Kings Ripton 865.98 1010.31 1154.64 1298.97 1587.63 1876.29 2164.95 2597.94 Leighton Bromswold 856.95 999.78 1142.61 1285.43 1571.08 1856.73 2142.38 2570.86 Little Paxton 863.09 1006.95 1150.79 1294.64 1582.33 1870.04 2157.73 2589.28 Morborne 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 Offord Cluny 858.04 1001.06 1144.06 1287.07 1573.08 1859.10 2145.11 2574.14 Offord D'Arcy 857.01 999.85 1142.69 1285.52 1571.19 1856.86 2142.53 2571.04 Oldhurst 838.48 978.23 1117.98 1257.72 1537.21 1816.71 2096.20 2515.44 Old Weston 836.86 976.34 1115.82 1255.29 1534.24 1813.20 2092.15 2510.58 Perry 853.26 995.47 1137.68 1279.89 1564.31 1848.73 2133.15 2559.78 Pidley-cum-Fenton 833.72 972.69 1111.64 1250.59 1528.49 1806.41 2084.31 2501.18 Ramsey 857.14 1000.01 1142.86 1285.72 1571.43 1857.15 2142.86 2571.44 St.Ives 884.98 1032.48 1179.98 1327.47 1622.46 1917.46 2212.45 2654.94 St.Neots 880.44 1027.19 1173.93 1320.67 1614.15 1907.64 2201.11 2641.34 St.Neots Rural 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 Sawtry 891.93 1040.59 1189.25 1337.90 1635.21 1932.52 2229.83 2675.80 Sibson-cum-Stibbington 866.12 1010.48 1154.83 1299.18 1587.88 1876.59 2165.30 2598.36 Somersham 868.84 1013.66 1158.46 1303.27 1592.88 1882.50 2172.11 2606.54 Southoe and Midloe 869.79 1014.76 1159.73 1304.69 1594.62 1884.55 2174.48 2609.38 Spaldwick 854.98 997.48 1139.98 1282.47 1567.46 1852.46 2137.45 2564.94 Steeple Gidding 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 Stilton 872.74 1018.21 1163.66 1309.12 1600.03 1890.95 2181.86 2618.24 Stow Longa 862.78 1006.59 1150.38 1294.18 1581.77 1869.37 2156.96 2588.36 Tetworth 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 The Stukeleys 844.96 985.79 1126.62 1267.44 1549.09 1830.75 2112.40 2534.88 Tilbrook 845.02 985.87 1126.70 1267.54 1549.21 1830.89 2112.56 2535.08 Toseland 837.34 976.91 1116.46 1256.02 1535.13 1814.25 2093.36 2512.04 Upton and Coppingford 848.61 990.05 1131.49 1272.92 1555.79 1838.66 2121.53 2545.84 Upwood and the Raveleys 846.08 987.10 1128.11 1269.12 1551.14 1833.17 2115.20 2538.24 Warboys 854.64 997.08 1139.52 1281.96 1566.84 1851.72 2136.60 2563.92 Waresley 845.08 985.93 1126.78 1267.62 1549.31 1831.01 2112.70 2535.24 Water Newton 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 Winwick 829.45 967.70 1105.94 1244.18 1520.66 1797.15 2073.63 2488.36 Wistow 848.54 989.98 1131.40 1272.82 1555.66 1838.52 2121.36 2545.64 Woodhurst 844.70 985.50 1126.28 1267.06 1548.62 1830.20 2111.76 2534.12 Woodwalton 848.06 989.41 1130.75 1272.09 1554.77 1837.46 2120.15 2544.18 Yaxley 873.73 1019.36 1164.98 1310.60 1601.84 1893.09 2184.33 2621.20 Yelling 835.16 974.37 1113.56 1252.75 1531.13 1809.53 2087.91 2505.50

71788.26 83753.72 95718.25 107682.84 131611.96 155541.96 179471.10 215365.68

50 Agenda Item 6

A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Further Public Consultation

Report by Head of Planning Services

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider and respond to the latest Public Consultation by the Highways Agency regarding the proposed improvement of the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The proposed improvement of the A14 has been the subject of a number of previous studies and consultations, the fundamental study being the 2001 Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS). In its final report of August 2001, CHUMMS recommended a strategy of trunk road and local highway improvements combined with the provision of additional high quality public transport.

2.2 The CHUMMS proposals were considered by Full Council on 26th September 2001. The resolutions agreed at that meeting are attached at Appendix A. Key issues of that resolution were that action needed to be taken as a matter of urgency to address the problems of the A14, that a comprehensive package of improvement measures should be prepared and that Government should commit sufficient funding to implement the overall comprehensive package.

2.3 In 2005, the Highways Agency subsequently published a set of proposals to improve the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton. This took the form of public consultation on two strategies for the new road, namely the CHUMMS strategy and an Alternative Proposal.

2.4 The principle proposal within the CHUMMS strategy was for the provision of a new road south of Huntingdon and Godmanchester. This would be three lanes in each direction, the existing A14 would become a local road allowing direct access to Huntingdon Station with less traffic using the Godmanchester town bridge, the removal of the A14 viaduct over the East Coast Main Line (ECML) and the connection of that route into the local road network. The proposals also included plans to widen the A1 to three lanes in each direction between the new Brampton Interchange and Brampton Hut and to consider future widening of the A1 to three lanes between Brampton Hut and Alconbury.

2.5 The Alternative Proposal was for a proposed new road south of Huntingdon & Godmanchester, two lanes in each direction, between Ellington and Fen Drayton which would only take east-west traffic.

51 North-south traffic would continue to use the current A14 through Huntingdon and Godmanchester and the existing Viaduct over the ECML at the railway station would be rebuilt. It was also concluded that there would be no requirement to widen the A1 as it would carry very little additional A14 traffic.

2.6 These proposals were considered by Full Council on 29th June 2005, and a number of resolutions were agreed and a copy of these were contained in the formal response of the District Council to the Highways Agency dated 4th July 2005. This is attached at Appendix B.

2.7 As will be noted, this response was extensive but the principle issues included -

♦ the need for measures to ameliorate noise and mitigate visual intrusion on all the communities affected by the routing of the proposed A14 upgrade including effort to reduce the excessive height of the viaduct over the River Great Ouse; ♦ the implications of the choice of preferred route would have profound and significant economic effects for both Huntingdon and the whole area; ♦ that any choice should not be solely based on highway network implications or environmental effects and that it was important that economic considerations also be taken into account; ♦ measures to mitigate the effects of the A1 at Brampton and Bucken including A1 realignment and a fully integrated interchange between the A1, Brampton Hut and the new A14 ♦ support for the non-provision of a junction between a new A14 and the A1198 at Godmanchester; ♦ while the Alternative Option was alleged to be a cheaper cost- option, that the real issue was which option would deliver the best long-term highway solution, the most beneficial economic effects and future capability for development to be accommodated; ♦ that the Alternative Option if implemented, would result in Brampton being surrounded on three sides by major trunk roads and that Huntingdon and Godmanchester would continue to suffer major noise and visual intrusion as well as pollution; ♦ that the line of the new A14 is further south than inferred by the CHUMMS line meaning that the communities of Buckden and The Offords could experience more visual intrusion and noise than was originally expected; and ♦ the CHUMMS option requires the A14 to be de-trunked and the A14 viaduct taken down to an at-grade junction at the railway station. While this concept was supported in principle, it was outlined that at that time there was insufficient information to enable a firm conclusion to be made and it was considered essential that detailed modelling work be undertaken to determine if such an arrangement were feasible

2.8 Following the 2005 consultation, the process was then subject to a legal challenge to the Highways Agency. It is understood that

52 following agreement between the parties involved, that this current further consultation would be undertaken. However, the Highways Agency have clearly stated that any decision on a Preferred Route will be based on both this latest consultation and comments made as part of the 2005 consultation.

2.9 In addition, following the 2005 consultation and the comments of the District Council relating to the uncertainty relating to the A14 viaduct as outlined above, a specific Technical Study was commissioned to investigate the implications of its retention or removal. This was jointly funded by the District and County Council’s, the Highways Agency, the Eastern Region Government Office, EEDA (East of England Development Agency) and Cambridgeshire Horizons.

2.10 The outcomes of this Study were reported to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny (Service Support) in June 2006 advising that the Study had concluded that the original CHUMMS option for the removal of the viaduct would be viable. This reported that the highway network could be modified to accommodate a new access into Huntingdon from the revised road layout arising from the downgrading of the old A14.

2.11 Discussion took place as part of both reports into future public consultation and it was noted at that stage that this was a technical study and, if accepted, as part of any future A14 proposals, that any emerging proposals would be subject to future public consultation as part of the wider A14 proposals.

2.13 Cabinet resolved to note the Study and commend it to the Secretary of State for consideration as part of the decisions of the (future) options for the development of A14 improvements. It was also resolved that the principles of the CHUMMS Options Strategy, presented as part of the Highways Agency 2005 consultation, be supported and that the Secretary of State be urged to develop further details of new highway links in Huntingdon as part of the A14 scheme. This would include the promotion of the necessary statutory orders for such links along with those required for the wider A14 scheme and associated local access roads.

2.14 Finally, as part of the options emerging from the original CHUMMS study, Members are reminded that a public transport option was a key recommendation of that report for the A14 corridor. This has been taken forward as a Guided Busway, which has now received Transport & Works Act consent. Funding has been made available by Government and work has now commenced on-site and it is expected that the route will be open early in 2009. The busway will be supported by the provision of on-street bus priority measures between Huntingdon and St. Ives.

3. THE CURRENT CONSULTATION

3.1 Following the resolution of the legal challenge to the 2005 public consultation, the Highway Agency has now launched a ‘Further Public Consultation’ on possible routes for a new road between Ellington

53 and Fen Drayton. The consultation period runs from 1st December 2006 to 9th March 2007.

3.2 The current consultation now outlines three alternative routes for consideration, Orange, Brown and Blue plus 3 variations to the Blue option. The key issues of each route are described in Appendix C. For the purposes of this consultation, the Highways Agency have advised that comments made during the 2005 consultation will also be taken into account in reaching a decision. They also advise that for the purposes of this consultation, a 3-lane dual carriageway has been assumed, which would include the removal of the Huntingdon viaduct, although a decision on whether or not the road should be a 2 or 3 lane dual carriageway will be made after the consultation is complete. The section of carriageway between Ellington and the A1 would be 2-lane dual carriageway under any scenario to be considered.

3.3 The Highways Agency also advise that their proposals for improving the A14 to the east of Fen Drayton have not changed from that shown as part of the 2005 consultation and therefore they are not part of this further consultation.

3.4 In developing the current consultation, the Highways Agency outline that as part of the CHUMMS study, some 24 combinations were investigated, with 18 being rejected for a variety of reasons. Within the 6 options remaining, a number of different combinations and junction arrangements were subject to ‘Stage 2 Environmental and Scheme Assessment Reports’ with more being rejected on safety, environmental or engineering grounds.

3.5 As part of the 2005 consultation, only one option for the route of the new road was shown (essentially what is the Orange route in respect of this consultation), together with an indication of a number of the rejected options. The current consultation now includes these previously rejected options as well as an additional alternative possible route through the Buckden landfill site (part of the Brown route).

3.6 Copies of the consultation leaflet will be available at the meetings and this is also a background paper to this report. This describes the line of the routes in some detail and key characteristics are also contained in Appendix C.

3.7 Costs for building the whole route between Ellington and Fen Ditton are estimated to be as follows;

Blue Blue Blue Orange Brown Blue Variation Variation Variation 1 2 1 & 2 Total £639m £714m £640m £649m £617m £620m (£ million inc. VAT)

54 4. KEY AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION

4.1 This consultation is supported by various pieces of technical work relating to scheme assessment, traffic and economic reports and route options and technical appraisal reports. These are all available as Background Papers to this report.

4.2 Key issues arising from that work are also outlined in Appendix C. These will enable Members to gain a wider appreciation of the factors which may influence the Highways Agency. It must be stressed that these are lengthy, detailed reports and cannot be repeated verbatim.

4.3 Forecasting Approach. This outlines the methodology when looking at a ‘Do Minimum’ and a ‘Do Something’ scenario. A 2014 opening year is now being considered with a design year of 2029 for forecast traffic flows. 15 years post-opening is a national design standard.

4.3.1 Forecasting analysis has taken into account economic evaluation, environmental assessment, scheme design, based on required carriageway standards to 2029, as well as landscape and drainage assessments.

4.4 Scheme Proposals. This highlights some of the key issues arising from the routes now being presented and changes that have been made since the 2005 consultation, including those introduced as a result of the additional scheme options.

4.5 Engineering Assessment. This outlines some of the key engineering aspects identified with the options now being presented, including departures from standard where required. This includes the new Brown option for crossing straight over the Buckden landfill site where significant issues to accommodate a route would need to be addressed.

4.6 Environmental Assessment. All route options are anticipated to lead in varying degrees to a reduction in the number of people annoyed by road traffic when compared to the ‘do minimum’ scenario. However the report also notes that the options proposed will also introduce noise to areas that are presently relatively tranquil. The Council would seek to ensure that any option selected results in the least significant potential harm to the immediate environment

4.7 Appendix D is a report of the District Council’s Environmental Health team on the Air Quality, Noise and Land Contamination issues associated with the proposed routes. Key issues on air quality at Brampton and Fenstanton are outlined and that all routes would be likely to lead to the revocation of the current Air Quality Management Area in Huntingdon.

4.8 In terms of Noise, it is reported that there is little to differentiate between the Orange or Brown routes but that the Blue route would affect more residential properties. In terms of potential Land Contamination, the report states that the significant issue for the

55 consultation is associated with the Brown route where it would cut across the Buckden landfill site.

4.9 Appendix C also includes background information relating to Landscape, Townscape and Visual Effects as well as Ecology & Nature Conservation, Cultural Heritage, Water Quality & Drainage and Rights of Way. In considering these issues the Council would consider it vital to mitigate any impact within any eventual design.

4.10 Economic Assessment. Detailed work has been undertaken for all the route variations based on construction and operating costs as well as benefit/cost ratio assessment over a 60-year appraisal period. The benefit/cost ratio assessment includes consumer and business benefits, private sector provider impacts and accident benefits compared to local and central government funding.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 As was stated in our response to the 2005 consultation, any new road proposals will obviously result in potential benefits for some communities and potential costs for others. Many of the comments provided at that time still apply and will still be considered by the Highways Agency.

5.2 On that basis, it is important that the Council consider what it resolved in respect of its 2005 response and to consider the further options within this current consultation and to consider which proposal would be in the best interests of Huntingdonshire as a whole.

5.3 In terms of this consultation, the Highways Agency is asking those consulted to indicate a preferred option, a second choice and a least favourable option with the ability to expand on the responses given, to suggest alternative route combinations and to make any additional comments. Although this approach is understood, a process of elimination is recommended with a view to obtaining a single preferred choice as this would clearly assist any representation to be made by the Council at any future Public Inquiry.

5.4 Having regard to the consultative information now available, the various issues outlined in Section 4, those contained in Appendix C and D, and our previous comments made as part of the 2005 consultation, it would appear that the Orange route, with possible modifications around Brampton in order to achieve the best possible environmental solution, will be our preferred option. It is considered that this option is the one which most closely follows the existing landscape and topography and presents the greatest opportunity to achieve the least overall impact.

5.5 While there are areas of the Orange route where intrusion and impact takes place, such as the proposed viaduct over the River Great Ouse and ECML, this is applicable to all options now being considered. It is felt that the Orange route provides the best solution to provide extensive mitigation against those impacts, subject to sufficient funding being made available as part of any final recommendations of

56 the Highways Agency to the Secretary of State. This was a specific recommendation of the Council’s 2005 response to the Highways Agency in respect of the impact on both Buckden and The Offords.

5.6 As part of our 2005 consultation response, the potential detrimental impact on Brampton was reported. As part of this consultation, the Council considers that there may be merit in amending the line of the Orange route between Ellington and the A1 to follow the line suggested in the Brown route. While it is felt that this may help to minimise the impact of the scheme on Brampton, it may be that retaining the Orange route on the line suggested, and by providing substantial environmental mitigation measures, that this may provide such relief for Brampton from the effects of the A1 as well, where none currently exist. The Council should suggest that a detailed modelling study is undertaken by the Highways Agency to determine the best option.

5.7 In any recommendation of the Orange route, the Council would need to support that consideration again be given to the need to investigate any required improvements to the A1 between Alconbury and the new junction with the A1. Any such investigation should consider the need for widening and improvement measures in accordance with the same forecasting approach adopted for this consultation.

5.8 The Council also consider that if the Orange route were to be adopted, that this should be built to a minimum 3-lane dual carriageway standard in accordance with the original CHUMMS strategy. This should be supported by the removal of the existing Huntingdon viaduct in line with that strategy.

5.9 Likewise, based on the same information, it would appear that the Blue route with Variation 2, would be our least favoured option due to the impact on both Brampton and Fenstanton for varying technical reasons. This particularly relates to air quality and noise issues where it is felt that current data provided by the Highways Agency is insufficient to find favour with such a route. Additionally, the Council considers that from the limited information available, that the constrained nature of Variation 2 will make the implementation difficult to achieve, including during the construction phase and in maintaining existing traffic flows. Specific concerns relate to the constrained nature of the proposed junction at Galley Hill and the likely layout of the local road provision, which may affect any future public transport options on this corridor relating to public transport recommendations arising from CHUMMS.

5.10 In terms of the Brown route and the specific element relating to the crossing of the Buckden landfill site, this raises serious cause for concern for the reasons outlined in this report and the accompanying technical data. It is evident that there are significant issues including the extent of existing and possible future contamination, removal of existing fill and reduction in the lifespan of the landfill site. Given the Environment Agency view that the least risk of pollution would result from avoiding the north and south landfill areas, it is considered that the Council cannot support this route.

57 5.11 On the completion of the last consultation, the four affected District Council’s, the County Council and ten other leading stakeholders agreed a common statement of support for the A14 scheme. It is considered that a similar approach should be possible this time to lend weight to the overall recommendations and conclusions of the parties.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 It is recommended that

(a) Overview and Scrutiny (Service Support) and Cabinet consider the issues outlined in this report and;

(i) recommend to Council that the Orange route be supported as part of the current A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton Further Public Consultation, subject to the Highways Agency consideration of the best alignment and environmental solution for Brampton between the Orange and Brown routes to the west of the A1, as outlined in the report;

(ii) that the Blue route, including Variation 2, be rejected on the grounds of their detrimental unacceptable impacts on both Brampton and Fenstanton, and;

(iii) that the Brown route be rejected on the grounds of the potential impacts on the Buckden North and South landfill and associated issues that may arise from the adoption of the element of the route.

(b) that Council authorise the Director of Operational Services, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Environment & Transport, to submit a formal response to this Consultation to the Highways Agency based on the outcomes of their meeting; and

(c) that Council authorise the Director of Operational Services, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Environment & Transport, to agree a Statement of Principles with other Cambridgeshire stakeholders as a joint position statement for submission to the Highways Agency.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

CHUMMS Final Report – August 2001 Full Council Report – 29th September 2001 Highways Agency Alternative Proposal Public Consultation 2005 Full Council Report – 29th June 2005

58 A14 Huntingdon Viaduct Study – May 2006 Cabinet and Service Support Reports Huntingdon Viaduct - June 2006 A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Further Public Consultation leaflet (1st December 2006 to 9th March 2007) A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Stage 2 Scheme Assessment Report A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Initial Route Options & Technical Appraisal Report A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Traffic & Economics Report A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) CD 1 & 2

Contact Officer: Stuart Bell, Transportation Team Leader 01480 388387

59 This page is intentionally left blank

60 APPENDIX A

MINUTES of a meeting of the HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL held at Pathfinder House, St. Mary’s Street, Huntingdon on 26th September 2001 at 2.30 pm.

34. CAMBRIDGE – HUNTINGDON MULTI-MODAL STUDY

With the assistance of his report and a series of proposed recommendations circulated at the meeting (copies of which are appended in the Minute Book) the Portfolio Holder for Planning Strategy, Councillor N J Guyatt invited Members to consider the Council’s response to the preferred Plan presented by the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS) for submission to the East of England Local Government Conference.

In his introduction, Councillor Guyatt referred to three key principles identified by the Cabinet which were considered to be critical components of any preferred plan, namely –

♦ urgent upgrading of the A14; ♦ preparation of a comprehensive package of measures with a single local inquiry ♦ the availability of sufficient finance from Central Government for both road and public transport improvements to remedy the historical infrastructure deficit.

Responding to a series of questions from Members, Councillor Guyatt acknowledged that further work was required on the practicality of the options proposed for public transport improvements particularly the guided bus and light rail schemes and that improvements to the A428 between Caxton Gibbet and the A1(T) should form part of the Council's formal response to the Local Government Conference.

After further detailed discussion on the proposed alignment of the A1 road between Alconbury and Brampton and the need to advance the timetable proposed for its implementation, it was

RESOLVED

(a) that action should be taken as a matter of urgency to address the problem of the A14 and implement solutions to the local transport infrastructure;

(b) that a comprehensive package of measures should be prepared with a single co-ordinated planning and public inquiry process, as opposed to a piecemeal approach to individual transport improvements;

(c) that given the lack of investment in the transportation infrastructure locally, the Government should commit sufficient funding to implement a comprehensive programme of measures without delay; (d) that the Council reiterate their support for an amended southern strategy that links with the A428 road;

61

(e) that in the event of the CHUMMS preferred plan being adopted, the Council support the plan in the interests of expedience only if:-

(i) the funding of the scheme is accepted by the Government in its totality (both in terms of the public transport and road improvements elements);

(ii) the need to make appropriate provision for local traffic is recognised;

(iii) the requirement for further work on the practicability of implementing a guided bus scheme in terms of the District Council’s longer term vision for public transport in and around Huntingdonshire similarly is recognised;

(iv) there is a satisfactory outcome of an examination of the implications of the proposed alignment of the A1 upon local communities;

(v) an examination of potential traffic congestion on and adjacent to the A14 at the Brampton/Spittals interchange is undertaken;

(vi) the requirement for bus priority measures at the Caxton Gibbet roundabout is recognised;

(vii) the need to address satisfactorily those issues raised in Sections 4.5 (implementation issues), 4.6 (road improvement issues), 4.7 (guided bus route), 4.8 (rail), and 4.9 (other public transport) as set out in the Appendix to the report now submitted is acknowledged; and

(f) that improvements to the A428 between Caxton Gibbet and the A1(T) should be classified as essential.

62 APPENDIX B

Ms Cara Elder A14 Scheme Administrator Highways Agency Heron House 49-53 Goldington Road BEDFORD MK40 3LL

Our Ref: EW/LR/A14 Your Ref:

4th July 2005

Dear Ms Elder

A14 ELLINGTON TO FEN DITTON – CONSULTATION RESPONSE

At the Full Council on 28 June 2005, Huntingdonshire District Council considered the consultation proposals for the A14. The following resolutions were passed:

(a) That the Council approve the Joint Statement of Support of the Cambridgeshire Local Authorities, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Cambridgeshire Horizons and EEDA. I understand this statement will be submitted to you shortly by Cambridgeshire County Council.

(b) That the Director of Operational Services be authorised, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy, to make representations to the Highways Agency with regard to the need for measures to ameliorate noise during and after construction and to mitigate visual intrusion on all the communities affected by the routing of the proposed A14 upgrade scheme between Ellington and Fen Drayton; and

(c) That, subject to (b) above, the comments listed below form the basis of the Council’s formal response to the Highways Agency consultation on the upgrade of the A14.

(1) The implications of the choice for the preferred route will have profound and significant economic effects for both the town of Huntingdon and the whole of the area. It is important that the choice made is not based solely on highway network implications, nor just on the environmental effects. It is important that the economic considerations are also taken into account.

(2) The need to ensure that appropriate noise and visual intrusion mitigation measures are implemented as part of the new road proposals. These should also be introduced at the start of the building process (see (b) above). Nothwithstanding the generality of the forgoing every effort, in consultation with the Environment Agency and other interested parties, should be made to reduce the excessive height of the viaduct over the River Great Ouse, see (11) below.

(3) The alignment of the A1 from Alconbury to south of Buckden could be realigned westward to alleviate the environmental effects of the upgrade of the A1 on

63 Buckden and Brampton, but that the potential impact on Brampton Wood SSSI needs to be part of the consideration. We believe that there could be meaningful further discussions between this Authority, the County council and the Highways Agency.

(4) The current proposals show the alignment of the new A14 from south of Buckden Tip turning northwards and running alongside the western edge of the A1 to join the A14 to the west of Brampton Hut and the widening of the A1 from Brampton Hut to south of Brampton. This will mean that in this area there will be 10 lanes of highway. The Highway Agency are asked to consider whether there are alternative methods of dealing with the Brampton Hut Interchange which would enable an all-ways junction to be implemented in that location, thus relieving the need for additional widening of the A1 between Brampton Hut and south of Brampton. This could form part of the discussions requested in paragraph (3) above.

(5) The interchange between the new A14, the A1 and Brampton Hut interchange needs careful consideration and should be fully integrated if at all possible.

(6) A new access to Alconbury Airfield site should be provided directly onto the de- trunked A14.

(7) The existing junctions on the current A14 at the Hemingfords need to be considered in terms of safety works.

(8) The absence of a junction between the new A14 and the A1198 at Godmanchester is supported. If a proposal for a junction were to come forward this should be vigorously opposed.

(9) The issue of the closure of the A1 slip road northbound, north of Buckden into Brampton, appears to have been resolved by the Highway Agency producing an alternative as set out earlier in this report. This would certainly alleviate the concern of how lorries would access Buckden Tip. It is essential that any proposals do not encourage through traffic either through Brampton or Buckden.

(10) The proposals envisage the new A14 coming back on alignment at Fen Drayton with an interchange to accommodate the junction with the old A14 and then a junction shortly after for the Trinity Foot/Cambridge Services area. However, access to the services is not direct from the proposed A14 and HCVs would have to use the local road between Girton and Fen Drayton. It is suggested that the location of the Fen Drayton Interchange should be further investigated so it could be moved to the Trinity Foot junction thus providing good access to the service areas.

(11) The proposal for the new A14 includes a viaduct spanning the River Great Ouse and from the information available the height of the viaduct seems excessive. It may be a requirement of the Environment Agency, but the Highway Agency should be asked to ensure that the height of the new viaduct is only that which is absolutely necessary.

(12) Whilst the proposals for the Girton Interchange are outside the boundary of the Huntingdonshire area, the current proposal does not include for an all-ways junction between the A14, M11 and A428. This could have implications for the

64 traffic movements associated with the A428 and the Highway Agency should be asked to investigate whether an all-ways junction is possible.

In considering the two options put forward in the consultation for the trunk road network between the A1 and Fen Drayton, the following points need to be considered (the de-trunking option will be referred to as the CHUMMS Option and the continuing use of the existing A14 as a trunk road will be referred to as the Alternative Option):

(a) Whilst one of the alleged advantages of the Alternative Option is that it is cheaper than the CHUMMS Option by some £30m, the real issue is which option delivers the best long-term highway solution, the most beneficial economic effects in terms of the vitality and long-term viability of Huntingdon, and the capability for development to be accommodated without detriment to the environment. Therefore, the Alternative Option should not be chosen purely on the cost basis

(b) In any case, whilst the initial capital estimates indicate that the Alternative Option may be cheaper than the CHUMMS Option, in overall terms the difference in cost is only some £30m and at this stage of the process the ability for contractors to improve on these prices mean that the difference is minimal.

(c) Huntingdonshire is part of the M11 Growth Area Corridor which the Government has established to deliver significant levels of growth in the coming decades. Huntingdon will play a significant role, not only in the delivery of new housing, but also for a range of new services and facilities, particularly new retail and commercial development, to serve the needs of the growing population of Huntingdonshire. There are 4 major development sites within the town centre of Huntingdon and a major housing development at Ermine Street. These developments require a significant level of investment in order for Huntingdon to remain a vibrant market town that is able to cope with additional traffic and improve its environmental quality. Work towards the implementation of these sites has been predicated on the assumptions drawn from the CHUMMS Strategy that there would be a new A14 and that the current A14 around Huntingdon and Godmanchester would be de-trunked to become a local road to encourage public transport provision, the development of an integrated public transport interchange and the diversion of existing rat-running traffic in Huntingdon, Godmanchester and St. Ives onto the de-trunked route. We have provided the Highways Agency with the appropriate development briefs already but further copies are attached to this letter.

(d) If the Alternative Option is implemented the community of Brampton would be surrounded on 3 sides by major trunk roads, and the communities of Huntingdon and Godmanchester would continue to suffer major noise and visual intrusion as well as pollution. This would particularly apply in later years as the created capacity would reduce due to predicted traffic growth and the impact of new development, including at Alconbury Airfield, taking effect.

(e) The line of the new A14 is proposed to be further south from Brampton than was possibly inferred by the CHUMMS line. This does mean that the communities of Buckden and The Offords could experience more visual and noise intrusion than had originally been expected. However, in terms of the two Options, the difference between a dual 2 and a dual 3 road is marginal. The issue therefore for these communities is whether the line of the road is optimal rather than the number of lanes.

(f) The CHUMMS Option does require that the existing A14 is de-trunked and the viaduct taken down to an at grade junction by the station. In principle, this concept should be

65 supported as it could provide a long-term opportunity for the reorganisation of local traffic movements around and through Huntingdon. This could not be achieved if the alternative option is pursued. However, at the present time there is insufficient information available to enable a firm conclusion to be drawn about whether an at- grade junction at Brampton Road would help to ease the traffic movements or whether it would cause further problems. It is essential that detailed modelling work of this proposed junction is carried out as soon as possible to enable the Council to decide whether this junction has appropriate capacity. Some work is going on at present. However, more detailed modelling is required. This modelling needs to show how the de-trunking of the A14 and the changes at Spittals will affect the through traffic which currently uses the ring road on an east-west movement.

Since the original CHUMMS Study, transport related air quality issues have been identified in Huntingdon that will result in the declaration of an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) later this year. Having regard to this the CHUMMS Option is much preferred in terms of the expected improvement to air quality within the future AQMA in Huntingdon

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth A Wilson Director of Operational Services

: 01480 388301 Fax: 01480 388391 e-mail: [email protected]

66 APPENDIX C

CURRENT CONSULTATION – KEY ISSUES

Route Scenarios

THE ORANGE ROUTE

♦ 18.8 km (11.5 miles) in length including the widest crossing of the River Great Ouse flood plain. This includes an 1100m long viaduct across the river and ECML and would be the longest span of all the routes (together with Blue Variation 1). ♦ The route is nearer to Buckden, The Offords and Hilton than that of the Blue route. ♦ No properties need to be taken down. ♦ This takes the same alignment and junction's arrangements as the CHUMMS strategy and the 2005 consultation and it includes the removal of the A14 viaduct. ♦ The junction of the new A14 and the A1 at Brampton has been revised following the 2005 consultation with the link between the new westbound A14 and the A1 southbound removed. ♦ The combined Fen Drayton/Trinity Foot junctions allow improved access to Cambridge services from the main A14. This was an issue raised by the District Council at the 2005 consultation.

THE BROWN ROUTE

♦ 19.4km (11.8 miles) in length including the section following the old railway line straight across Buckden landfill site. This route would require part purchase of both the north and south landfill sites. ♦ The route includes an 810m long viaduct across the flood plain and ECML and would be the shortest span of all the routes. ♦ The route is near to Brampton and Godmanchester. ♦ No properties need to be taken down. ♦ The construction costs for this option are the highest of the three and material within the landfill areas is noted as variable. Delay and extra cost is noted as a possibility with this option due to unforeseen problems. ♦ It is noted that Government would take responsibility for areas of purchased landfill and any pollution issues arising.

THE BLUE ROUTE

• 19.2 km (11.7 miles) in length including a 1000m long viaduct across the flood plain and ECML. • The route is nearest to Brampton, crosses the Golf Course and is near to Godmanchester. • One property needs to be taken down.

There are variations for the Blue Route and it would be possible to have one, both, a combination of or no variations.

67

THE BLUE ROUTE (NORTH)

♦ This is the closest route to Brampton north of the landfill site and is a similar distance from Godmanchester as the Brown route and crosses the A1198 at a similar point. East of the B1040 and north of Hilton, it follows a route through to the Fen Drayton Interchange.

THE BLUE ROUTE (SOUTH)

♦ With Variation 1 (see below) the route passes south of Buckden landfill and east of the B1040 and north of Hilton, it follows a route through to the Fen Drayton Interchange.

THE BLUE ROUTE VARIATION 1

♦ 19km (11.6 miles) in length with a 1100m long viaduct (as with the Orange route, this is the longest span). ♦ The route goes south of the landfill site and is further from Brampton but closer to Buckden and The Offords. ♦ No properties need to be taken down.

THE BLUE ROUTE VARIATION 2

♦ This is a significant difference from any of the other options. The route joins the existing A14 west, not east, of Fenstanton with on line widening from two to three lanes between the new junction and Fen Drayton and also includes the provision of a new local road alongside. ♦ 20.1km (12.5 miles) in length with a 1000m long viaduct. ♦ As part of the widening through Fenstanton, 5 houses and several farm building would need to be taken down.

Forecasting Analysis

DO-MINIMUM

♦ This scenario shows that the A14 is already carrying high traffic levels and that between Galley Hill and Bar Hill, this section is very close to reaching capacity for the current two-lane dual carriageway. ♦ Under a ‘do-minimum’ scenario i.e. no major road building, growth on the existing A14 would likely be lower that in the overall area as traffic would be expected to divert to other routes, notably the A428 and A1198, to avoid the increasing congestion of the A14. ♦ With no action and by 2014, a 31% increase in travel time is estimated with more people making diversions to avoid congestion. ♦ With no action and taking a design year of 2029, it is estimated that during the AM peak over-capacity would increase fourteen-fold with a corresponding increase in total travel time of over 97%.

DO-SOMETHING

♦ The starting point for improvement of the A14 was the CHUMMS study, which includes the removal of the A14 viaduct and its

68

replacement with a new junction into the local road network in Huntingdon. ♦ In assessing the performance of the local network, it is estimated that to 2029 all options could deliver a reduction in over-capacity queuing and reduce travel time by around 10% compared to the ‘do-minimum’ scenario. ♦ In terms of forecast journey times and traffic flows, all options are very similar and alignment differences at Brampton and Buckden Landfill have no significant effects at the 2029 design year

Scheme Proposals (Include)

♦ A lower vertical alignment for the River Great Ouse and ECML crossing with the Orange and Blue routes addressing minimum height clearances as advised by the Environment Agency and Network Rail and highlighted and supported by the Council as part of its 2005 consultation response. ♦ The additional route through the Buckden Landfill site associated with the Brown route. ♦ An alternative route for the junction with the A1 applicable to all options, which provides better local road access between Buckden and Brampton following representations made in 2005. ♦ Better access to Cambridge Services via the Fen Drayton/Trinity Foot interchange with variations associated with each option following representations made in 2005.

Engineering Assessment (Includes)

♦ At the Ellington junction, it is proposed that free flowing links would be provided between the A14 and A1. Significant embankment work would be required at this location and such arrangements would be supported subject to the best environmental solution being achieved. ♦ All main route options have been designed to full standard. However a number of side roads and junctions along the route associated with all the options have been designed with substandard geometry in order to minimise the impact on the surrounding area. This would be supported subject to safety standards being met. ♦ Major earthworks of varying degrees are required with all the options, particularly at the approach embankments to the River Great Ouse and ECML viaduct. ♦ The Blue route to the north of Wood Green Animal Shelter requires cutting through the adjacent ridge. ♦ The Brown route requires a major cutting between Ellington and the A1 and through the ridge to the south of Godmanchester. ♦ The Orange route has been designed to follow the existing land contours will complimentary mitigation measures. ♦ In the vicinity of Fen Drayton, low embankments have been designed to ensure that any route runs above the floodplains recorded along the A14. ♦ Contaminated Land is recorded at the Ellington Brook Landfill, although none of the proposed routes directly affect the filled area. ♦ A major source of contamination is associated with the Brown route that traverses the Buckden Landfill -

69

¾ Buckden North is currently active and the proposal would affect current rates of filling where the Operator has an aspiration to fill against the northern side of the Buckden South Landfill. The site is licensed to accept inert, domestic, commercial and industrial wastes. ¾ The route has been designed to avoid cutting into the northern margin of the Buckden South site but some cutting into the capping would be required. ¾ A cutting would be required through completed areas of landfill on the northern site. However, waste extends to some 13m below finished road level and this must be removed and replaced with engineered fill to provide a stable foundation. No penetration of existing containment would be permitted. ¾ Removal of existing fill will reduce the overall projected lifespan of the landfill site due to the need relocate excavated areas to those with capacity. ¾ The extent of contamination associated with both landfill sites is unknown at this stage and further investigation is noted as being required in order to assess the extent of any potential contamination within the underlying soil and groundwater regime. ¾ The area south of the Buckden South site was capped in 1994 and it is reported that it has previously been affected by breakouts of leachate. The Environment Agency view is that the least risk of pollution would result from avoiding the landfill at both Buckden North and South. ♦ Some possible contamination is noted with the blue route at Brampton where it passes through a former petrol filling station

Appendix D is a report of the District Council’s Environmental Health team on the Air Quality, Noise and Land Contamination issues associated with the routes proposed and should be read in conjunction with the section above.

♦ Major impact on statutory undertaker apparatus is present at Fen Drayton/Fenstanton. ♦ For the Blue Route Variation 2, the loss of four houses is noted, plus other buildings. It is also proposed that as well as a widened A14, a local access road will also be provided through the Fenstanton section in order to avoid the village High Street. It is also noted that the Galley Hill junction is very confined with property constraints so retaining measures will be required to achieve a compact layout. The restriction of the local road to a single two-lane carriageway will affect the ability to deliver future public transport options on the old A14 associated with the CHUMMS recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

♦ Air Quality - ¾ The annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective is currently being exceeded alongside the A14 in Fenstanton, Brampton and Huntingdon and Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA’s) have been declared in these locations.

70

¾ The report states that all of the route options would lead to improvements in air quality within the AQMA’s alongside the existing A14 and other roads where traffic flows reduce. Conversely, there would be increases where new routes are created and where there would be increases in traffic flow associated with the route options. It is stated that with all the route options, that more people would experience an improvement in air quality rather than a deterioration but given the above comment, the report does not assess for how long this would be the case with those affected by forecast traffic growth. ¾ It is also reported that while there are three SSSI’s (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) within 200m of the proposed options where traffic flows are predicted to change significantly, it is stated that nitrogen oxides concentrations and nitrogen deposit rates would reduce for all the options over the ‘do minimum’ scenario. ♦ Appendix D is a report of the District Council’s Environmental Health team on the Air Quality, Noise and Land Contamination issues associated with the routes proposed and should be read in conjunction with the section above.

LANDSCAPE, TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS, ECOLOGY & NATURE CONSERVATION, CULTURAL HERITAGE, WATER QUALITY & DRAINAGE AND RIGHTS OF WAY

♦ Landscape, Townscape and Visual Effects. The assessment notes that given the open arable character of the landscape, that any work could be visible over a wide area and that with all the route options, the proximity to surrounding settlements and their setting is a consideration, particularly with respect to the River Great Ouse Valley. ♦ Ecology and Nature Conservation. In addition to the SSSI’s outlined above, County Wildlife sites affected are also identified as being affected by any of the route options proposed. It is also noted that there are a number of habitats and species that are either of UK and/or local biodiversity value, which may be adversely impacted by the proposed options. ♦ Cultural Heritage. Key issues currently identified are potential damage to archaeological sites, those as yet discovered, impact on, or setting of, listed buildings and conservation areas, historic landscape and the Mill Common Scheduled Monument. Further study and full assessment is noted as being required. ♦ Water Quality and Drainage. General impact is noted and need for detailed assessment at a future design stage recorded, particularly in respect of watercourses and floodplains, the largest of which is the viaduct required across the Great Ouse floodplain, and the importance of water abstraction some 2km upstream of the proposed scheme. ♦ Rights of Way. All options have effects on a number of existing routes for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and the local community in terms of severance. It is noted that severance issues must be dealt

71

with as part of any detailed design and the Council would support this approach.

72 APPENDIX D

AIR QUALITY

There are currently three Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in Brampton, Huntingdon and Fenstanton resulting from high annual mean concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) a pollutant that is largely derived from road traffic emissions.

It is likely that the Brown and Blue routes, which include the more westerly option west of the A1 (closer to Brampton Wood), would result in a net reduction in NO2 concentrations in the western part of Brampton. The Blue Route also passes very close to RAF Brampton and, although this is not currently in an AQMA, this option would lead to an increase in NO2 concentrations at residential locations and could possibly lead to the declaration of a further AQMA in Brampton. On balance, the more westerly option set out in both the Brown and Blue routes is considered to be best for Brampton in terms of overall air quality impact although it is recognised that detailed air quality modelling may be necessary to determine the extent of the benefit.

Traffic on the current A14 makes a significant contribution to the measured concentrations of NO2 in Huntingdon. All of the proposed routes are further away from the town than the existing route and therefore the implementation of any of these proposed routes will reduce the concentrations of NO2 are likely to lead to the revocation of the AQMA in Huntingdon.

Traffic on the current A14 makes a significant contribution to the measured concentrations of NO2 in Fenstanton. All of the proposed routes except Blue Variation 2 are further away from the village than the existing route and therefore the implementation of any of these proposed routes will reduce the concentrations of NO2 and lead to the revocation of the AQMA in Fenstanton. The Blue Variation 2 route rejoins the existing A14 west of Fenstanton and it is expected that this option would not lead to any significant reduction in the concentrations of NO2 or to the revocation of the AQMA in the village.

There are currently no AQMAs in Huntingdonshire resulting from exceedences of the fine particulates (PM10) objectives. It is widely anticipated however, that the forthcoming EU Daughter Directive on Air Quality (expected mid 2007) and the revised National Air Quality Strategy (expected Spring 2007) will feature a new approach on PM10; that of ‘exposure reduction’. This approach recognises that any increase in PM10 levels has a human health impact and promotes the reduction of population exposure to PM10 overall, regardless of concentrations.

An approach of PM10 exposure reduction would advocate locating trunk roads away from settlements and would therefore favour the more westerly route at Brampton and the Orange or Brown the Route east of the A1.

In summary the favoured routes in terms of air quality are the Brown Route west of the A1 and the Orange or Brown Routes east of the A1. Noise

73

In terms of traffic noise exposure there is little to differentiate between the Orange Route and the Brown Route. Both of them would have a relatively small negative impact on a small number of isolated dwellings but would not significantly worsen noise levels for any settlements. The Blue Route and Blue Route Variation 2 both introduce considerably more residential receptors to elevated road traffic noise levels.

LAND CONTAMINATION

The only significant contamination issue is associated with the Brown Route as it crosses the Buckden Landfills. The consultation document acknowledges that the scale of the issue is almost a complete unknown. Landfills are regulated by the Environment Agency and so under the circumstances it is recommended that note is taken of the Environment Agency’s response to the consultation.

On balance, having consideration of air quality, noise and land contamination issues, the preferred option is the Brown route or the Orange route incorporating the westerly option at Brampton west of the A1 (closer to Brampton Wood).

74 Agenda Item 7

Members' Allowances

Report by the Head of Administration

1. INTRODUCTION

The current Members’ Allowances scheme was approved by the Council on 8th December 2004 and came into effect from 1st January 2005. This forms part of the Council’s Constitution.

1.2 The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 require an authority to have regard to recommendations made to it by an Independent Remuneration Panel before making or amending a scheme of members allowances.

1.3 In addition, the Regulations require that where an authority has regard to an index for the purpose of annual adjustment of allowances it must not rely on that index for longer than a period of four years before seeking a further recommendation from the Independent Remuneration Panel.

1.4 On this occasion, the Huntingdonshire Panel was convened to undertake a minor review of the scheme but principally to –

i respond to a Motion moved by Councillor M G Baker referred to it by the Council on 28th September 2005 in respect of car travel allowances; i to consider Members’ representations in respect of the special responsibility allowance for Members of the Development Control Panel; i to reaffirm the retail price index as the automatic index mechanism for the annual adjustment to the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances for a further four year period; and i to review allowances to ensure that the current Huntingdonshire scheme is comparable with similar types/sizes of authority.

1.5 Given their previous decision to meet as the Parish Remuneration Panel at the same time as undertaking a district review, the Panel also undertook to review the allowances scheme for town and parish councils in Huntingdonshire.

1.6 The Panel’s report has been circulated separately to all Members. This report is based on the Panel’s discussions and summarises the principal issues.

75 2. AREAS OF REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS DRAWN

2.1 Annual Adjustment to Allowances

Members will recall that the Council resolved at its meeting held on 19th April 2006 to replace the New Earnings Survey published by the Office of National Statistics with the retail price index as the automatic index mechanism for the annual adjustment to the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances for the period to 31st December 2007. Wide fluctuations had called into question the reliability of the “New Earnings Survey” and it had become apparent that the index was no longer suitable for the purpose for which it was originally adopted.

2.2 The Panel has re-affirmed the Council’s decision and recommends the continuation of the use of the retail price index as the mechanism for calculating the annual adjustment to the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances. This adjustment will take effect from the annual meeting of the Council in May each year for four years or until such time as the Council seeks a further review whichever is the shorter.

2.3 Council Motion – Car Travel Allowances

The Council may recall that at its meeting held on 28th September 2005, Councillor M G Baker moved and it was duly seconded –

“that the three-tier system of Members’ car travel allowance be scrapped and replaced with a single mileage payment rate of 37.0p per mile irrespective of car engine size. This rate should be paid, as at present, up to 8,500 miles per annum and the rate above that mileage should be at 10.8p per mile”.

2.4 This Motion was referred to the Independent Remuneration Panel and Councillor Baker was invited to address the Panel in support of his Motion. Having regard also to further representations made in this respect by other Members, the Panel decided to recommend, on the grounds of equity, a continuation of the current arrangements whereby Members are paid for use of their motor cars, bicycles or motorcycles on approved duties in accordance with the NJC casual users mileage allowance for local government employees. The Panel were, however, made aware of the Council’s travel plan and were of the view that any changes to the casual users’ mileage rate as a result of the implementation of the Plan should equally be applied to Members.

2.5 Allowances for Members of Parish Councils

Following their last review, the Panel made recommendations in relation to town and parish councillors under the 2003 Regulations. At that time, none of the 86 parishes in Huntingdonshire had requested a review of allowances and as far as is known, no parishes are paying annual allowances to their Chairmen. The Panel has, however, taken the opportunity to reaffirm its previous

76 recommendations thus providing parish and town councils with a reference should they wish to implement an allowance scheme in the future. The main recommendations in 2003 related to travel and subsistence allowances and a parish basic allowance to be paid to parish chairmen only.

2.6 Local Government Pension Scheme

Similarly, the Panel has taken the opportunity to reaffirm its view that Councillors should be eligible to join the local government pension scheme but it is for the Council to determine whether its Members should be entitled to join the scheme and if so, whether eligibility should apply to recipients of a basic allowance and/or special responsibility allowances.

2.7 Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs)

Notwithstanding the importance of the foregoing, this review predominantly concerned the level of basic and special responsibility allowances. Overall, the Panel has observed that the framework for the allowances scheme was still broadly appropriate in structure and scope but that some anomalies had arisen over time.

2.8 Although receiving representations that the basic allowance was low in comparison with other similar authorities and insufficient to attract new Councillors, the Panel formed the view that the allowance did compare favourably with those paid by other authorities and should not be used as an incentive to make serving as a Member financially attractive. However, the Panel recommended that the basic allowance be marginally increased to take into account travel costs incurred in undertaking responsibilities as a Councillor other than approved duties for which they are able to claim a travel allowance.

2.9 Council will recall that, with the exception of the Chairman of the Council, they did not implement in full the recommendations of the Panel in respect of special responsibility allowances in November 2002. This decision since has had an effect on the level of allowances payable. The Panel decided to revert to its 2002 recommendations and to apply the relevant indices to bring the SRAs up to the level they would have been at if the increase had been adopted in full in 2002. The Panel referred to this exercise as “recalibrated SRAs”. This re-calculation will not apply to the special responsibility allowances for the Chairman of Council, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Governance, Elections, Licensing and Protection Panels and Licensing Committee as each of these SRAs were established at a date later than November 2002 and since their inception, have been indexed accordingly.

2.10 Similarly, it is not necessary to apply the “calibration” exercise to the SRA for the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group as this allowance was paid in accordance with the Panel’s recommendations in 2002. However, since then there has been a change in the size of the main opposition group. To take account of such possible variations, the Panel considered that a standard and variable element

77 of the SRA should be established for the Leader of the principal opposition group. The Panel suggested that regardless of the size of the group, its Leader would receive an allowance equivalent to that payable to the Chairman of Council. The remainder of the allowance would be based on the number of Members in that group. The Panel continues to support remuneration for the Deputy Leader of the principal opposition group equivalent to that payable to the Vice- Chairmen of the main panels. On the same subject, the Panel has recommended that the Leaders of all opposition groups be eligible for a SRA provided the group has a minimum of 2 Members and is registered as a political group under the 1989 Local Government Act.

2.11 For the reasons outlined in their report and having reviewed strong representations from Members the Panel recommended an increase in the SRA paid to ordinary Members of the Development Control Panel from £560 to £600 per annum.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 The Council is invited to consider the Panel’s recommendations and to implement with effect from 18th May 2007 –

(a) the level of basic allowance for all district councillors as outlined in the attached appendix

(b) the levels of special responsibility allowance as outlined in the attached appendix;

(c) the continuation of the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances in line with National Joint Council casual users mileage and subsistence rates for local government employees;

(d) the payment of a co-optees’ allowances of £2,690 per annum to an independent Chairman of the Standards Committee which is the sum equivalent to that which would be payable were that position held by an elected Member;

(e) the continuation of the use of the retail price index (RPI) as an automatic index mechanism to enable the Members Allowances Scheme to be adjusted, as necessary, to reflect inflation until 30th April 2011;

(f) the adoption of a formula for calculating the standard and variable elements of the special responsibility allowance for the Leader of the principal opposition group;

(g) the remuneration of the Leader of other opposition groups should that group comprise more than two Members and be registered as a political group on the Council; and

(h) consider whether Members should be entitled to join the local government pension scheme and if so, whether eligibility should apply to recipients of the basic allowance and/or special responsibility allowances.

78 3.2 The Council is also invited to revoke the existing Members Allowances Scheme with effect from 17th May 2007 and to authorise the Chief Executive to prepare a new scheme of Members Allowances to reflect the outcome of the Council’s deliberations and to take any consequential action arising therefrom.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The Independent Remuneration Panel dated November 2006

Contact Officer: Christine Deller, Democratic Services Manager (01480) 388007

79 This page is intentionally left blank

80 APPENDIX

Existing Recommended Remuneration Remuneration Allowance per annum per annum £ £ BASIC ALLOWANCE Each District Councillor 3,923 4,100

SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY1 ALLOWANCES The Executive Leader 12,497 13,562 Deputy Leader 9,359 10,200 Other Cabinet Members 7,566 8,126 Chairmen Overview & Scrutiny Panels 5,660 6,109 Development Control Panel 5,660 6,109 Council 3,643 3,643 Licensing & Protection Panel/ 5,660 6,109 Licensing Committee Employment Panel 2,522 2,690 Standards Committee 2,522 2,690 Corporate Governance Panel 1,905 1,905 Elections Panel 560 560 Vice-Chairmen Overview & Scrutiny Panels 2,522 2,746 Development Control Panel 2,522 2,746 Council 1,401 1,513 Licensing & Protection Panel/ 2,522 2,746 Licensing Committee 2,746 Employment Panel 863 897 Standards Committee 863 897 Corporate Governance Panel 628 628 Elections Panel 224 224 Opposition Group Leader – Principal Oppositions5 8,126 7,143 Deputy Leader 3,643 2,746 Leader Minor Opposition2 - 700 Development Control Panel Ordinary Members4 560 600 Co-Optees Allowance Each co-opted member and parish council 224 224 representative Independent Chairman of Standards 2,522 2,690 Committee3 Dependant Carer’s Allowance Up to a maximum of 7.5 hours Each qualifying District Councillor with children per week at the minimum wage or elderly/disabled dependent level in the case of childcare and, for an elderly or disabled dependant at the County Council’s recommended “home carer” rate.

81 Notes:

1. No Member may receive more than one Special Responsibility Allowance.

2. Subject to the party having a minimum of 2 Members and being registered as a political group.

3. An Independent Member (non-elected) acting as Chairman of the Standards Committee shall receive a special responsibility allowance equivalent to that payable to a Member elected to that post .

4. Excluding the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panel and any Cabinet Member appointed to the Panel.

5. The total allowance is calculated using a “standard element” equivalent to that recommended for the Chairman of the Council plus a “variable element” calculated on the basis of £350 per group Member.

82 Agenda Item 8a

Cabinet

Report of the meetings held on 21st December 2006 and 11th January and 1st February 2007

Matters for Decision

85. FINANCIAL STRATEGY, MEDIUM TERM PLAN 2008-2012 AND BUDGET 2007/08

The Cabinet has considered the content of the 2007/08 draft budget, the Medium Term Plan for the period 2008-2012 and the level of Council Tax for the following year. The financial report considered by the Cabinet at their meeting held on the 1st February 2007 is reproduced as Appendix A hereto.

Having been acquainted with the deliberations of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Corporate and Strategic Framework) on this matter and the outcome of consultation with the business community on expenditure proposals, the Cabinet

RECOMMEND (a) that the proposed budget, Medium Term Plan and financial strategy appended to the report now submitted be approved; and

(b) that a Council Tax increase of 4.99%, representing a level of £109.91 for band D properties, be approved for 2007/08.

86. 2007/08 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Reproduced as Appendix B is a proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2007/08. The strategy, which complies with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice, has clear objectives for the management of the Council’s borrowing and investments. Having been satisfied that the strategy meets the requirements of the Code of Practice and Government guidance, the Cabinet

RECOMMEND

that the 2007/08 Treasury Management Strategy be approved.

83 Matters for Information

87. ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Cabinet has noted the performance of the Council’s property portfolio against national property indicators. At the same time, the Cabinet has noted that the integration of asset management information with financial information will be addressed through the introduction of an electronic GIS system coupled with a computerised asset management system.

88. HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND HOUSING OPTIONS INITIATIVES

The Cabinet has been advised of the homelessness prevention initiatives and housing options currently being used by the Council. Having been acquainted with other good practice initiatives that could be introduced to further improve performance in this area, the Cabinet has authorised the introduction of additional incentives for private landlords and agents, a homelessness prevention fund policy framework and an extension of the private sector lease agreement with King Street Housing Society. In that respect, the Cabinet has requested that the anticipated costs of providing these incentives along with progress reports be submitted to future meetings.

In recognising the high level of homeless persons reliant on housing benefit and the reluctance of private landlord and agents to offer tenancies to households in such circumstances, the Cabinet has asked for representations highlighting these issues to be made to the Local Government Association and the Members of Parliament for Huntingdon and North West Cambridgeshire constituencies.

89. CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNCILS JOINT WASTE PARTNERSHIP

The Cabinet has agreed to the terms of reference for the Cambridgeshire Councils’ Association Waste and Environment Forum formerly known as the Cambridgeshire Councils Association Waste Forum. The Cabinet were reminded that the forum had been established in 1998/99 with a remit to find integrated ways of working in partnership to reduce and recycle waste across the County. The forum subsequently has established the Recycling Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Partnership, funded jointly by all member authorities to create a joint municipal waste strategy. In considering the Partnership’s budget for 2007/08, the Cabinet has re-affirmed its support for the initiative and agreed that a contribution of £11,942 be made.

90. PRIVATE FINANCE INITIATIVE – PARTNERING AGREEMENT

The Cabinet has been updated with progress to date of a Private Finance Initiative contract between Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridgeshire principal authorities to fund investment in new

84 waste and recycling collection, processing and disposal facilities that would meet the needs of partners.

Having been acquainted with the main aims and objectives of a draft Partnering Agreement, the Cabinet has authorised the Director of Operational Services, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Operations, to sign the final Partnering Agreement on behalf of the Council.

91. CONSERVATION AREAS

The Cabinet has approved draft management plans for the Kimbolton and Offord Cluny Conservation Areas for public consultation. The plans outline a series of proposals aimed at conserving and enhancing the character and appearance of those areas.

The Cabinet also has approved the content of management plans for Post Street and Earning Street in Godmanchester, Keyston and Stonely which will be used to guide planning decisions. The plans have been produced to clearly identify, co-ordinate and programme a series of specific projects aimed at enhancing the character and appeal of the areas and have been the subject of public consultation.

92. DISABILITY EQUALITY DUTY FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR

The Cabinet has approved a draft Disability Equality Scheme for the Council together with an action plan for its implementation. In so doing, the Cabinet has agreed that the implementation of the scheme be monitored in future by the Corporate Governance Panel.

93. PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK

The Cabinet has approved the contents of a framework to be used to evaluate the partnerships in which the Council has an involvement. In that respect, the Cabinet has authorised the Director of Central Services, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Resources and Policy, to select partnerships for evaluation and to make changes to the framework as may be necessary.

94. SMALL SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES 2007

The Cabinet has approved the release of £73,000 in funding from the Medium Term Plan for a programme of small scale environmental improvement schemes in 2007/08. The scheme will enable improvements to be carried out in several villages and locations with financial contributions being made by the applicant organisations. A summary of the schemes is available on request from the Democratic Services Section.

85 95. ST. IVES COMPOSTING FACILITY – SITE LIAISON FORUM – REPRESENTATIVE

The Cabinet has appointed Councillor M F Newman as the District Council’s representative on the St. Ives Composting Facility – Site Liaison Forum.

96. FINANCIAL MONITORING – REVENUE BUDGET

The Cabinet has noted the expected revenue budget variations already identified in the current year.

97. MONITORING OF THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2006/07

The Cabinet has been acquainted with variations in the capital programme in the current year.

98. QUARTERLY SUMMARY OF DEBTS WRITTEN OFF

The Cabinet has been advised of those individual debts which have been written off as irrecoverable during the period October to December 2006.

A summary of the list is available on request from the Democratic Services Section.

99. ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY

Further to Item No 64 of their Report to the meeting of the Council held on the 6th December 2006, the Cabinet has endorsed the contents of a suggested draft community-wide Environment Strategy for consultation purposes with Members, external organisations, partners and businesses. The strategy builds on the excellent work being delivered by the Council through its services and aims to improve the authority’s environmental performance as a major employer and property owner as well as encouraging local residents and businesses to do the same. Having considered the development of the strategy and Member involvement, the Cabinet has agreed to establish a working group to assist with the strategy’s delivery, comprising the Leader of the Council and Councillors M G Baker, D B Dew, J A Gray, R G Tuplin and the relevant Executive Councillor in relation to the matter to be discussed. The Cabinet has also designated responsibility for matters associated with the Environment Strategy to the Leader.

100. NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGEMENT – PROGRESS REPORT

Further to Item No 50 of their Report to the meeting of the Council held on the 6th December 2006, the Cabinet has been updated with progress towards the introduction of neighbourhood management initiatives in Eynesbury and Huntingdon North (Oxmoor). The initiatives aim to support local communities and service providers by working together to improve local outcomes. In endorsing a proposal to extend the approach to the Ramsey area, Executive Councillors

86 have expressed concern about the long term implications of the initiative in terms of cost, governance arrangements, partnership working and accountability and have requested that these issues be considered further at a future meeting.

101. CHOICE BASED LETTINGS

Further to Item No 63 of their Report to the meeting of the Council held on the 6th December 2006, the Cabinet has authorised the Director of Central Services to sign a Memorandum of Understanding for the Cambridge Choice-Based Lettings Scheme on behalf of the Council. At the same time, the Cabinet has approved for consultation purposes a draft lettings policy for Huntingdonshire which outlines how the Council, in partnership with Housing Associations with properties in the District, will let their properties through the new scheme.

102. ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION ACT 2006 – RELEASE OF FUNDING

The Cabinet has approved a budget transfer of £8,000 in 2007/08 and appropriate financial provision for subsequent years in respect of the acquisition of computer hardware and software equipment required in order to discharge new duties to verify information submitted by postal voters, thereby reducing the risk of personation at elections.

Having expressed concern about the cost of the maintenance of the software equipment and in recognising that few, if, any, alternative courses were available in which to put into place this new legislative requirement before the elections in May 2007, the Cabinet has requested that further enquiries be made into the ongoing maintenance costs and that appropriate representation be made to the Local Government Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives.

I C Bates Chairman

87 This page is intentionally left blank

88 APPENDIX A

CABINET 1 FEBRUARY 2007

FINANCIAL STRATEGY, MEDIUM TERM PLAN 2008-2012 AND BUDGET 2007-2008

(Report by the Head of Financial Services)

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this report is to allow Cabinet to determine its recommendations to Council on 21 February in relation to the Council’s Budget and Council Tax for 2007/08, Medium Term Plan for 2008/12 and associated matters.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The process started with consideration of a financial strategy by Overview & Scrutiny, Cabinet and Council in September. This was followed by investigation and identification of savings proposals that included opportunities for Overview & Scrutiny and individual Members to suggest options. Some Member suggestions were incorporated and others will be examined in detail for potential inclusion next year. The draft budget and Medium Term Plan was formally considered by Overview & Scrutiny, Cabinet and Council in November and December.

2.2 Savings amounting to £1.1M in 2007/08 rising to £1.5M were identified in the report to Council in December. The most significant items related to rescheduling of the refuse/recycling collection rounds, removal of PCSO contribution now that the Police have agreed to fund them and the review of the Car Park Strategy. Officers are continuing with their review of a number of the suggestions highlighted by Members.

3 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DRAFT PLAN

3.1 The following adjustments have been made to figures reported in December.

3.2 Interest Rates. Interest rates of 5% this year and 5.25% next year had been assumed for two of our Fund Managers. Recent fluctuations in the market mean that possibly only 4.4% will be achieved this year but 5.5% is now forecast for next year. Long term interest rates, for when the Council has to start borrowing to fund Capital Expenditure, have been reduced from 4.35% to 4.25%.

3.3 Medium Term Plan Revisions The table below shows the impact of the final changes to the December report that have now emerged. The long term impact is £152k per year with the fluctuations in earlier years being mainly due to rephasing of schemes.

89 MTP Revisions 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Variations 205 256 353 129 179 152

Annex B details these changes while Annex C shows all the MTP schemes with just these latest changes highlighted.

The main changes are highlighted below:

The latest retendering for gas and electricity has resulted in the need for additional inflation of £107k next year. Whilst it is hoped that future retenderings may result in a reduction this is not certain enough to build into the forecast.

Now the development agreement has been signed it has been possible to review the spend profile of the Pathfinder House and One Stop Shop project. It is now estimated that £2,127k assumed to be spent in 2007/08 in the December report will now be required in the current year.

Wireless working and Valuebill were previously part of the Customer First Scheme. In reviewing the MTP it was decided to show this element separately but, whilst the Customer First scheme was reduced, the new separate scheme for this purpose was not included.

3.4 The taxbase has been marginally increased from 57,224 to 57,434 for 2007/08 onwards. This results in a slight increase in income for a given level of Council Tax.

3.5 The position on the Collection Fund has now been forecast for the current year and will result in a small surplus (£7k) next year.

3.6 There are also some items for which no adjustment has been made at this stage. They include:

No allowance has been made for any benefit that may arise from the Government’s Local Authority Business Growth Incentive scheme which will allow authorities a portion of increases in business rates over and above a norm as the data is not available to make a practicable estimate.

During the year preparations will need to be made for the temporary customer services centre and centralised post arrangements at the new Operations Centre. Cabinet agreement is sought to the necessary transfers of budgets between various sections and services to reflect these revised arrangements.

4 RESULTING IMPACT

4.1 The inclusion of the adjustments described above brings forward the date by which savings are required and increases the eventual value that needs to be found by £92k. The graph below highlights these changes in red:

90 SAVINGS REQUIRED

Already Identified** Target approved February 2006 Draft Target approved December 2006 PROPOSED Revised Target

7

6

5

4 £M 3

2

1

0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19

** Identified includes an assumption on the level of temporary general underspending (see Annex D1)

4.2 The revised financial strategy is shown in Annex D and the savings targets are shown in Annex D1.

4.3 As far as next year’s budget is concerned the table below shows the breakdown and funding of the revenue and capital budgets for which approval is required. Annex E gives further details of next years budget by service.

REVENUE BUDGET 2006/07 2006/07 2007/08 Original Forecast Budget Budget** Service Spending £000 £000 £000 Environmental Services 8,659 8,326 8,384 Planning 3,448 2,993 2,658 Community Services 6,894 7,016 7,226 Community Safety 1,185 1,091 924 Housing Services 5,232 4,622 5,893 Highways and Transportation 2,380 2,239 2,103 Corporate Services 4,777 4,488 4,928 Other Expenditure Contingencies -693 -2 -686 Other Expenditure -10,790 -10,149 -9,382 (mainly reversal of Capital Charges) Investment Interest -2,786 -2,936 -2,587 Council Total 18,305 17,689 19,461

Funding Government Support (RSG & NNDR) -10,892 -10,892 -11,650 Collection Fund Deficit 74 74 -7 Council Tax -5,961 -5,961 -6,313 Deficit – from Reserves -1,527 -910 -1,491 -18,305 -17,689 -19,461

** In this table and Annex D there have been a few movements of cost centres between Services from the original approved figures to ensure comparability.

91 CAPITAL BUDGET 2007/08 Budget Gross Grants & Net Contributions £000 £000 £000 Recyclingn 72 -72 Drainage and Sewers 30 30 Public Conveniences 443 443 Economic Development 1,042 609 433 Leisure Events and Facilities 154 154 Joint Leisure Centres 3,090 3,090 Community Initiatives 12 12 Parks and Open Spaces 72 72 Housing Serviceso 520 1,299 -779 Private Housing Support 1,463 335 1,128 Homelessness 2,529 480 2,049 Housing Benefits -50 -109 59 Community Safety 23 23 Transportation 1,086 207 879 Public Transport 132 132 Car Parks 222 222 Environmental 528 1,756 -1,228 Improvementsp Technical 1,599 1,599 Operations Division 216 216 Offices 5,496 5,496 IT related 1,236 1,236 Other 158 158 TOTAL 20,001 4,649 15,352 Notes nincludes a government grant that will offset past expenditure. oincludes the re-sale of mobile homes bought to house tenants during the remediation work at the Mobile Home site. pincludes contributions from the County Council to fund past expenditure on the Oxmoor.

5. KEY FEATURES - Government Financial Support

5.1 The Council has received the initial proposal for 2007/08 which is exactly the same as the figure the Government proposed last year. The increase of £758k includes £183k of the money we are entitled to but which has been held back by the Government to protect Authorities which were due to receive reductions. Government Support 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Assumption in approved MTP 10,892 11,650 12,162 12,684 13,033 13,391 Provisional settlement True Grant 11,439 12,014 12,344 12,684 13,033 13,391 Withheld to protect other 547 364 182 000 authorities (est.) Receivable 10,892 11,650 12,162 12,684 13,033 13,391

92 5.2 The Government’s figures show the Council will be the 3rd most under- funded, in cash terms, District Council in England. This year’s deduction is £364k.

5.3 Although the Government has moved to multi-year indications to enable local authorities to prepare more certain financial plans these projections will not be available until the next Comprehensive Spending Review figures are published next July, thus the post 2007/08 figures shown above are the Council’s own estimates.

5.4 There is usually only a small change to the provisional settlement when the final figures are announced and this will be adjusted for by adjusting the use of revenue reserves.

6 KEY FEATURES – Council Tax

6.1 When the Government released the draft grant settlement it made the following statement about Council Tax levels.

“We have provided a stable and predictable funding basis for local services. We expect local Government to respond positively as far as council tax is concerned. Therefore we expect to see an average council tax increase in England in 2007/08 of less than 5%. We will not allow excessive council tax increases. We have used our reserve capping powers in previous years to deal with excessive increases and won’t hesitate to do so again if that proves necessary.”

6.2 It should be remembered that although the Government constantly refers to Council Tax increases the legislation requires any capping decision to be framed around increases in budget requirement.

6.3 Thus, in 2005/06 capping was based on budgets that showed:

x an increase of more than 6% in their budget requirement compared with 2004/05, and x their council tax had increased by more than 5.5%.

6.4 While in 2006/07 it was based on budgets that showed: x an increase of more than 6% in their budget requirement compared with 2005-06, and x their council tax had increased by more than 5%.

6.5 In both years there were standard criteria for all authorities although the regulations allow the Government to set different criteria for different classes of authorities.

6.6 In 2004/05 14 Councils were capped, in 2005/06 this fell to 9 Councils and in 2006/07 two Councils (York and Medway) were designated i.e. they were not actually capped but were told that for 2007/08 any capping decision would be based on the figures for 2006/07 as if they had been capped.

6.7 The fact that whilst the increase in Council Tax fell the increase in budget requirement stayed at 6% is particularly relevant as the

93 Council’s Financial Strategy is based around the increase in budget requirement before capping applies not falling below 5%.

6.8 The proposed Council Tax for 2007/08 is £109.91, an increase of £5.22 which is just under 5%. The proposed increase in budget requirement is 7.1%.

6.9 Huntingdonshire’s Council Tax this year (£104.69) compares to that of other Districts as follows. It is:

x in the lowest 8% of Council Tax levels for all Shire Districts in England. Range £60 to £281, average £150. x 8.4% of the total Council Tax bill* for Huntingdonshire residents.

* This includes the amounts set by the County Council, the Fire and Police Authorities and Town or Parish Councils.

7 CONSULTATION AND COMMENTS

7.1 This report will be considered at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny (Corporate and Strategic Framework) Panel on the 30 January and a consultation meeting with members of the business community is taking place on 31 January. Comments from both meetings will be reported to Cabinet.

8 PRUDENTIAL CODE

8.1 The Prudential Code sets various limits relating to the budget and this has been included as an annex to the Treasury Management Strategy elsewhere on the Cabinet’s agenda.

9 RISK ASSESMENT – 2007/08 BUDGET

9.1 The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Director of Commerce and Technology (as the Council’s Chief Financial Officer) to report to the Council on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of reserves when it considers its budget and the consequent Council Tax. His comments are contained in Annex F and confirm that the budget is adequately robust and that the level of revenue reserves is significantly above the minimum level required.

10 RISK ASSESMENT – FINANCIAL PLAN

10.1 Annex G considers the sensitivity of the plan in the longer term to variations in inflation, pay awards and interest rates and highlights other significant risks to the Council’s financial position. Some of these issues are clearly outside the Council’s control and there is little alternative to simply keeping them under review and reacting appropriately if they occur. Others are more clearly within the Council’s own control and so can be programmed and dealt with at the appropriate time.

94 11 CONCLUSIONS

11.1 The Council approved the draft Budget, MTP and Financial Strategy figures in December.

11.2 These figures have been amended for the items highlighted in paragraph 3 of this report. They result in changes to the level of savings eventually required and increase the speed with which they are required.

11.3 The Government have signalled their intention to use capping to keep Council Tax levels down for 2007/08 and have referred to increases averaging above 5% not being acceptable. There can be no guarantee of the actual level at which capping will apply because the Government refuse to give this figure as a matter of principle.

11.4 The proposed Council Tax increase of £5.22 for 2007/08 is just below 5% which is the equivalent of 10p per week for a band D property and it is anticipated that this would avoid capping. The position for future years will need to be reviewed each year.

11.5 The combination of sound budget practices, the success so far in identifying savings and significant revenue reserves means that the proposed 2007/08 budget is robust and that the Council is well-placed, for the time being, to deal with any unforeseen expenditure.

12. RECOMMENDATION

The Cabinet is asked to consider the following recommendations to February Council:

x Approval of the proposed budget, MTP and Financial Plan (Annexs C, D and E) x Approval of a Council Tax (Band D) increase of £5.22 per year (4.99%) for 2007/08.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT 1985 Grant Settlement Information – Files in Financial Services Working Papers - Files in Financial Services Project Appraisals 2006/07 Revenue Budget and the 2007/011 MTP

Contact Officer: Steve Couper Head of Financial Services 01480 388103

95 This page is intentionally left blank

96 ANNEX A

BUDGET MTP FORECAST DRAFT FINANCIAL SUMMARY 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 2006/7 BUDGET/MTP before savings 19,331 20,706 22,610 24,999 26,858 27,820 28,999 30,160 31,324 32,539 33,727 35,085 36,446 MTP Variations Technical -142 -129 -1 129 66 31 -40 30 15 49 130 -44 -89 Revised Timing -594 -166 -40 -167 -152 -110 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 -99 Revised Timing with Extra Cost -9 -108 -158 -94 -7 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 New Unavoidable 262 747 508 556 545 568 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 New 2011/12 109 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 New Urgent 10 167 159 171 171 174 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 Total MTP Variations ** -480 509 462 589 617 778 729 799 784 818 899 725 680 Interest and Borrowing Variations -163 -289 -261 -117 -15 17 72 75 76 73 72 64 50 Other Variations 45000000000000 Revised Total before savings 18,733 20,926 22,811 25,471 27,460 28,615 29,800 31,034 32,184 33,430 34,698 35,874 37,176 2006/07 Total Savings Required -1,026 -1,573 -2,157 -2,792 -3,342 -3,892 -4,442 -4,992 -5,492 -5,776 -5,826 -5,764 -5,696 97 Extra Savings Now Required 0 -100 -250 -350 -450 -550 -650 -725 -780 -780 -780 -780 -780 Revised Savings Total -1,026 -1,673 -2,407 -3,142 -3,792 -4,442 -5,092 -5,717 -6,272 -6,556 -6,606 -6,544 -6,476 NEW FORECAST 17,707 19,253 20,404 22,329 23,668 24,173 24,708 25,317 25,912 26,874 28,092 29,330 30,700 % increase 14.2% 8.7% 6.0% 9.4% 6.0% 2.1% 2.2% 2.5% 2.3% 3.7% 4.5% 4.4% 4.7% Use of revenue reserves 928 1,314 1,568 2,551 2,902 2,368 1,813 1,278 670 370 263 110 19 Budget Requirement 16,779 17,939 18,836 19,778 20,766 21,805 22,895 24,039 25,242 26,504 27,829 29,220 30,681 % increase 9.8% 6.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% FUNDING Government Support -10,892 -11,650 -12,162 -12,684 -13,033 -13,391 -13,759 -14,138 -14,526 -14,926 -15,336 -15,758 -16,192 Collection Fund Deficit 74000000000000 Council Tax -5,961 -6,289 -6,674 -7,093 -7,734 -8,413 -9,136 -9,902 -10,715 -11,578 -12,492 -13,462 -14,490 COUNCIL TAX LEVEL £104.69 £109.91 £116.05 £122.73 £133.14 £144.12 £155.72 £167.94 £180.83 £194.41 £208.72 £223.81 £239.70 % increase 5.0% 5.0% 5.6% 5.8% 8.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.4% 7.2% 7.1% Remaining revenue reserves EOY 17,272 15,958 14,390 11,839 8,937 6,569 4,756 3,478 2,808 2,438 2,175 2,065 2,046 Remaining capital reserves EOY 31,492 17,966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest included in net budget -3,153 -2,652 -1,736 -977 -850 -718 -611 -533 -483 -459 -448 -444 -448 This page is intentionally left blank 98 ANNEX B

REVENUE IMPACT NET CAPITAL COST 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010 2011 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010 2011 Bid Scheme 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 No. £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 336 Huntingdon Impressions Expansion - rephasing -4 -4 -147 147 22 CCTV Improvements - rephasing -2 -1 -45 12 33 626 Wireless Working - combined scheme split into parts but proposal for this element 44444-83163 omitted in error 634 Customer First - correction of error 33 33 33 33 33 33 99 300 Pathfinder House Improvements and One Stop Shop - mainly rephasing, also price 175 107 198 -27 21 -9 67 1,936 -249 -1,484 789 -997 19 base changes for non-fixed price element Inflation - higher gas and electricity costs from recent retendering 107 100 95 95 95 Capital inflation adjustment – Reviewed and adjusted 1234 71618309 VAT non-reclaimable capital – Reviewed and adjusted 4 10 17 22 23 25 263 288 253 88 33 67 Other rephasing -1 29 -29 sub-total 205 256 353 129 179 152 -32 2,198 226 -1,215 895 -934 95 This page is intentionally left blank 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ANNEX D

BUDGET MTP FORECAST FINANCIAL SUMMARY 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 2006/7 BUDGET/MTP before savings 19,331 20,706 22,610 24,999 26,858 27,820 28,999 30,160 31,324 32,539 33,727 35,085 36,446 Interest and Borrowing Variations 1 -337 -199 -42 53 63 105 87 63 50 48 40 24 MTP Variations ** -275 765 815 718 796 930 883 953 938 972 1,053 879 834 Technical -142 -129 -1 129 66 31 -40 30 15 49 130 -44 -89 Revised Timing -601 -168 -46 -173 -158 -116 -105 -105 -105 -105 -105 -105 -105 Revised Timing with Extra Cost -9 -108 -158 -94 -7 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 New Unavoidable 262 747 508 556 545 568 567 567 567 567 567 567 567 New 2011/12 109 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 New Urgent 10 167 159 171 171 174 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 Latest Variations 205 256 353 129 179 152 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 Other Variations -342 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 Revised Total before savings 18,715 21,134 23,226 25,675 27,707 28,813 29,987 31,200 32,325 33,561 34,828 36,004 37,304 109 2006/07 Total Savings Required -1,026 -1,573 -2,157 -2,792 -3,342 -3,892 -4,442 -4,992 -5,492 -5,776 -5,826 -5,764 -5,696 Extra Savings Required 0 -100 -286 -421 -641 -861 -1,081 -1,301 -1,076 -792 -742 -804 -872 Revised Savings Total -1,026 -1,673 -2,443 -3,213 -3,983 -4,753 -5,523 -6,293 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 NEW FORECAST 17,689 19,461 20,783 22,462 23,724 24,060 24,464 24,907 25,757 26,993 28,260 29,436 30,736 % increase 14.1% 10.0% 6.8% 8.1% 5.6% 1.4% 1.7% 1.8% 3.4% 4.8% 4.7% 4.2% 4.4% Use of revenue reserves 910 1,491 1,915 2,650 2,921 2,216 1,528 825 471 442 381 164 0 Budget Requirement 16,779 17,970 18,868 19,812 20,803 21,844 22,936 24,082 25,286 26,551 27,879 29,272 30,736 % increase 9.8% 7.1% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% FUNDING Government Support -10,892 -11,650 -12,162 -12,684 -13,033 -13,391 -13,759 -14,138 -14,526 -14,926 -15,336 -15,758 -16,192 Collection Fund Deficit 74 -7 0 0 0 0 0000000 Council Tax -5,961 -6,313 -6,706 -7,128 -7,770 -8,452 -9,177 -9,945 -10,760 -11,624 -12,542 -13,514 -14,545 COUNCIL TAX LEVEL £104.69 £109.91 £116.18 £122.88 £133.28 £144.26 £155.84 £168.05 £180.91 £194.48 £208.79 £223.85 £239.72 % increase 5.0% 5.0% 5.7% 5.8% 8.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.4% 7.2% 7.1% Remaining revenue reserves EOY 17,290 15,799 13,884 11,234 8,313 6,097 4,569 3,744 3,273 2,831 2,450 2,286 2,286 Remaining capital reserves EOY 29,294 15,542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest included in net budget -2,936 -2,587 -1,634 -950 -820 -689 -592 -530 -500 -482 -467 -459 -461 ** Excluding the two items included in the savings list ANNEX D1

2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ SAVINGS SUMMARY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 TARGETS Last Year's Target -1,026 -1,573 -2,157 -2,792 -3,342 -3,892 -4,442 -4,992 -5,492 -5,776 -5,826 -5,764 -5,696 Additional Savings Identified in December 0 -100 -250 -350 -450 -550 -650 -725 -780 -780 -780 -780 -780 Additional Savings Identified now -36 -71 -191 -311 -431 -576 -296 -12 36 -24 -92 New Savings Target -1,026 -1,673 -2,443 -3,213 -3,983 -4,753 -5,523 -6,293 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568 -6,568

IDENTIFIED Included in 2006/07 Budget -452 -450 -448 -446 -444 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 -459 Detailed in Annex A -531 -1,086 -1,352 -1,398 -1,344 -1,485 -1,485 -1,485 -1,344 -1,485 -1,485 -1,485 -1,344 Assumed level of general underspendings -300 -150 -100 -50 -50 -50 110 Total Identified -1,283 -1,686 -1,900 -1,894 -1,838 -1,994 -1,944 -1,944 -1,803 -1,944 -1,944 -1,944 -1,803

Savings still to be Identified -543 -1,319 -2,145 -2,759 -3,579 -4,349 -4,765 -4,624 -4,624 -4,624 -4,765 Surplus savings 257 13 ANNEX E 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Environmental Services £000 £000 £000 Refuse Collection 3,683 3,638 3,521 Recycling 872 663 595 Drainage & Sewers 589 550 595 Public Conveniences 278 295 306 Environmental Health 1,816 1,772 1,930 Closed Churchyards 31 36 22 Street Cleaning & Litter 1,390 1,373 1,413 8,659 8,326 8,384

Planning £000 £000 £000 Development Control 1,152 1,384 1,227 Building Control 255 254 291 Planning Policy & Conservation 1,210 1,317 1,310 Markets -69 -41 -68 Economic Development 300 287 -550 Tourism 436 450 441 Planning Delivery Grant 163 -657 7 3,448 2,993 2,658

Community Services £000 £000 £000 Corporate Events 220 178 213 Countryside 540 602 559 Community Initiatives 842 772 829 Parks 1,618 1,560 1,559 Leisure Policy 405 377 427 Leisure Centres 3,269 3,527 3,637 6,894 7,016 7,226

Community Safety £000 £000 £000 Community Safety 1,185 1,091 924 1,185 1,091 924

Housing Services £000 £000 £000 Housing Services 643 713 672 Private Housing Support 3,216 2,669 3,607 Homelessness 614 488 679 Housing Benefits 759 752 935 5,232 4,622 5,893

Highways & Transportation £000 £000 £000 Transportation Strategy 1,033 725 987 Public Transport 618 853 824 Highways Services 74 90 90 Car Parks 17 -97 -185 Environmental Improvements 639 667 386 2,380 2,239 2,103

Corporate Services £000 £000 £000 Local Taxation & Benefits 1,061 960 1,107 Corporate Management 2,334 2,001 2,238 Democratic Representation 1,145 1,086 1,141 Central Services 237 442 442 4,777 4,488 4,928

Other Expenditure £000 £000 £000 Contingency -693 -2 -686 Other Expenditure -10,790 -10,149 -9,382 Investment Interest -2,786 -2,936 -2,587 -14,268 -13,087 -12,655

Council Total 18,305 17,689 19,461

111 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Environmental Services £000 £000 £000 Refuse Collection Domestic Refuse 3,677 3,626 3,498 Refuse Policy 20 13 14 Trade Refuse -14 -1 10 3,683 3,638 3,521 Recycling Green Waste 80 52 82 Recycling Kerbside Collections 612 584 536 Recycling Policy 156 56 6 Recycling Sites 25 -29 -28 872 663 595 Drainage & Sewers Environmental Emergencies 0 0 0 Internal Drainage Boards 324 300 332 Nightsoil Collection 11 10 10 Watercourses 254 240 254 589 550 595 Public Conveniences Public Conveniences 278 295 306 278 295 306 Environmental Health Air Quality 84 104 103 Animal Welfare 131 121 141 Burials Under Health Acts 0 0 0 Caravans And Camping 5 5 6 Contaminated Land 151 170 179 Eh Health & Safety 199 202 215 Energy Efficiency 136 87 96 Environmental Health General 12 12 13 Food Safety 436 427 487 Health Promotion 93 45 41 Nuisances 274 293 311 Pest Control 97 105 106 Private Sector Housing 178 183 214 Travellers 17 17 18 1,816 1,772 1,930 Closed Churchyards Closed Churchyards 31 36 22 31 36 22 Street Cleaning & Litter Abandoned Vehicles 80 70 74 Chewing Gum Removal 17 17 17 Fly Poster/Graffiti Removal 65 63 66 Litter Control 92 83 89 Street Cleansing Operations 1,094 1,107 1,132 Street Cleansing Policy 11 12 13 Weed Control 31 21 23 1,390 1,373 1,413 8,659 8,326 8,384

Planning £000 £000 £000 Development Control Dc Advice 410 516 444 Dc Application Processing 460 573 509 Dc Enforcement 207 244 219 Dev Control Panel 75 51 54 1,152 1,384 1,227 Building Control Bc Best Value Review 0 0 0 Bc Promotion & Enforcement 220 233 244 B Regs Applications 35 13 38 Defence Estates 0 8 8 Sustainable Construction 1 0 0 255 254 291 Planning Policy & Conservation Biodiversity Action Plan 2 7 2 Cambs Historic Churches Trust 3 0 0 Conservation & Listed Build 286 252 205 Kimbolton Small Works 2 0 0 Local Plan 494 526 617 Planning Projects/Implement 168 268 228 St Neots Cap Scheme 0 0 0 Strategic & Regional Planning 86 61 57 Suppl Planning Guidance 13 30 23 Trees 155 175 178 1,210 1,317 1,310 Markets Farmers Markets 3 -5 3 Huntingdon Market -27 -26 -27 Markets Management 48 83 59 Ramsey Market -2 -1 -1 St Ives Bank Holiday Market -40 -40 -41 St Ives Market -52 -53 -62

112 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

St Neots Market 0 0 0 -69 -41 -68 Economic Development Business & Enterprise Support 193 229 253 Commercial Properties -122 -5 -165 Estates Management 45 42 46 Industrial Properties -143 -175 -353 Miscellaneous Properties -546 -196 -642 N N D R Discretionary Relief 34 39 40 Town Centre Management 840 354 271 300 287 -550 Tourism Tourism District Promotion 340 363 396 Tourism Information Centres 97 86 45 436 450 441 Planning Delivery Grant Planning Delivery Grant -311 -657 -211 Planning Grant Unallocated 474 0 219 163 -657 7 3,448 2,993 2,658

Community Services £000 £000 £000 Corporate Events Leisure Grants 196 155 194 Priory Centre 24 23 19 220 178 213 Countryside Barford Road Pocket Park 4 5 6 Coneygear Park 1 43 4 Countryside Management 163 158 160 Hinchingbrooke Country Park 231 250 249 Holt Island 2 2 2 Ouse Valley Way 2 2 2 Paxton Pits 107 112 105 Paxton Pits R&R Fund 2 2 2 Spring Common 27 27 29 540 602 559 Community Initiatives Com Initiatives - Housing 83 82 87 Com Initiatives - Leisure 75 75 80 Community Strategy 34 55 45 Equal Opportunities 31 45 44 Health For Huntingdonshire 33 37 34 Health For Hunt Yaxley 1 1 1 Hunts Learning Partnership 1 8 7 Local Agenda 21 28 32 103 Miscellaneous Grants 287 288 281 Oxmoor Action Plan 168 50 46 Social Inclusion Group 4 0 0 St Barnabus Ict Project -0 0 0 Yaxley Community Project 96 100 102 842 772 829 Parks Highways Amenities 43 31 46 Parks Contracts 876 -16 -31 Parks Management 639 1,482 1,484 Pavillions 45 52 54 Unallocated Land Survey 16 11 7 1,618 1,560 1,559 Leisure Policy Arts Development 195 177 209 Leisure Development 200 187 204 Policy And Strategic Mgt 10 13 14 405 377 427 Leisure Centres Huntingdon Leisure Centre 687 759 742 Leisure Centres Overall 38 38 39 Ramsey Leisure Centre 507 519 540 Sawtry Leisure Centre 470 517 505 St Ivo Leisure Centre 901 988 935 St Neots Leisure Centre 665 707 877 3,269 3,527 3,637 6,894 7,016 7,226

Community Safety £000 £000 £000 Community Safety C C T V 715 699 743 Community Safety 469 392 182 1,185 1,091 924 1,185 1,091 924

Housing Services £000 £000 £000 Housing Services Common Housing Register 12 9 20 Contributions To H R A 26 19 21

113 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Housing Advances 10 13 10 Housing Advice 111 163 146 Housing Developments 15 10 11 Housing Strategy 183 151 136 Mobile Home Park 28 127 39 Publicising Housing Services 6 6 6 Waiting List 252 216 282 643 713 672 Private Housing Support Home Improvement Agency 82 69 80 Housing Associations 2,058 1,486 2,225 Housing Surveys 32 49 25 Renovation/Improvement Grants 1,044 1,065 1,277 3,216 2,669 3,607 Homelessness Homelessness Management 383 232 404 Homeless Young Persons Advisor 3 1 1 Hostel Support 69 94 97 Invest To Save Schemes 10 0 10 Priority Needs Scheme 24 24 67 Rental Deposit Scheme 53 71 56 Supporting People Scheme 25 0 0 Temp Accommodation - B&B 47 66 43 614 488 679 Housing Benefits Housing Benefits Admin 533 445 579 Rent Allowance Local Scheme 23 21 22 Rent Allowance National Scheme 38 105 169 Temporary Accomodation Support 165 180 166 759 752 935 5,232 4,622 5,893

Highways & Transportation £000 £000 £000 Transportation Strategy Accessibility Improvements 29 28 25 Cycle Routes 44 41 23 Cycle Shelters 14 12 11 Environmental Management 24 39 25 Transportation Developments 727 460 729 Transportation Grants 85 86 88 Transportation Strategy 109 60 85 1,033 725 987 Public Transport Bus Shelters 44 47 50 Concessionary Fares 481 677 686 Huntingdon Bus Station 56 92 57 Rail Passes 5 5 5 St Ives Bus Station 32 32 26 618 853 824 Highways Services Highways Cyclic Mtce 1 0 0 Highways Management 73 90 90 74 90 90 Car Parks Car Park Management -230 -272 -355 Car Park Policy 247 175 170 17 -97 -185 Environmental Improvements Env Imps Feasibilty Studies 14 16 16 Env Imps Management 46 53 53 Environmental Imps Renewals 16 16 17 Gazebo R&R 1 1 1 Godmanchester Env Improvements 7 7 3 Huntingdon Env Improvements 200 200 87 Other Schemes 4 4 2 Ramsey Env Improvements 24 16 10 Small Scale Env Improvements 175 203 124 Somersham Env Improvements 4 4 2 St Ives Env Improvements 59 59 27 St Neots Caps Town 0 -0 -0 St Neots Env Improvements 88 88 45 639 667 386 2,380 2,239 2,103

Corporate Services £000 £000 £000 Local Taxation & Benefits Council Tax 943 833 926 Council Tax Benefits 134 122 158 N N D R Administration -16 5 24 1,061 960 1,107 Corporate Management Bank Charges 58 43 56 Customer First 331 255 241 External Audit 113 123 119 Information & Promotion 545 486 527

114 2006/07 2007/08 Service Budgets Original Forecast Budget

Local Council Support 19 21 23 Pensions 228 230 245 Performance Management 211 97 203 Policy And Strategy 732 680 748 Public Accountability 62 46 48 System & Asset Management 45 29 36 Unallocated Central Overheads -8 -8 -8 2,334 2,001 2,238 Democratic Representation Civic & Ceremonial 14 14 14 Corporate Committees 275 270 288 Corporate Subscriptions 29 29 30 Member Allowances & Support 809 759 794 Twinning 19 14 15 1,145 1,086 1,141 Central Services Elections 342 361 373 Emergency Planning 94 105 106 Land Charges -310 -168 -188 Licences 111 145 151 237 442 442 4,777 4,488 4,928

Other Expenditure £000 £000 £000 Contingency Efficiency Savings Contingency -654 -6 -136 General Contingency 140 140 140 Other Contingencies -179 -136 -689 -693 -2 -686 Other Expenditure Capital Charges Reversed -10,266 -8,873 -8,268 Commutation Transfer -280 -280 -171 Pensions Liabilities Reversed -537 -1,124 -1,148 V A T Partial Exemption 293 128 204 -10,790 -10,149 -9,382 Investment Interest Interest Paid 82 164 84 Interest Received -2,868 -3,100 -2,671 -2,786 -2,936 -2,587 -14,268 -13,087 -12,655

115 This page is intentionally left blank

116 ANNEX F

RESERVES AND THE ROBUSTNESS OF THE 2007/08 BUDGET

The Local Government Act 2003 requires me, as the Council’s Chief Financial Officer, to report on the robustness of the 2007/08 budget and the adequacy of reserves when you consider it and the consequent Council Tax.

Robustness The Council has tended in recent years to underspend its budget. This demonstrates that it has budgeted prudently and that managers have taken a mature approach to budgetary control rather than to simply spend any spare sums on low priority items. There is consistent and effective application of financial controls and thus a sound base for setting future budgets. The process for compiling this budget included an efficiency savings/budget reductions exercise involving all Heads of Service and I believe this has resulted in a tighter but realistic budget proposal for each service grouping.

The 2007/08 budget has been prepared using the budget for 2006/07 as a base, and amending it for known changes, particularly: x Inflation, including pension contributions and electricity which are in excess of general inflation x Potential pay rises x The impact of MTP schemes x Forecast interest rates, which have a significant impact on our investment income

There will always be some items that emerge after the budget has been prepared. These are normally met by compensating savings elsewhere in the budget, the use of the contingency (£132k) or, if necessary, the use of revenue reserves.

The most significant potential risks to the budget are: x higher inflation than anticipated x lower interest rates x an emergency (e.g. flooding)

A ½% increase in general and pay inflation, assuming no compensating increase in fees and charges was possible, would result in a net cost of approximately £160k.

A ½% reduction in interest rates would result in lost income of approximately £220k but higher inflation is more likely to result in higher rather than lower interest rates.

Certain types of eventuality are mitigated in other ways. Many significant risks are insured against, so losses are limited to the excesses payable. The Government’s Bellwin Scheme meets a large proportion, over a threshold, of the costs of any significant peacetime emergencies (e.g. severe flooding).

Revenue Reserves These are estimated to be £15.8m at April 2007 and £13.9m at March 2008. This is very significantly above what would be considered a safe minimum level, which would be nearer £2m.

The budget provides for the draw down of £1.5M of revenue reserves in 2007/8. The financial plan anticipates further draw downs in the following years. Whilst all

117 necessary savings have been identified to achieve the budget for 2007/8 the financial plans for subsequent years requires further savings to be identified. I believe this to be a reasonable approach at this time.

Conclusion Considering all these factors, I believe that the combination of a robust budget process and significant reserves should give Members no concerns over the Council’s budget and financial position for 2007/08.

Terry Parker Director of Commerce and Technology

118 ANNEX G

SENSITIVITY

The financial forecast model has been used to demonstrate the impact that variations in investment rates, borrowing rates and increases in pay will have in specific years.

Extra cost in year: 2011/12 2018/19 £000 £000 0.5% extra pay award cumulative from 770 1,860 2007/08 assuming none recoverable. 0.5% increase in staff efficiency cumulative -770 -1,860 from 2007/08assuming this can be translated into reduced staffing levels. 0.5% higher investment returns in year -40 -20 0.5% higher borrowing costs in year 90 180

Inflation, other than pay, is fairly neutral as long as fees and charges are increased in line with it. If pay awards increase by more than forecast then efficiency improvements would be needed to reduce the impact.

The impact of investment rates has significantly diminished by 2011/12 as reserves have been significantly reduced by meeting revenue deficits and funding capital projects.

The impact of higher borrowing rates is much less significant than pay but is growing.

Other Risks

The MTP includes additional costs of £185k in 2007/08 to cover the costs of the new Concessionary Fares scheme that was introduced in 2006/07 and then extended beyond the statutory minimum to allow free journeys within the County area. From April 2008 the statutory requirement will be changed to include such journeys. It is not yet clear whether it will become a national scheme at that point or remain with Local Authorities. If it stays then it is expected that additional Government Support will be provided. There is clearly a chance that the existing budget will be inadequate even with additional Government funding to supplement it.

The Government’s next Comprehensive Spending Review will be published in the summer and will result in indicative three year grant settlements starting with 2008/09. This could have a significant impact.

It has been assumed that capping will continue to allow 5% increases in budget requirement. If this limit were to be reduced significant additional savings would be required.

119 Inflation on Capital Schemes of 2.5% per year has been included in total within the plan and will be allocated to individual schemes once the budget is approved. There have been examples of high tender prices on specific schemes but there is little objective data on which to base a higher inflation allocation or even to estimate a suitable contingency sum so no additional provision has been included. The Pathfinder House figures are predominantly fixed prices.

There is no provision for any demographic growth in services. Pressures will emerge due to additional housing which will particularly affect refuse/recycling collection but there is currently an exercise underway to identify savings in this area. Pressures may also emerge on other services due to increased life expectancy.

Most budgets are based on 97.5% of salary due to the expectation of savings from staff turnover. If turnover falls financial pressures will emerge.

Provision for performance pay is 1% in 2007/08 and 2008/09 and 0% thereafter. This reflects the increased proportion of staff at or approaching the top of their grade that will no longer be eligible for these increases and the likelihood of additional savings when turnover takes place.

Leisure Centre income is approaching £5M per year and certain facilities are in direct competition with the private sector. If income was lost it would be difficult to reduce expenditure by an equivalent sum in the short term.

120 APPENDIX B

2007/08 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (Report by the Head of Financial Services)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 A Treasury Management Strategy ensures that the Authority has clear objectives for the management of its borrowing and investments. It is also needed to comply with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA’s) Code of Practice, which is required by the Council’s Code of Financial Management. The Government has also published Guidance which recommends that an Annual Investment Strategy is produced each year and approved by the full Council.

1.2 The Guidance emphasises that priority must be given to the security and liquidity of investments whilst the Code covers the same point by requiring the effective management and control of risk. This Strategy is intended to meet the requirements of the Code and the Guidance.

1.3 The Strategy addresses the following two issues in some detail:

• The decreasing level of reserves and therefore investments in 2007/08 will mean that the Council will need to reduce the number of Fund Managers from three to two. • The Council has the opportunity to borrow in advance of need if it is considered that long term borrowing rates are low and the funds will be needed for the approved MTP.

1.4 When the Government removed its controls on capital expenditure levels a few years ago it introduced the concept of the Prudential Code which pulled together a number of indicators related to capital expenditure, external debt and treasury management. Its purpose was to demonstrate that the Council’s capital expenditure plans were affordable and to provide a set of limits, to be complied with, and indicators to be monitored during the forthcoming year. These indicators have previously been part of the budget report but as they have significant relevance to Treasury Management it is now considered that they best form part of this report which will be considered after the budget report.

1.5 The proposed strategy is attached as Annex A.

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 Cabinet is requested to recommend to Council that it approves this Strategy including the Prudential Code Indicators.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Background files in Accountancy Section: Treasury Management Reports Reports on the 2007/08 Budget and Medium Term Plan to Cabinet and Council CIPFA’s Treasury Management in the Public Services Code of Practice 2002 ODPM Guidance on Local Government Investments March 2004

Contact Officer: Steve Couper, Head of Financial Services (01480) 388103

121

This page is intentionally left blank

122 ANNEX A

TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2007/08

This Treasury Management Strategy is intended to meet the requirements of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA’s) Code of Practice and the Government’s Guidance on Local Government Investments.

CASH FLOW

At any moment the Authority’s investments will consist of two distinct elements - cash flow and reserves.

Cash flow is the day-to-day impact of managing the flow of funds into and out of the Council and is dealt with in-house. For instance, the dates on which the County Council is paid its portion of the council tax will be different to the days the money is received from those living in the District. These cash flows will sometimes leave the Council with several million pounds to borrow or invest for a few days. It is often in the Council’s best interests to be a net-borrower for cash flow purposes as we would expect our Fund Managers to gain higher returns from their expertise and greater stability of the funds than the cost of the temporary borrowing. Generally the return of funds is only requested when there is an ongoing rather than intermittent need to borrow.

Reserves are more stable in that there will be a definite estimate of the amount that they will reduce or increase by during the course of the year but even this will fluctuate to some extent as a result of any variation in inflation, interest rates or general under or overspending.

GENERAL

Treasury Management actions will always, necessarily, be based on the market situation at the time which can fluctuate significantly from day to day. It is therefore inevitable that elements of this strategy are based on general intentions rather than on trying to guess, at this time, what will be good or bad interest rates in advance. The Council seeks advice from its professional advisors (Butlers) and its Fund Managers before making any major decisions. There is also a member advisory group, the Capital Receipts Advisory Group, that as well as meeting with the Fund Manager’s periodically is kept informed and/or consulted on Treasury Management matters.

THE COUNCIL’S FINANCIAL STRATEGY

The Council’s Financial Strategy is based on the following figures for reserves and borrowing:

2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ FORECAST 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M Remaining reserves 46.6 31.3 13.9 11.2 8.3 6.1 4.6 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.3 (End of year) Need to borrow In year 0 0 2.1 11.1 4.2 4.5 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.9 Cumulative 0 0 2.1 13.2 17.4 21.9 25.0 28.3 31.7 35.2 38.9 42.7 46.6

123

CURRENT POSITION

Most investment activity is carried out by the Council’s three Fund Managers who currently (January 2007) manage the following sums:

Investec £21.5m Alliance Bernstein (Alliance) £21.5m City Deposit Cash Managers (CDCM) £20.0m Total £63.0m

The sums with Fund Managers will exceed the Council’s revenue and capital reserves as a result of three factors:

• Temporary borrowing in-house • Temporary cash-flow surpluses • Other reserves that are earmarked (e.g. S106 and R&R Funds)

The Council had no long-term borrowing at the date this report was prepared.

LONG-TERM BORROWING

As the Council’s reserves run out, as illustrated in the table above, there will be a need for long-term borrowing to finance the capital programme. The financial plan shows that this will not be until 2008/09 but effective treasury management involves borrowing when interest rates are judged to be at the best level, even if the funds have then to be invested until the money is required; borrowing in this way is allowed if it is for planned expenditure. The definition of planned expenditure is not precise and has therefore been discussed with our external auditor who is comfortable with the interpretation of it being included in our approved MTP. Hence, once Council has approved the MTP in February the figure will be £21.9M as highlighted above. Currently the equivalent figure is £10.8M.

The borrowing strategy includes the need to spread risk, so that the Council is never left with a high proportion of its debt becoming repayable at a single time or even in the same period of an interest rate cycle. When the Council borrows the repayment profile of the debt will need to be considered though this is not critical if the borrowing is from the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) which is a Government Agency to provide funds to government bodies at wholesale market rates. This is because they allow a borrower to reschedule their debt during the course of the loan based on a prescribed financially neutral formula. The combination of these keen rates and the option to reschedule means that local authority borrowing is normally from the PWLB rather than commercial bodies.

Interest rates are already being monitored on a daily basis so that if rates become attractive some early borrowing can take place. If rates become sufficiently attractive up to £21.9M will be borrowed from the market or, much more probably, the PWLB for an initial period, probably, in excess of 45 years

MANAGING THE REDUCTION IN RESERVES

The first part of this section is based on the assumption that no advance borrowing will take place in the next six months.

124

In recent years there have been only modest reductions in reserves due to their limited use for financing revenue, and capital expenditure being partially offset by capital receipts and deferred spending. However the proposed budget/MTP shows significant reductions in reserves over the coming five years as shown in the table below:

MTP RESERVES 2006/ 2007/ 2008/ 2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 £M £M £M £M £M £M Forecast position at end of year 47 31 14 11 8 6

Investec and Alliance both utilise a broader and more volatile range of investments than CDCM. As our reserves fall we are less able to cope with such volatility so we will need to move our funds to managers such as CDCM or narrow our investment mandates to minimise volatility. As the level of investments reduces we also need to reduce the number of managers as there are clearly limits to the sizes of portfolios that are sensible or acceptable to fund managers.

The strategy has been to take funds equally from Investec and Alliance until the point is reached where there is insufficient to warrant two separate funds.

A change of policy at Alliance in recent months has led to this approach being reviewed as, whilst they are prepared to continue to manage our Fund as long as it exceeds £10M, they do intend to move out of the Local Authority market. Given their reduced interest in “our” market it would be appropriate to consider moving our funds away from them more quickly than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, after consultation with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group and the Council’s advisor, the £10M of funds required for return in February will all be taken from Alliance leaving their portfolio at £11.5m.

A further £5M is likely to be needed by about April and at that time it is proposed that we seek return of all the Funds from Alliance. In principle any funds not immediately needed by the Council would be added to CDCM’s portfolio but depending on the market situation at the time the flexibility to temporarily delay return of the funds or to temporarily transfer specific investments to Investec in order to optimise the Council’s position may be required.

Detailed consideration needs to be given to the Council’s mandates with Investec and CDCM over the coming months to begin to reduce volatility and long term commitments. This will take place in liaison with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group and the Council’s advisor. Whilst any change of this nature might reduce the Council’s overall medium term investment returns (volatility was only accepted in order to increase returns) there will be no increase in the risk of counterparties not repaying the Council’s investments.

Subsequently, as funds reduce further, the point will be reached where City Deposit Cash Managers, or an equivalent manager, looks after the whole fund based on a narrower more stable type of investments. This final reduction to one fund manager may not occur before 2008/09 but preparations may need to be made before the end of this calendar year in consultation with the CRAG.

125

If early borrowing takes place it is still proposed to move funds away from Alliance and close their fund during the year though the timing may be delayed if it is in the Council’s interests. It may also mean, depending on the scale, that the preparations for moving down to one manager are deferred but there will still be a need to review and modify existing mandates during the course of the year.

CATEGORIES OF INVESTMENT

The guidance on Local Authority Investments categorises investments as ‘specified’ and ‘non-specified’. This differentiation requires the types of non-specified investments that will be used to be defined in this Strategy

Specified investments are:

• in sterling • due to be repaid within 12 months • not defined as capital expenditure in the capital finance regulations 2003 • with a body that has a high credit rating or it is made with the UK Government (gilts or CDs), or a local Authority

Non-specified investments include all other types of investment and the types the Council proposes to use are described below:

• corporate bonds which are issued by companies to cover their debt • sovereign securities which are bonds issued by non-UK governments • floating rate notes, securities where the interest changes in step with market conditions • securities issued by supranational organisations such as the World Bank • money market funds

IN-HOUSE MANAGEMENT

The Fund Managers will be asked to return funds to the Authority as and when they are needed. There are significant changes in cash flow on a daily basis which result in the Authority moving from having funds to invest to a position of having to borrow. It will normally be financially advantageous to have some delay before funds are returned thus maximising the net return and minimising the need for in-house investment activity. It is expected that temporary borrowing will not normally exceed £20m at any one time.

The Council will need to approve a prudential indicator for the ‘authorised limit for external debt’; this combines temporary and long-term borrowing and a maximum of £41.9m is being recommended (£20m temporary plus £21.9m long term).

The fluctuating balance of the fund is managed internally to ensure that whilst sufficient sums are available on a daily basis to meet payments to creditors the investment return is maximised on those days where a surplus is held. Because of these constant fluctuations the majority of these sums are inevitably invested for short periods as time deposits with low risk counter-parties. Appendix A outlines the mandate for the internal funds and lists the approved counter-parties though it should be noted that these will change during the course of any year as credit ratings or size of building societies change.

126

Temporary borrowing will be restricted to that necessary for:

• cash flow, • the cost effective staged return of our investments as they are needed to finance Council spending,

INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS USED BY FUND MANAGERS

In the shorter term, whilst the Authority still holds adequate reserves, it is not imperative that the investment returns are maximised in any one year thus allowing a medium term approach to fund management to be taken. Thus the current strategy is to accept fluctuations between years in return for greater returns. This in turn has an impact on the investment instruments permitted. No change to the investment instruments are therefore proposed immediately.

However, in order to ensure the Council will have the ability to recall funds as required in future years it is necessary to change the limits on CDCM’s investments immediately so that 50% are redeemable within one year. The result will only be achieved in stages as existing investments become due for repayment and reinvestment.

As referred to above, there will be a need to narrow the mandates shown at Annex B during the course of the year.

ADVISORS

The Council appointed Butlers as Treasury Management Advisors to assist in the choice of Fund Managers, develop the mandates and assist in monitoring the Managers’ performance. This has been beneficial given the large sums invested, the complexity of the wider range of instruments used and the ability to compare performance with that achieved by other Fund Managers. A tendering exercise was carried out in 2004/05 for the appointment of an Advisor, and Butlers was reappointed until December 2007. It is unlikely to be necessary to retain advisors once we have completed our moves to a single manager.

KEY POINTS

The Government Guidance recommends that certain aspects are highlighted. Most of these are covered within the mandates but they are listed below for convenience:

Definition of ‘high credit rating’ for specified investments

The Council’s mandates require all specified investments to have a short-term rating of a minimum of F1, as defined by the credit rating agency FITCH or an equivalent rating agency

The frequency that credit ratings are monitored

Butlers monitor the credit ratings of banks and building societies and notify your treasury management staff of any changes. Unless the Authority is notified of a variation it is assumed that the credit rating has not changed. Where a credit rating is downgraded that bank or building society will be removed from the counter-party list if its new rating is outside of the defined limits.

127

The procedure for determining the allowed categories of non-specified investments

Council approve the Strategy that sets out the allowed categories and relevant constraints. These are kept under review during the year by your officers, the Capital Receipts Advisory Group and Butlers (the Council’s professional advisor).

The categories of non-specified investments that can prudently be used during 2007/08

These are identified in the mandates at Appendix B.

The maximum amounts that can be held in each category, as a percentage of the total portfolio managed by each Fund Manager or as a sum of money

These are identified in the mandates at Appendices A and B.

Liquidity of investments

The time deposits managed by CDCM are the least liquid investments and their mandate specifies the maximum period for which funds may prudently be committed. The investments managed by Alliance Bernstein and Investec are all highly liquid. The procedure to ensure that there are sufficient funds to meet the cashflow needs of the Authority is for officers to maintain cash flow forecasts and to review the mandates of the Fund Managers with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group.

The minimum amount that will be held in 2007/08 in investments that are not long-term (over 1 year)

This requirement is stating the value of the investments that are short-term and therefore more liquid. Of the estimated temporary investments held as at 31 March 2008 of £33m, at least £19m will be for less than one year.

MANAGEMENT

The Director of Commerce and Technology and his staff, supported by the Council’s professional advisor, together with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group, will monitor the performance of the funds and raise any issues and concerns with the Fund Managers.

The Cabinet will receive quarterly reports on the performance of the funds and an annual report on the performance for the year.

GENERAL

The strategy is not intended to be a strait-jacket but a definition of the upper limit of the level of risk that it is prudent for the Council to take in maximising its borrowing and investment activities during 2007/08. Any changes that are broadly consistent with this Strategy and either reduce or only minimally increase the level of risk, are delegated to the Head of Financial Services, after consultation with the Capital Receipts Advisory Group in certain cases. Any other proposal to change this strategy will be referred back to the Council.

The Council’s Prudential Indicators are attached at Appendix C. They are based on

128

data included in the budget report and this Treasury Management Strategy. They set various limits that allow officers to monitor its achievement. These indicators must be approved by the Council and can only be amended by the Council.

129

This page is intentionally left blank

130

APPENDIX A

IN-HOUSE FUND MANAGEMENT

Duration of Fixed deposits up to and including 1 year investments Types of Fixed Deposits investments Deposits at call, two or seven day notice Money Market Funds Credit Ratings and See below Maximum limits The credit rating is the short-term rating issued by FITCH unless otherwise indicated Benchmark LGC 7 day rate

COUNTER-PARTY LIST

SHORT TERM LIMIT £2.5M RATINGS BANKS (Rated F1 or better) Abbey National plc F1+ Alliance and Leicester F1+ Barclays F1+ Bradford and Bingley F1 Co-Operative F1 HBOS F1+ HSBC F1+ Kleinwort Benson P1* Lloyds TSB Group F1+ Northern Rock F1 Royal Bank of Scotland F1+

BUILDING SOCIETIES (Assets over £5 billion – Rated F1 or better) Britannia F1 Chelsea F1 Coventry F1 Leeds P1* Nationwide F1+ Portman F1 Skipton F1 West Bromwich F1 Yorkshire F1

ALL LOCAL AUTHORITIES, POLICE AND FIRE AUTHORITIES N/A

* Moody’s equivalent credit rating

131

LIMIT £1.5M SHORT TERM RATINGS BANK SUBSIDIARIES Wholly owned by F1 Rated banks RBS Trust Bank Ltd F1+ Ulster Bank Limited A1** Ulster Bank Ireland A1**

OTHER BANKS Allied Irish Bank F1+ Anglo-Irish F1 Bank of Ireland F1+ Bank of Scotland (Ireland) F1+ Bristol and West F1 Close Brothers F1 DePfa Bank F1+ Dexia Banque Internationale a Luxembourg A1+** HFC Bank F1 Irish Intercontinental Bank F1 KBC Bank NV F1+ Singer and Friedlander F1

OTHER INSTITUTIONS 3i Group Limited A1** Irish Life and Permanent plc F1

BUILDING SOCIETIES (Assets over £2 billion) Cheshire Dunfermline Newcastle Norwich and Peterborough Nottingham Principality Stroud and Swindon

LIMIT £1M SHORT TERM RATINGS BUILDING SOCIETIES (Assets over £1 billion) Scarborough

** Standard and Poor’s credit rating

132

APPENDIX B

EXTERNAL FUND MANAGER MANDATES

Alliance Bernstein and Investec Duration of Average duration of Fund must not exceed 3 years investments No individual investment shall exceed 10 years Types of Marketable securities issued or guaranteed by the UK Government investments (Gilts) Deposits made with or marketable certificates of deposit issued by approved banks (CDs) Sovereign and supranational securities, including floating rate notes (Bonds) Corporate, bank and building society securities, including floating rate notes, commercial paper, asset backed and perpetual securities (Corporate Bonds) Money Market Funds (MMFs) Credit Ratings CORPORATE INVESTMENTS Standard & Poors AA- or Aa3 or above or equivalent A- or A3 or better, maximum term 3 years NON-UK GOVERNMENTS AND SUPRANATIONALS AA- or Aa3 or above or equivalent for non-UK Governments AAA or Aaa for Supranationals SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS Standard & Poor’s A1/P1 or above or equivalent MONEY MARKET FUNDS AAA Maximum limits 50% Corporate bonds 20% Supranational and sovereign securities 50% Floating rate notes 75% Gilts 75% Corporate bonds plus Gilts 75% Corporate bonds + supranational and sovereign securities + floating rate notes + Gilts 50% Corporate bonds + supranational and sovereign securities + floating rate notes 20% with any one counterparty (except UK Government) for fixed deposits and CDs 10% per issuer for corporate bonds and FRNs 10% per issuer for securities guaranteed by non-UK EU Governments and supranational securities Benchmark 60% 3 month LIBID 40% 0-5 year gilt index.

133

CDCM Duration of 50% must be repayable within 12 months investments Up to and including 5 years maximum maturity No more than 25% may be invested for longer than 3 years Types of Fixed Deposits investments Deposits at call, two or seven day notice Credit Ratings F1+ by FITCH IBCA or equivalent Maximum limits £5m per institution and group for English and Scottish Clearing Banks and their subsidiaries, and Overseas Banks on list of authorised counterparties. Building Societies With assets more than £2,000m £5m With assets more than £1,000m £3m Other building societies in the top 25 £2m Benchmark 3 month LIBID

134

APPENDIX C

CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities Prudential Indicators for 2007/08

Capital expenditure

1. Actual and Estimated Capital Expenditure

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Actual Forecast Estimate Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Gross 18,766 19,286 20,001 19,775 12,675 Net 15,868 14,806 15,352 19,192 12,201 Excludes investments treated as capital expenditure

2. The proportion of the budget financed from government grants and council tax that is spent on interest. The negative figures reflect that the Authority is a net investor and so the interest earned is used to help fund the budget.

2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Actual Forecast Estimate Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 -19% -14% -16% -7% -4%

3. The impact of schemes with capital expenditure on the level of council tax This calculation highlights the hypothetical impact on the level of Council Tax from new capital schemes that the Council has approved in the budget/MTP. It must ignore changes already approved, slippage, inflation and savings and so is based on relevant capital schemes in the MTP categories of Savings, New Unavoidable and New Urgent. The unusual pattern results from the fluctuating lost revenue as major maintenance is carried out on the Leisure Centres.

The actual planned change in Council Tax is different because of the impact of other variations and the use of revenue reserves.

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Estimate Estimate Estimate Increase £4.98 -£3.08 £1.09 Cumulative £5.64 £2.56 £3.65

4. The capital financing requirement. This represents the need for the Authority to borrow to finance capital expenditure. Whilst the Authority has capital reserves it will not have to borrow for capital purposes but may choose to do so:

31/3/06 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Actual Forecast Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 0 0 0 2,050 11,101 4,227 4,562

It totals £21.9m over the MTP period.

135

5. Net borrowing and the capital financing requirement. Net external borrowing must not be used to finance revenue spending except in the short term. In the short term there are legitimate uses of borrowing to cover cash flow e.g. funding salaries pending receipt of council tax income or return of investments.

The forecast shows that capital reserves are expected to run out in 2008/09 and the Authority will then need to fund most of its capital expenditure from long-term borrowing. However it is permitted to borrow a certain amount in advance of the need to fund capital expenditure (see paragraph 7 below).

External debt

6. The actual external borrowing at 31 March 2006 There was £14.5m of short-term borrowing for cash-flow purposes.

7. The authorised limit for external debt. This is the maximum limit for borrowing and is based on a worst-case scenario. It reflects the proposed revision to the Treasury Management Strategy which allows the Authority to borrow up to £10.8m in 2006/7 and up to an aggregate of £21.9m in 2007/8 to finance capital expenditure shown as to be financed from borrowing in the Medium Term Plan period if it appears that long term rates are attractive. The remainder of the limit relates to temporary debt for Cash Flow Purposes.

2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 £000 Short term 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Long Term 15,000 21,900 25,100 28,400 Total 35,000 41,900 45,100 48,400

8. The operational boundary for external debt. This reflects a less extreme position. Although the figure can be exceeded without further approval it represents an early warning monitoring device to ensure that the authorised limit (above) is not exceeded. It allows the management of the Council’s day to day cashflow and, in accordance with the Treasury Management Strategy, temporary borrowing to delay the return of funds from the Fund Managers if this is in the Council’s interests. The short term and long term elements of the operational boundary will be monitored separately

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 Short term 15,000 15,000 15,000 Long term 21,900 25,100 28,400 Total 36,900 40,100 43,400

136

Treasury management

9. Adoption of the CIPFA Code The Prudential Code requires the Authority to have adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in the Public Services. This has been adopted.

10. Exposure to investments with fixed interest and variable interest as a percentage of total investments.

The parameters currently set for our Fund Managers could theoretically result in a significant amount of the funds being at variable rates as gilts and corporate bonds are deemed to be variable rate investments for the purpose of this indicator. In practice the exposure to variable rates is likely to be less.

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 Upper limit on fixed 100% 100% 100% rate exposure Upper limit on variable rate 60% 50% 50% exposure

11. Borrowing Repayment Profile The proportion of 2007/8 borrowing that will mature in successive periods.

The table refers to temporary borrowing for cash flow purposes; 100% will mature in less than 12 months. If long-term borrowing takes place it will all be for maturities in excess of ten years.

Upper limit Lower limit Under 12 months 100% 100% 12 months and within 24 months 0% 0% 24 months and within 5 years 0% 0% 5 years and within 10 years 0% 0% 10 years and above 0% 0%

12. Investment Repayment Profile Limit on the value of investments that cannot be redeemed within 364 days.

The limits set below will relate to the time deposits held by CDCM which are the only investments that are not immediately repayable. These limits are based on estimates of when the Council needs to recall funds to meet its Financial Strategy.

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 Limit Estimate Estimate £000 £000 £000 Investments over 14,000 13,250 7,800 364 days

137 This page is intentionally left blank

138 Cabinet

Report of the meeting held on 15th February 2007

Matter for Decision

103. A14 ELLINGTON TO FEN DITTON – FURTHER PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Cabinet has considered the Highways Agency’s Further Consultation on proposed improvements to the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton. The report is reproduced at Item No. 6 on the Agenda.

In considering the options, Executive Councillors took into account the views of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (Service Support) expressed at its meeting on 13th February 2007 and submissions by Hilton Parish Council, Godmanchester Town Council and the Offords A14 Action Group. Copies of these are appended hereto. Having considered each of the route options, the Cabinet

RECOMMEND

(a) that, subject to the Highways Agency consideration of the best alignment and environmental solution for Brampton between the Orange and Brown routes to the west of the A1 as outlined in the report, the Orange Route as part of the current A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton Further Public Consultation be supported;

(b) that the Blue route, including Variation 2, be rejected on the grounds of their detrimental unacceptable impacts on both Brampton and Fenstanton;

(c) that the Brown route be rejected on the grounds of the potential impacts on the Buckden North and South landfill and associated issues that may arise from the adoption of that element of the route;

(d) that Council authorise the Director of Operational Services, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Environment & Transport, to submit a formal response to this Consultation to the Highways Agency based on the outcomes of their meeting; and

139 (e) that Council authorise the Director of Operational Services, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Environment & Transport, to agree a Statement of Principles with other Cambridgeshire stakeholders as a joint position statement for submission to the Highways Agency.

I C Bates Chairman

140 APPENDIX A

A14 ELLINGTON TO FEN DITTON – FURTHER PUBLIC CONSULATION (Report by the Head of Administration)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report conveys to Cabinet the comments made by the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (Service Support) at their meeting on 13th February 2007 on the public consultation outlining the feasible, identified routes for the proposed improvements to the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton.

2. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

2.1 The Panel noted comments on the consultation by Godmanchester Town Council, Hilton Parish Council and a joint village submission. Members were also made aware of the Environment Agency’s concern with regard to the proposed Brown route and to a lesser extent the Orange route.

2.2 Having regard to the Council’s previous decisions on the A14 improvements and the analysis contained in the report submitted by the Head of Planning Services, the Panel expressed their support for the Orange route identified by the Highways Agency, subject to consideration of the best alignment and environmental solution for Brampton being agreed between the Orange and Brown routes west of the A1. The Panel rejected the Blue and Brown routes outlined by the Highways Agency on the grounds of their detrimental impact on either, Brampton, Fenstanton and Buckden landfill site.

3. CONCLUSION

The Cabinet is invited to take account of the views of the Panel in formulating their recommendations to Council on their preferred route for the improvements to the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton

BACKGROUND PAPERS o A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Further Consultation (Report by the Head of Planning) o A13 Ellington to Fen Ditton – Consultation Document (Highways Agency)

Contact Officer: Mrs Helen Lack, Democratic Services Officer, (01480) 388006

141 This page is intentionally left blank

142 APPENDIX B

HILTON PARISH COUNCIL

Miss Cara Cosson 7 Kidmans Close Business Manager & A14 Project Hilton Support Cambs Woodlands PE28 9QB Manton Lane 01480 832030 Manton Industrial Estate [email protected] Bedford 9th February 2007 MK41 7LW

Dear Miss Cosson

Re: A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton Further Public Consultation

Hilton Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on three different options for the route of the upgraded A14 between Ellington and Fen Drayton provided by the further consultation. The Council wishes to make the following comments.

x All of the proposed routes would have a detrimental impact on the village of Hilton.

x We strongly oppose the Orange Route. We believe this would have a very adverse effect on Hilton, especially in terms of noise pollution and visual intrusion. This route has the greatest impact on the currently tranquil countryside south of the existing A14. Whatever route is chosen it should pass north of the Wood Green Animal Shelter to protect existing tranquil and attractive countryside which is a resource for current and future generations throughout the area.

x Of the two remaining routes our preference would be for the Brown Route which, according to your own assessment information of all the route options, would result in the least number of properties affected by increased noise. It is clear that noise is one of the most disrupting effects of the current A14. It affects a broad swathe of countryside on either side of the road and significantly reduces the quality of life of residents. In a recent meeting with other communities that lie close to the A14 Noise emerged as perhaps the single most concerning issue. It is certainly one of the most important concerns for the residents of Hilton.

x The Brown route crosses the Buckden landfill site and this will raise engineering challenges and the need to manage environmental risks. However, we understand from the assessment information and talking to the specialists at the consultation exhibitions that this is technically feasible. We believe that a road is a very appropriate long-term use of such land, much more appropriate than house building, for instance. It also gives scope for screening of the road from nearby communities and ensures that the risks associated with the site will be managed long term by a responsible public body.

143 x The Blue Route Option 2 would create a major junction at Galley Hill. This would be the major junction between the A1 and Cambridge. We believe this would inevitably result in much increased traffic cutting through the centre of Hilton on the B1040 and are consequently opposed to this option. x We are very concerned that the current proposals for all routes indicate that the carriageway will be raised by two metres or more above ground level from Fen Drayton north most of the way to the Wood Green animal shelter. This will greatly increase the visual intrusion on the landscape, as well as increasing noise pollution and will be much harder to screen. It also raises concerns about the impact on flood risk in local villages both in terms of road run off and in terms of impeding natural water flow north east across the flood plain. We believe that this must be critically re-examined to determine whether the road needs to be raised – as far as we know the current A14 has never flooded. x Which ever route is chosen, effective mitigation to reduce the visual and noise impact on local communities is essential. We ask you to work with us to identify adequate mitigation measures such as extensive tree planting in wide bands, off site planting, earth banking and acoustic fencing, and to ensure that the budget for this is ring fenced. Tree planting should be undertaken as early as possible during construction, or before it, to allow trees to establish and screening to be effective as soon as possible. x We request that it is a condition of the contractual arrangements covering construction that construction traffic is not permitted to use the B1040. x In view of the impact of the new road we will be pressing for a full Public Enquiry to ensure all these issues can be fully examined in a public forum.

We would conclude by noting that, in terms of costs, your own economic analysis over the life of the road (60 years) shows that there is very little difference between the routes. It states in relation to costs ‘Given the similarity of route options, it is likely that choice of route option would be determined by other factors, such as environmental impact or proximity of the route to potential objectors.’ Given this, we believe that it is important that significant weighting should be given to the impact of the road on currently tranquil areas and on the landscape.

Yours sincerely,

F. J. Wright Chairman, Hilton Parish Council

144 A14 ELLINGTON TO FEN DITTON FURTHER CONSULTATION

Statement by Godmanchester Town Council - March 2007 Response to Highways Agency

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Godmanchester Town Council provisionally approved this response to the Highways Agency at its meeting on 18 January 2007. The response will be finalised when outstanding information requested from the Highways Agency is received.

1.2 Godmanchester Town Council has reviewed the options described in the consultation documents and accompanying technical reports. The Council recommends the adoption of the Orange route.

1.3 This note concentrates on the impact of the various routes on the residents of Godmanchester but does cover in outline some of the other impacts of the various routes. We also emphasise the need for a multi- modal approach to solve future traffic problems.

1.4 All the routes proposed in the consultation will cause some disturbance to people living in their vicinity, including the residents of Godmanchester. However, the Orange route is favoured over the Blue and Brown Routes because:

x the number of houses within 300 and 750m of the routes is less and this is directly linked to the noise and pollution impact x the visual impact is less as more of the route is within cutting x the route avoids the £70m additional cost, potential pollution risk and delay of a route through the Buckden landfill site x the route has least impact on wildlife x the area of land taken is least x the route is the shortest and x is the most cost effective.

1.5 Godmanchester Town Council also supports the removal of the A14 viaduct at Huntingdon railway station as long as the improvements to Huntingdon Town centre lead to substantial reductions in traffic on the Huntingdon ring road and through Godmanchester and do not increase journey times.

1.6 The people of Godmanchester have suffered for 25 years from the current road. Using an objective appraisal of the current options, the Orange route is clearly preferable over the other routes.

1.7 The need for further consultation has delayed the start of the construction of the A14. The Councils recommends that the Orange route is chosen without delay and construction of this much-needed road starts as soon as possible.

145 2. Introduction

2.1 Godmanchester Town Council welcomes the proposals to improve the A14. Residents on the north side of Godmanchester suffer severely from noise and pollution. Noise levels are currently 60dB or more within 200 – 250m of the A14 and 55dB or more within approximately 400m. These figures are predicted to increase substantially under a “Do Nothing” scenario. The levels compare with areas at the southern side of Godmanchester where noise levels are currently in the 40s – low 50s dB.

2.2 The Government has recently published for consultation its Proposed Changes to the draft East of England Plan (RSS14). The Government proposes a minimum 508,000 new homes should be built in the East of England by 2021 and at least 452,000 new jobs created. This will inevitably lead to more traffic on the A14, probably more than is currently being forecast. It demonstrates the importance of ensuring the route chosen causes minimum impact on people and the environment and the existing problems are dealt with as soon as possible.

2.3 As well as improvements to the A14, Godmanchester Town Council would also like to see a wider programme of multi-modal transport measures. Bus services from Godmanchester to Cambridge need improving, as they are not frequent enough for commuters. The new guided-bus system is unlikely to bring benefits to Godmanchester as it may run only to St Ives, and there are no plans for Godmanchester residents to benefit.

2.4 Much of the freight traffic on the A14 is travelling to or from the east coast docks. Felixstowe, Harwich and Ipswich are increasing their container handling. Current plans are for around 150,000 a month, only 25% of which leave/arrive by rail. Godmanchester Town Council believes the rail network needs upgrading and fiscal measures introduced to ensure that more traffic is transported by rail.

2.5 As no junction is proposed with the A1198 on any of the routes, west and north bound traffic from Godmanchester, including heavy lorries from Cardinal Distribution Park will have to go through Huntingdon and join the A14 or A1 at the Spittals Junction. Traffic from the east and north will have to take a similar route to Godmanchester.

2.6 Godmanchester Town Council is concerned that the highway authorities seem to be accepting that the removal of the Huntingdon viaduct would lead to increased congestion on Brampton Road in the vicinity of the station and don’t have any plans to improve the situation. Godmanchester Town Council believes measures can and should be taken to avoid additional congestion and traffic delays as part of the implementation of the Huntingdon Vision.

146 3. Comparison between routes

3.1 Godmanchester Town Council has compared the various routes using the Highways Agency’s and other relevant information. In the following sections we review the key issues:

x Number of properties affected by the routes x Impact of Buckden landfill site x Landscape impact across the Ouse Valley x Ecological impact x Cost

3.2 We have excluded consideration of Blue Variations 1 and 2 from our analysis, as we do not believe that widening the online section of the A14 through Fenstanton is acceptable. It would worsen, rather than improve the local air quality problems and considerably more people would suffer from noise pollution. Blue variation 2 would cause similar disruption to Godmanchester as the Blue and Brown routes.

3.3 We have also not commented on the impacts on properties to the west of Brampton. The consultation drawings show the Blue and Brown routes joining the existing A14 further west of the Brampton Hut roundabout than the Orange route. We understand that the Orange route could also join the A14 at this point rather than further east as is shown. Moving the Orange route west at this location would potentially benefit Brampton, although it may have an impact on Brampton Wood SSSI. Either way the impacts in this locality would be the same if all three routes joined the A14 at the same point west of Brampton.

3.4 We have also assumed that the road will be a 3-lane dual carriageway to trunk road standards. If the existing A14 viaduct is not removed, only a dual 2-lane road is needed. This would reduce the traffic flows, environmental impact and cost for all options. It would seem prudent that with this measure, the main structures and deep cuttings were constructed to allow for future widening.

Number of properties affected by the routes

3.5 The following table shows the current number of properties close to the main route alternatives within 300, 500 and 750m respectively. These distances have been selected as experience shows that the noise of major roads operating at their peak capacity can be heard over a kilometre away.

3.6 The 300m band seeks to identify properties where the noise levels would increase to above 68dbA thereby qualifying them for statutory noise protection (e.g. double-glazing, bunds or noise barriers. However properties outside the 300m band could still suffer noticeable noise level increases without any guarantee of protection or compensation.

3.7 Pollution is also a problem beyond 300m. A recent report in The Lancet reported that children who lived within 500m of motorways between the ages of 10 and 18 had significant lower lung volume and peak flow than children who lived more than 1500m away.

147 3.8 This table shows the number of properties in different villages within 300, 500 and 750m from the centreline of the routes:

Key: x, y, z = number of properties within 300, 500 and 750m respectively. The figures are cumulative. eg in Brampton, 1 property is within 300m, 3 within 500m and 31 are within 750m of the Orange Route

Orange Brown Blue Brampton 1, 3, 31 2, 4, 145 142, 203, 265 Buckden 7, 7, 7 5, 5, 6 0, 0, 6 Offords 0,0,1 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 Godmanchester 2, 8, 13 5, 83, 347 5, 84, 347 Hilton 0, 0, 1 0,0,0 0, 0, 0

3.9 The chart below includes all the villages between Ellington and Fen Drayton and shows that the Blue route affects most houses, followed by the Brown Route. The Orange Route affects least, even with its more easterly alignment near Brampton.

Cumulative number of properties within 0 - 750m of route centrelines - Ellington to Fen Drayton

800

700

600

500

Blue Route 400 Brown Route Orange Route

300 Number of of properties Number

200

100

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Distance from centreline (m)

Notes: 1. The figures exclude149 houses proposed on southern edge of Godmanchester on land allocated for development and any additional homes on the southern part of Godmanchester included in the forthcoming Local Development Framework 2. The impact on western Brampton would depend on the route chosen where the A14 would run west of Brampton village. The impact of the Orange route would reduce further if the more westerly route of the Brown/Blue route were chosen from the A1 to Ellington.

3.10 The figures demonstrate clearly that the Orange route affects fewest properties for whichever distance is considered.

148 3.11 The Atkins Scheme Appraisal Report Traffic Noise Assessment calculates the likely impacts of the Do Nothing option and different routes. It also concludes that the Orange route is more favourable.

3.12 The consultants have not considered the impact of the prevailing south- westerly wind. Experience shows this can have a marked impact on noise nuisance. Villages to the north-west of the routes, such as Godmanchester will therefore suffer disproportionately more.

3.13 The alignment of the routes will have a bearing on impact with longer lengths in cutting restricting the impact. On the Blue route, extensive earthworks are needed where the road crosses the A1 near Brampton and then an embankment up to 13 metres at the Great Ouse. This would severely affect the south side of Brampton. The road then drops down before rising up passing under the A1198. However for much of his length, in the vicinity of Silver Street, it will be on embankment, within 300m of and clearly visible from Godmanchester.

3.14 The Brown route follows the Blue route from Offord Hill to Fenstanton. The only advantage it has over the Blue route is that the impact on Brampton is reduced.

3.15 The Orange route runs broadly midway between Brampton and Buckden, and also midway between Godmanchester and Offord Cluny. Whichever route is chosen, it has no impact on Offord D’Arcy. Considerably more people live in the southern part of Godmanchester than in Offord Cluny. It is some 1.5 km from Hilton. Extensive earthworks are needed where the A14 crosses the A1 but the position of the junction between Brampton and Buckden means the impact on properties is reduced overall compared to the Blue route. Again the Great Ouse crossing will require major earthworks but the route soon enters a pronounced cutting between Offord Road and Silver Street, approximately 2km long and up to 11m deep. The road will still cross the land just east of Silver Street on embankment and this will be visible from Godmanchester, but not from the Offords once it has entered into the cutting. Even where it crosses the Great Ouse and railway, the Orange route is still nearly 1 km from the northern end of Offord Cluny.

3.16 Overall, the assessment of traffic noise, route alignment and consideration of prevailing wind indicates the Orange route is clearly preferred.

Impact of Buckden landfill site

3.17 Taking a 6-lane highway with associated hard shoulders, verges and earthworks through Buckden landfill tip will cost some £70m more than a route south of it. A route through the site will require considerable quantities of contaminated fill to be moved and disposed off. Much of the excavated material is likely to be hazardous. There is a high risk of pollution of the river gravels and River Ouse. The material excavated will have to be transported elsewhere, and will take up valuable consented landfill space at a time when landfill is already limited. Recent estimates suggest that at current rates of fill there are only 10 years of landfill volume available in Cambridgeshire.

149 3.18 As waste decomposes it reduces in volume because the landfill gas and leachate formed from decomposition of biodegradable waste is either positively vented through a flare/extraction system or gas can be passively vented through the landfill cap. Additionally the waste mass is further compressed as containers etc decay and implode, and further settlement can occur through gravitational forces. The extent to which this latter effect is observed is dependent on the type of waste deposited and working practices at the time of deposit. Once a cap has been applied to the waste mass, and presuming no other external forces are applied, it is not unusual for settlement rates of 25% to be observed. It is therefore not possible to build over the decomposing waste as has been suggested by some objectors.

3.19 A cutting through the landfill would be required which would be approximately 6m deep relative to the finished road level. Waste however extends some 13m below finished road level and this would also have to be removed giving a total depth of excavation of 21m of potentially hazardous material to be treated and disposed of.

3.20 The Environment Agency and Highways Agency’s own consultants have advised against building across the Buckden landfill site for cost, environmental and risk reasons. The Environment Agency has also advised that there should be a 250m “stand-off” from the landfill.

3.21 If a route through the landfill were adopted, the Highways Agency would have to take on liability for future maintenance of the tip and responsibility of any future pollution issues that may occur. The Environment Agency has already identified pollutants leaching into the river terrace gravels and disturbance would increase the pollution risk.

3.22 The Brown route through the tip is therefore expensive, would delay the scheme further and be extremely risky environmentally.

Landscape impact across the Ouse Valley

3.23 All routes have an adverse impact on the setting of the Great Ouse valley. All require extensive earthworks and structures across the river and railway. The consultants have identified that the impacts can be minimised by careful location and design of the crossing. Serious challenge needs to be given to headroom requirements over the river and railway to minimise the impacts.

Ecological Impact

3.24 The Scheme Assessment Report concludes that all the routes have impacts on biodiversity. The Orange route is preferred as is does not affect the Brampton Flood Meadows County Wildlife Site and has the least overall impact on invertebrates, otters and water voles.

150 Cost

3.25 The following table shows the capital cost of the routes and total lengths:

Orange Brown Blue Capital cost (£m) 639 714 640 Length (km) 18.8 19.4 19.2

3.26 The table shows capital costs of the Orange route is the least expensive of the other options. As it is the shortest it will also have the lowest operating and maintenance costs and also offers the lowest cost for motorists’ fuel bills.

3.27 Overall therefore the Orange route will have the greatest discounted benefit to cost ratio for whatever discount period is used.

4. Conclusion

4.1 All the routes will cause some disturbance to people living in their vicinity, including the residents of Godmanchester. However, the Orange route is favoured over the Blue and Brown Routes because:

x The number of houses within 300 and 750m of the routes is less and this is directly linked to the noise and pollution impact x The visual impact, taken as the impact on nearby residents is less as more of the route is within cutting x The route avoids the £70m additional cost, potential pollution risk and delay of a route through the Buckden landfill site x The wildlife impact is least x The area of land taken is least x The route is the shortest and x The route is the most cost effective.

4.2 If the viaduct over Huntingdon railway station is removed, additional measures need to be taken to ensure traffic is able to move freely round the ring road and along Brampton road. If the viaduct stays, the new A14 should be built to dual 2 lane standards with the structures and major earthworks built to allow future widening.

4.3 Improvements to public transport and the rail network are also needed urgently as originally envisaged in the CHUMMS strategy.

151 This page is intentionally left blank

152 Environmental Concerns of Communities Arising from the A14 Proposals

Background

Regardless of the route chosen, the updated A14 will have a major impact on nearby communities. Currently there is insufficient detail available to determine these impacts but there is strong concern that the worst environmental impact must be ameliorated by appropriate mitigation measures. Many of the affected communities share common concerns and a wish to prevent the area being blighted for years to come. At a recent meeting held under the administrative lead of Hilton Parish Council these communities agreed to joint forces to press the Highways Agency and local government to address these concerns. A list of the communities involved is shown below.

Aim of this Brief

The aim of this brief is to seek the support of Huntingdonshire District Council to press for adequate amelioration of the environmental impact of the proposed A14 upgrade, whatever route is chosen. We ask you to raise this now so that the Highways Agency is aware of our joint determination to ensure that proper attention is paid to protecting the environment, landscape and quality of life local residents.

Major Environmental Concerns

Noise. This was a major concern to all communities. Current amelioration measures appear inadequate and communities wish to see measures which significantly reduce the noise signature of the new road over a wider area than is currently shown by the Highways Agency.

Visual impact The new road will have a significant visual impact especially over the proposed extensive elevated sections. Communities seek a reduction in the height of the road and cross-over bridges as well as attention being paid to achieving a high degree of visual screening. Communities wish to see measures to minimise carriageway lighting, the impact of vehicle lights, service stations, etc.

Flood Risk. Another major concern is that the A14 would exacerbate the flood risk along the route. Many communities were concerned that detailed studies on this issue have yet been undertaken and at the cumulative impact of other projects on the high levels of water runoff that can be expected.

Local Traffic. In addition to the A14 proposal itself, there are a large number of major concurrent projects in being or planned which will impact on local roads. Together these projects will have a major impact on local communities. Communities were not confident that these changes are being sufficiently coordinated and they felt strongly that there was the need for much more work by all levels of Government to ensure that the impact on local roads and villages was adequately assessed, monitored and then minimized.

Air Quality. Most communities, and especially those closest to the proposed routes, were concerned that the new road would generate significantly higher levels of air pollution, particularly if traffic levels rose beyond those predicted once the road is completed, as has been the case with other new roads.

153 Wildlife. There are concerns at the adequacy of the Highways Agency’s initial assessment for the impact of the A14 on wildlife and on their approach which concentrates on specific sites rather than the area as a whole. Communities wish to see a full environmental assessment for the area and appropriate amelioration where needed.

Footpaths, Bridleways, Cycle paths. Communities are concerned that access to bridleways, footpaths and cycle routes will be lost or rendered unattractive. They request agencies and local authorities work together to take full account of the combined impact of all developments in the area.

Communities

Brampton Hemingford Grey Buckden Hemingford Abbotts Cottenham Hilton Dry Drayton Offord Cluny Fen Drayon Offord D’ Arcy Fenstanton Papworth St Agnes Godmanchester Swavesey

154 To Huntingdonshire District Council Re A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton Further Public Consultation For consideration by the Council on 21st February 2007 Presented by Nita Tinn and Gary Mardlin

We the undersigned request that Huntingdonshire District Council, when considering their response to the further consultation, state a preference for the Brown Route over the other options offered, as the route which has the least harmful overall impact for all communities affected.

Our reasons are as follows:

Ɣ The number of properties which will suffer an increase in noise nuisance by 2029 is less than for any other route, whereas the number who will benefit from less noise is greatest. Ɣ The shorter viaduct over the Great Ouse and the railway on the Brown Route significantly reduces the environmental and visual impact. Ɣ Although initially more expensive, when viewed over the 60 year lifetime of the road the differences are minimal and therefore cost should not influence the decision.

Print Name Address and Postcode Signature

155 This page is intentionally left blank

156 Agenda Item 8b

Standards Committee

Report of the meetings held on 7th December 2006 and 17th January 2007

Matters for Information

8. LITTLE PAXTON PARISH COUNCIL – ALLEGED BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT

Having reviewed the facts of an allegation of misconduct against a Councillor serving on Little Paxton Parish Council, the Committee considered that there was a case to answer and authorised the Monitoring Officer to make the necessary arrangements to convene a Determination Hearing in accordance with the Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) (Local Determination) Regulations 2003.

Although the Councillor had subsequently chosen to resign for reasons unrelated to the case, on the advice of the Standards Board for England the Committee proceeded to conduct its second Determination Hearing. Following consideration of a report by the Investigating Officer and having interviewed relevant witnesses, the Committee has found that the former Councillor failed to disclose a personal interest by virtue of his property ownership contrary to Little Paxton Parish Council’s Code of Conduct. Allegations in respect of a failure to declare a prejudicial interest and relating to the disclosure of information given in confidence were not proven.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Committee has ordered that the former Councillor be censured. Although there was no suggestion that the Parish Council had acted inappropriately, the Committee has offered them the opportunity to receive training from the Monitoring Officer on the Code of Conduct and ethical standards to refresh their understanding of these matters and to avoid further problems of the nature which had arisen as part of the complaint.

9. APPLICATION FOR DISPENSATION

Having regard to advice received from the Monitoring Officer, the Committee has approved an application for dispensation received from four Members of Broughton Parish Council for the period ending 30th April 2008 to enable these Members to participate in discussions at Parish Council meetings on footpath/access issues associated with a scheme being promoted by Cambridgeshire County Council.

157 10. USE OF RESOURCES JUDGEMENTS 2005/06

To respond to a requirement highlighted by the Audit Commission in their Use of Resources Judgements 2005/06, the Committee has noted the results of a survey of complaints considered by the Standards Board for England during 2006 affecting District, Town and Parish Councillors in Huntingdonshire categorised by type, locality and outcome. Having concluded that there were no commonalities in the cases which had been considered by the Board and no necessity for any training need or trend to be addressed, the Committee has noted the intention to undertake this assessment on an annual basis and indicated its support for the continuation of the training approach currently practiced by the Monitoring Officer.

11. CODE OF CONDUCT – STANDARDS BOARD NOTIFICATION

In accordance with the procedure adopted by the Standards Board for England, the Committee has been informed that the Board has decided not to take any further action in relation to an allegation made against a Councillor serving on Godmanchester Town Council.

12. CODE OF CONDUCT – UPDATE

The Committee has been alerted to the potential release by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) of a revised model Code of Conduct and the key areas of the Code where change is being projected.

Having been advised of the timescale for implementation of the revised Code – by May 2007, the Committee has commended the Monitoring Officer to take up any opportunity for joint training on the new Code offered by other district authorities locally which may arise in the meantime.

13. CHANGE TO REFERRALS CRITERIA

The Committee has been advised of a change to the criteria used by the Standards Board for England to decide which complaints are referred for investigation. The Board will now take into account the time that has passed since the misconduct allegedly had occurred. The Committee has understood that this change will not prevent the Board from investigating matters of significance that have only just come to light as serious conduct could be uncovered through an audit, review or change of administration. As always, the Board has reserved the right to continue to assess each case on its merits regardless of the length of time that has passed.

D H Bristow Chairman

158 Agenda Item 8c

Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery)

Report of the meetings held on 5th December 2006, 2nd January and 6th February 2007

Matters for Information

21. HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PROJECTS

The Panel has received a presentation on the Healthy Lifestyles Projects in which the Council is involved from the Lifestyles Manager, the Health Improvement Worker and the Community Initiatives Manager. The Council has three Sections working on this subject in the areas of neighbourhoods, lifestyles and communities of which much could not be undertaken without input from partner agencies. Having referred to the national policy context and the Council’s corporate priorities, Members have been informed of the work that goes on to assess local needs, details of the projects and financial aspects of the work. They also have been acquainted with future plans for the projects, which include increased monitoring, joint working and improved working with communities.

The Health Improvement Worker post is jointly funded by the Council and the Primary Care Trust. Her work involves ward based analysis of need and she aims to meet the objectives of the Hunts for Good Food Project by teaching practical skills. The project incorporates obesity and health referral programmes and it is intended to pursue further initiatives in the fields of environmental health and mental health. The presentation concluded with details of the resources involved in the projects. The Council contributes £87,000 for this work but, through partnership, the total value is £310,000.

Members have discussed financial aspects of the projects and, in particular, the procedures involved in obtaining Lottery funding. They also have noted the positive feedback received from the Police on the role of the projects in diverting offenders from anti-social behaviour. In response to concerns at the possible withdrawal by the Primary Care Trust of funding for the projects, the Panel has been informed that assurances have been received that current commitments will be met.

22. THE NOTTINGHAM DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The Panel has been acquainted with the terms of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change, the main one of which is to commit the Council to reducing carbon emissions over a two-year period.

159 Members have discussed the forthcoming Environment Strategy which is likely to contain three main elements – “greening” the business, the Council as service provider and encouraging behavioural change. Members also have discussed the energy efficiency of the Council’s estate and the implications of the Environment Strategy for the Local Development Framework. With regard to the latter, Members have noted that the Core Strategy will contain a number of measures relating to the environmental impact of development and that changes in Building Regulations will improve the insulation of new properties. However, a significant number of existing properties in the District have poor levels of insulation and will benefit from improvement works.

23. MARKETS

The Panel has reviewed information on the markets service, which had been presented to a previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Service Delivery and Resources). Owing to the significant income generated by the service, it is felt that further study should be carried out in this area. For this purpose, Members have requested up-to-date information on the uptake of market pitches, the promotion and operation of markets and identification of best practice elsewhere. It also has been agreed that continental and farmers markets and the role of Town Centre Initiatives should be included in the study.

24. SMALL SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS

The Panel has been acquainted with the background to the introduction of a set of criteria against which applications for funding under the Small Scale Environmental Improvements Scheme are assessed. The Panel also has been informed that Members are not involved in the scoring of applications and that they receive copies of the letter inviting applications but are not consulted on schemes put forward for consideration by the Cabinet.

All applications receive an initial assessment to determine which funding stream is most appropriate and with the latter in mind the Panel has requested details of all the schemes to which Town and Parish Councils can apply for grant funding to undertake improvement works.

The Panel has reviewed a report on the outcome of the 2006/07 approved schemes and the schemes that are recommended for funding under the 2007/08 programme. The Executive Councillor for Finance has reported on the Cabinet’s deliberations on this subject in the previous year and, in particular, has requested that the existing criteria be reviewed, in view of the fact that larger parishes appear to be more successful than smaller ones in obtaining funding,

Having been provided with an example of how one application under the 2007/08 programme has been scored, the Panel has discussed the remit of a study on this subject. As a result, a Working Group has

160 been established comprising Councillors Mrs M Banerjee, R W J Eaton, D A Giles, P G Mitchell and J S Watt to consider the following –

♦ the objectives of the scheme; ♦ the scheme’s criteria, taking into account the Council’s corporate objectives; ♦ the scoring system; ♦ the effectiveness of previous grants; ♦ the degree to which previous grants have met the Council’s objectives; ♦ whether the criteria should include the size of any contribution by the applying council; ♦ if the above is supported, whether the size of the settlement should be taken into account; ♦ whether separate schemes should be introduced for larger and smaller councils and, if so, the definition of each; ♦ whether an upper limit on grant should be introduced; and ♦ the involvement of Members in the scheme.

The Working Group will be meeting on 13th February 2007 and has been requested to make recommendations on these and any other matters deemed relevant with a view to introducing a revised scheme by September 2007.

25. REVIEW OF CONSITUTION

The Panel has recommended that consideration be given to amending the Council’s Constitution to obtain the permission of the Chairman, or in his or her absence the Vice-Chairman, of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel if it is intended to take a decision on a date earlier than that referred to in the Forward Plan.

26. STUDY – DISABILITY ACCESS

As part of its study on disability access the Panel at their meeting in January 2007 has reviewed a draft Disability Equality Scheme. The Scheme and associated Action Plan have been produced as a result of a new duty placed on the Council following a review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Research has been undertaken to inform the preparation of the Scheme and Action Plan, which will monitor and promote the interests of those with disabilities. Having discussed the number of residents of the District who have a disability, the enforcement of parking and gaps in provision, the Panel has endorsed the Scheme.

Arising from reservations over the extent of the research carried out, Members have agreed that as part of its study they should carry out further consultation within their Wards to inform the study. Following additional expressions of concern regarding the condition of the hardscape and parking enforcement, it also has been agreed to invite representatives of the County Council and of the Police to discuss these matters in more detail. Furthermore, it has been suggested that Town Centre Management Initiatives might be encouraged to

161 lobby their members to enforce parking allocated for use by those with disabilities adjacent to their premises.

At its meeting in February 2007, the Panel has received a presentation by Speaking Up and representatives of the Cambridgeshire Parliament on the experiences of those with disabilities concerning the accessibility of places and services and their views on where improvements might be made, which include the provision of toilet facilities for those with high support needs, improvements to leisure, transport and employment opportunities and enforcement of parking in spaces allocated for blue badge holders.

The Panel has discussed with the consultant who undertook research for the Disability Equality Scheme possible avenues for further study. These include parking, bus passes, the Council’s paperwork, advertising of leisure services and advocacy services. The Panel may also look at the benefits of introducing a dedicated group of consultees to provide a disability perspective on the Council’s decisions, possible opportunities through the Local Strategic Partnership and the Local Area Agreement and the County Council’s role in this area.

Other Matters of Interest

27. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000: FORWARD PLAN

The Panel has been acquainted with details of the relevant Forward Plan of Key Decisions at its meetings. Members have reiterated their concerns at the appearance in the Plan of a number of new items which are to be submitted to the Cabinet prior to the Panel’s next meeting and at the lack of information in relation to background documents and to consultation. The Leader of the Council has been requested to encourage Officers to avoid a repeat of the situation in the future.

28. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL (SERVICE DELIVERY) - PROGRESS

The Panel has reviewed its programme of studies at each of its meetings. Members have discussed the remit of studies, specifically the tourism opportunities that the 2012 Olympics presents, home energy efficiency, the adoption of roads and sewers and grant aid.

29. SCRUTINY

The Panel has considered the latest edition of the Decision Digest and received answers to queries on matters contained therein.

S J Criswell Chairman

162 Agenda Item 8d

Overview & Scrutiny Panel (Service Support)

Report of the meetings held on 12th December 2006 and 9th January 2007

Matters for Information

24. UPDATE ON MOBILE WORKING PROJECT

The Panel has been updated on the progress of a mobile working pilot project on Housing and Council Tax Benefit processes.

As part of this process, the Panel has received a demonstration on the use of the equipment by the Head of Revenue Services and has been informed of the practical advantages of introducing wireless communications technology for benefits claimants and its potential impact upon other Council’s services and processes.

Having recognised the improvements in service delivery which the technology offered, the Panel has raised a number of questions over the pilot process, including the length of time spent on each visit, the appointments and cancellation procedures, the amount of travelling required and the Council’s lone working arrangements for staff. Members of the Panel have also queried the cost of implementing the technology against the benefits to be derived and stressed the importance of ensuring that the expected service improvements would need to be weighed against the level of expenditure required.

The Panel has noted that a further three mobile working systems would be introduced as part of the pilot and that a bid had been made for MTP funding for a Flexible Working project which should allow the hardware used in the pilot to be updated by broadband connection at the homes of staff to avoid them having to return to the offices each day to update the software and download information.

Having raised additional questions about localities with poor reception arrangements and publicity for the pilot, the Panel has requested that a further report summarising the progress of the project be submitted to them after three or four months.

25. MONITORING SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS: PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

The Panel has been acquainted with the receipt and expenditure of money negotiated under Section 106 Agreements by the Council during the previous quarter.

163

Having welcomed the new layout of the reports, the Chairman has requested additional information for inclusion in future quarterly statements to enable the Panel to monitor performance trends, future potential agreements and the expiry dates for money to be expended.

In response to questions raised by Members, the Panel has been informed that responses to the concerns raised at the time taken to expend receipts would need to be given by relevant Executive Councillors and Officers, although the Head of Policy was confident that money was being collected promptly and there was little likelihood of money not being spent before Agreements expired.

The Panel has also discussed with the Head of Planning Services the issue of infrastructure development in smaller villages and were reminded that Section 106 Agreements could only be used in the geographic locality of the development to which they related. However, the Panel has noted advice from Government on the possible move towards pooled negotiations which would provide some greater flexibility. Members were also informed that a recent announcement on a possible planning gain supplement development tax would lead to changes in planning policy and the Head of Planning Services had undertaken to consult the Panel on the consultation draft as this became available.

26. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY - COMMUNICATION

The Panel has received a presentation by the Communications Manager and the Head of Policy which outlined a number of issues for the Overview and Scrutiny Panels to consider when communicating with the community. The Panel has been advised on the implications of the Police and Justice Act 2006 and the Local Government and Patient Involvement in Health Bill which will provide opportunities both directly and indirectly for members of the public to raise issues with the Scrutiny Panels.

In considering the content of the presentation, the Panel has discussed their past performance by highlighting their previous activities and the scope for improvement in their engagement with the general public. It was hoped that the latter will assist in reflecting early public reaction whilst enabling the Panel to question the Cabinet. The Panel has suggested that further discussions were required with the Communications Manager and the Head of Policy to identify possible issues on which the Panel might communicate more pro-actively. The Panel has noted that it would be appropriate to review Overview and Scrutiny Communications in their entirety and to formulate proposals to improve the current situation and in that respect it was agreed that the remit of the existing Working Group established to consider the use of E-forums be extended to include the subject of communication with the public by Overview and Scrutiny Panels.

164 27. OPEN SPACE, SPORT AND RECREATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The Panel has been acquainted with the findings of an Open Space, Sport and Recreation Needs Assessment and Audit which had been completed in September 2006. Particular attention has been drawn to the recommendations for the adoption of standards for the quantity, quality and accessibility of open space which would in due course be endorsed within the planning obligations SPD and applied to planning applications. The Panel also has noted that the audit had identified shortfalls in provision, in terms of sports facilities throughout the District. In raising the question about the lack of traditional parks within the District, the Panel has been informed that a Play Strategy was being prepared by the Environment and Community Health and Policy Divisions and that Parish Councils had been invited to make submissions on the proposals. In that respect Members have reiterated the difficulty for smaller parishes to achieve infrastructure benefits from Section 106 Agreement funding when the scale of development was constrained by the Local Development Core Strategy.

28. LOCAL PROCUREMENT

The Panel has been acquainted with the outcome of the deliberations of the Working Group which had been established to review whether the Council could do more to procure goods and services locally and facilitate opportunities for local suppliers to tender for council business. Whilst noting the Group’s conclusions - that the opportunities for local procurement were constrained by a number of factors and that there had been insufficient evidence to conduct a full scale review, the Panel welcomed the actions already taken by the Council in a number of areas to improve opportunities for suppliers to quote and tender for council expenditure. However, having regard to pressures on the Council to achieve savings and the limitations imposed by procurement legislation, the Panel has concurred with the Working Group’s conclusions that no further action should be taken.

Having been reminded that the study had originated from a request by a member from the Huntingdonshire Business Network who had subsequently expressed his disappointment at the Group’s conclusions, the Panel has made arrangements for its Chairman, and Vice-Chairman, together with members of the Working Group, the Executive Councillor and relevant Officers to meet with representatives of the Huntingdon Business Network, Federation of Small Businesses and Chamber of Trade to advise them of the Panel’s decision.

29. WORK PLAN STUDIES

The Panel has discussed its work plan and noted progress of ongoing study areas. In the light of concern regarding the future of Hinchingbrooke Hospital, the Panel has agreed that all representatives of the Strategic Health Authority should be invited to attend a future meeting of the Corporate and Strategic Framework

165 Panel when the Consultation Document on future service provision at Hinchingbrooke Hospital is available in the Spring. The Panel has agreed that every effort should be made by the District Council to oppose reductions in service, notwithstanding the fact that health scrutiny was a responsibility of the County Council. Arising from these discussions, a workshop for elected Members was held on 1st February 2007 to identify the key issues relating to Hinchingbrooke Hospital and possible changes to the service delivery arrangements.

Further to Item No. 18 of their Report to Council on 6th December 2006, the Panel has noted that the County Council had declined their request for a representative to attend a future meeting to discuss ways of improving their relationship and arrangements with the District Council for the delivery and promotion of cycling issues. In noting that there still were several issues outstanding which the Panel wished to discuss with the County Council relating to the partnership agreements and investment, the Panel has agreed that an invitation should be addressed to the County’s Lead Member, Councillor L W McGuire in this respect.

In respect of future potential areas for studies, the Panel has noted that there are a number of issues likely to emerge in the near future concerning customer satisfaction and mobile working.

30. PROGRESS

The Panel has been apprised of the progress achieved following their previous decisions and has noted the content of a briefing note outlining the savings that had been agreed and estimated with the transfer of services into the call centre.

The Panel also has noted that the County Council was now undertaking a Speed Limit Implementation Review in accordance with the new Department of Transport Guidance and have suggested that the District Council’s Transportation Team Leader be invited to report on preliminary discussions at the Panel’s March meeting.

31. FORWARD PLAN

The Panel has been acquainted with details of the Forward Plan of forthcoming key decisions, which had been prepared by the Leader of the Council. In so doing, Members have identified a number of items for consideration at their future meetings and have been updated on the likely dates for consideration of those reports previously requested.

J A Gray Chairman

166 Agenda Item 8e

Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Corporate & Strategic Framework)

Report of the meeting held on 30th January 2007

Matters for Information

6. BUDGET AND MEDIUM TERM PLAN 2008 - 2012

The Panel has considered the Medium Term Plan (MTP) for 2008 – 2012, the Financial Strategy and level of Council Tax for 2007/08. Members have been reminded of the process of review of the Financial Strategy and identification of savings which were reported to the Council in December 2006. Members’ attention has been drawn to variations in the MTP which has included the re-phasing of expenditure as part of the Pathfinder House and One-Stop Shop Project and the Wireless Working Project which was omitted from the MTP following the decision to split the projects associated with the Customer First Scheme.

The Panel has been informed of the requirement to bring forward the date by which savings previously identified will be required and in recording their thanks to all Officers involved in the investigation and identification of saving proposals thus far, the Panel has emphasised its perception of the need for savings to be identified on an ongoing basis rather than year on year.

In considering the proposed Financial Strategy, the Panel has outlined their support for an annual increase of 4.99% in Band D equivalent Council Tax and also has expressed support for the proposed Budget and MTP.

In relation to the identification of future savings, the Panel has requested the opportunity to discuss at an early stage any proposals identified by Officers for future years at their meeting in June 2007, together with any further information that may have emerged on the forthcoming Lyons review of local government finance.

The comments have been conveyed to the Cabinet at their meeting on 1st February 2007 to assist them in formulating their recommendations to Council on these matters. (Item No. 85 of their Report refers.)

167 7. SCRUTINY OF LOCAL AREA AGREEMENTS

The Panel has received a presentation on the scrutiny arrangements for Cambridgeshire’s Local Area Agreement (LAA). Members have been informed of the level of available funding being channelled through the Cambridgeshire LAA and the proposed arrangements for democratically elected representatives to be involved in the scrutiny of “Cambridgeshire Together”, the Board established to govern the LAA.

The Panel has been acquainted with the options for the establishment of scrutiny arrangements and the background to the LAA. Having noted that the LAA Board will be considering the establishment of scrutiny arrangements at their next meeting, the Panel has been requested for their views on the preferred approach in advance of this meeting in order that they may be presented to the Board. Members have concluded that Option 4 – scrutiny of the LAA on a joint organisational basis – will give all organisations involved a strategic overview of the LAA and streamline communication to and from the LAA Board.

In considering the frequency and membership of the scrutiny group, the Panel has been informed that the initial suggestion of bi-annual meetings may be reviewed in the Autumn.

8. HEADQUARTERS UPDATE

The Panel has been acquainted with an update of the position in relation to the Headquarters and Other Accommodation Project. The Panel has been advised that work has begun on the new Operations Centre at Latham Road, Huntingdon and is currently ahead of schedule with completion anticipated for July 2007. Members have noted that the planning application has been submitted for the headquarters buildings and, subject to approval, work will commence on the Pathfinder House site in September 2007. In discussing the timetable of deliverance, the Panel has been advised of the risks associated with the archaeological investigation of the Pathfinder House site which has the potential to delay the project significantly, but that every attempt has been made to negotiate a fixed price cost and fixed term from the archaeological contractors.

Members have noted negotiations to secure the lease of Centenary House, an office building adjacent to Pathfinder House, which if successful will accommodate a temporary Customer Service Centre, temporary office space for frontline staff and allow the early demolition of Godmanchester Depot building. The Panel has been informed of the ways in which key objectives of the Travel Plan, adopted by the Council in October 2006, will be met during the office accommodation project. These include a salary sacrifice scheme for the purchase of bicycles, the acquisition of four pool cars for the use of staff, a review of the travel allowance scheme and the support of employees in identifying alternative travel arrangements.

168 In discussing the planned reduction in single occupancy car journeys to and from work, Members have noted that much of the car parking demand as a result of staff being displaced from Pathfinder House car park may be met by the vacated Godmanchester Depot site. The Panel has also noted that contingency plans are also being negotiated with landowners in close proximity to the town and owners of peripheral retail developments with under-utilised parking.

J A Gray Chairman

169 This page is intentionally left blank

170 Agenda Item 8f

Development Control Panel

Report of the meetings held on 18th December 2006, 15th January and 5th February 2007

Matters for Information

23. PLANNING BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR 2007/08 - CONSULTATION

The Panel has been informed that the Department for Communities and Local Government is likely to designate the District Council, in its role as a local planning authority, as a “Standards Authority” for major applications in 2007/08. Should the performance standards for Huntingdonshire be confirmed by the Secretary of State, the District Council will be required to determine 60% of major applications within 13 weeks in 2007/08 and be subjected to further external scrutiny measures of performance. Continued non-achievement could have an implication for the award of future levels of planning delivery grant.

The Panel has acknowledged the importance of responding positively to the designation and has endorsed the introduction of a series of procedural arrangements and operating practices which, when implemented, will enhance the management of major applications within the planning process and in particular streamline the mechanism for the negotiation of Section 106 Agreements. The Panel will continue to monitor both the performance of the Development Control section and the scope for further improvements should the designation as a “Standards Authority” in 2007/08 be confirmed.

24. SCHEME OF DELEGATED POWERS IN RESPECT OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

The Panel has regularly reviewed its Scheme of Delegation to ensure that performance levels are being sustained, applications determined within prescribed timescales and that Members are focussing on those applications considered to be of major significance or controversial. Given the challenges prescribed by recent Government standards and national Best Value indicators, the Panel has discussed a series of further adjustments to the Scheme of Delegation directed towards minor applications which would allow Officers additional time to concentrate on dealing with major applications. In addition, the Panel has reaffirmed the operational arrangement whereby any Member can request in writing, to the Head of Planning Services, within 21 days of the publication of the weekly list or such longer period as may be determined, the

171 submission of a relevant application for determination by the Panel. The proposed amendments to the Scheme of Delegation will be implemented with immediate effect and the scheme reviewed again after 12 months operation.

25. PLANNING POLICY CONSULTATION – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

Given the business likely to be forthcoming over the next 12 months period in relation to their position as a consultee on the policies and initiatives that will comprise the Local Development Framework, the Panel has agreed to the scheduling of a minimum of 4 additional meetings to enable it to give due consideration to those issues associated with formulating these policies.

26. LANDSCAPE PROPOSALS – A GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS

The Panel has endorsed the content of a Guidance Note produced on landscape proposals which will accompany advice contained within the Huntingdonshire Design Guide (adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in 2004) and recommended that the Cabinet adopt the Note as Council policy. The Guidance Note will assist applicants and agents with the preparation of specific material in support of their applications relating to landscape proposals.

27. HUNTINGDONSHIRE DESIGN REVIEW PILOT PROJECT

Further to Item No 19 of their Report to the meeting of the Council held on 6th December 2006, the Panel has reconsidered a proposal to adopt a methodology which will assess a completed development and identify areas where a planning application and design process could have been improved to secure, ultimately, a higher standard for future development in the District. Whilst commending the purpose of the design review and notwithstanding their involvement in two training sessions, the Panel has taken the view that the methodology still requires further thought and therefore has agreed to establish a Working Party comprising its Chairman and Vice Chairman and Councillors Mrs M Banerjee, C R Hyams, C J Stephens and G S E Thorpe to consider again the method and procedure for the proposed design review.

28. REVIEW OF CONSTITUTION

Their comments having been requested on the present constitutional arrangements as part of a biennial review by the Corporate Governance Panel, the Panel has been assured that their previous concerns regarding the procedure for dealing with those applications which represent a departure from the Development Plan or which are of such major significance that they require determination by the Council would be raised by the Heads of Legal & Estate and Planning Services as part of the review.

172 29. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS: HUNTINGDONSHIRE DESIGN GUIDE AND LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE ASSESSMENT

Having commended the quality of their content and production, the Panel has endorsed the content of the Supplementary Planning Documents: Huntingdonshire Design Guide and Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment and recommended the Cabinet to adopt both documents as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

30. SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY 2006

The Panel has noted the extent of enforcement activity undertaken by the Enforcement Team in the Planning Division during 2006 and has endorsed six key objectives identified for the Service in 2007. Of the objectives to be progressed, the Panel were of the view that use could be made of the “District Wide” publication to raise understanding of enforcement issues and that leaflets still were an effective way of conveying information of this nature if copies were made available in libraries, cash offices and other premises frequented by the public.

31. HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT

The Panel has received a presentation on the content and purpose of the Housing Land Availability Assessment. This document, which will support the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, identifies the land available for development in the District and the constraints which might affect the suitability or viability of that land for housing. The Panel is aware that the District is required by the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) to find sites for 11,200 dwellings to 2021 and although 8,500 dwellings are already committed, a residue of approximately 2,700 still will be needed to meet the housing requirement set. In accepting that it is premature to draw conclusions about particular sites, the Panel look forward, with interest, to the outcome of consultation with town and parish councils and the receipt of further information from developers and land owners on the suitability and availability of other sites.

32. DRAFT ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR CORE STRATEGY DPD AMENDMENT

The Panel has given detailed consideration to the draft Issues and Options proposal for consultation with statutory consultees and stakeholders in an amendment to the spatial vision and strategy element of the Core Strategy DPD. The requirement for an amendment has arisen following advice received from the Government Office for the Eastern Region (Go East) on the basis on their experience of the “soundness” of other DPDs elsewhere in the country.

The Panel has suggested several amendments to the presentation of the document to include an analysis to reflect the number of dwellings

173 completed and committed per settlement in the period 2001-2006 and employment land completed since 2002. In addition, the Panel has requested that the document suggests that those sites identified for housing, retail and employment development are complementary in order to restrict, where ever possible, the need to travel. Consideration also is to be given by the Head of Planning Services to a suggestion that opportunities be provided for business start up units in rural areas.

Notwithstanding these comments, the Panel has recommended the Cabinet to release the draft DPD document for limited public consultation.

33. PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT NO 3: HOUSING

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published Planning Policy Statement No 3 which sets out the national planning policy framework for delivering the Government’s housing objectives. PPS3 provides the context for planning for housing through development plans and planning decisions and is drafted to achieve the following outcomes -

♦ high quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard; ♦ a mix of housing, both market and affordable; ♦ a sufficient quantity of housing taking into account need, demand and improved choice; ♦ housing developments in suitable locations which offer a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure; and ♦ a flexible and responsive supply of land.

Although the Statement does not come into force until 1st April 2007, the Panel consider it appropriate to treat PPS3 as a material consideration with immediate effect when making decisions on development applications.

34. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Over three meetings, the Panel has determined a total of 13 applications of which nine were approved and four refused. Of wider general interest to the Council will be the approval given for the Creative Enterprise Centre at the Longsands Community College, Longsands Road, St Neots.

This application was considered at the first meeting of the Panel following the introduction of public speaking (Item No. 8 of the Report of the meeting of the Corporate Governance Panel to Council held on 6th December 2006 refers) and it was the view of the Panel that those addressing the meeting contributed to the quality of the debate and the information available to Members to assist in determining the application.

P G Mitchell Chairman

174 Agenda Item 8g

Employment Panel

Report of the meeting held on 7th February 2007

Matters for Information

20. ANNUAL PAY AWARD

The Panel has agreed an increase of 3% in salary scales for District Council employees with effect from 1st April 2007.

21. STAFFING ISSUES

(a) Planning Services Division: Temporary Post – Special Projects

In the interests of addressing a continuous heavy workload, the challenges inherent in a raft of new planning legislation and staff recruitment and retention issues in the Planning Services Division, the Panel has approved the establishment of a new post of Special Projects Officer (Development Control) at a cost of £53,000 per annum for a maximum period of two years.

(b) Operations Division: Realignment of Services

Following the recent realignment of the services in the Operational Services Directorate, the Panel has approved a reconfiguration of the Operations Division in the interests of introducing a more comprehensive and community–based approach to Streetscene Services. The changes will be financed from existing Divisional budgets and the redeployment of an Activity Manager post from the Environmental and Community Health Division.

(c) Technical Services Division: Restructuring

Having noted the imminent retirement of the Building Control Manager, the Panel has approved the establishment of a new post of Principal Buildings Control Officer and recruitment to the consequential vacant posts. The new post has been created to enable the Council to focus better on the emerging environment and sustainability agendas and the additional maximum cost of £6,500 will be met in part by the deletion of an existing post of Assistant Building Control Officer and otherwise from savings in Divisional budgets.

175 (d) Policy Division: Reconfiguration

Following the transfer of Tourism Services to the Policy Division, the Panel has approved changes in the Divisional Structure designed to respond to this and other new areas of work, including external funding, monitoring of Section 106 Agreements and performance management. The opportunity also had been taken to reconfigure the Division’s Services in a way that will help drive sustainable economic development, communications and marketing, and policy and research in the future. The cost of the proposals will be met from existing Divisional Budgets.

(e) Requests to fill Vacant Posts

Having considered the factors applicable to a number of vacancies within the Operational Services Directorate, the Panel has authorised the Head of HR and Payroll Services to commence recruitment to the following posts:-

i Development Control Team Leader; i Development Control Officer x2; i Transport Management Officer; i Design and Implementation Officer; i Building Control and Climate Change Manager; i Principal Building Control Officer, and i Building Control Officer

22. PENSIONS: OPERATIONS DIVISION – GROUNDS MAINTENANCE

Having been informed of the circumstances in which six employees in the Council’s Grounds Maintenance Services have suffered, through no fault of their own, a diminution in the value of their pensionable service, the Panel has agreed to fund the shortfall. This has arisen as a consequence of the transfer under ‘TUPE’ arrangements of the employees to private contractors with different pension arrangements and their subsequent transfer back to the Council’s employment. The annual cost of the augmentation will be circa £2,200.

23. RETIREMENT OF PERSONNEL - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Panel has placed on record its recognition of, and gratitude for the excellent contribution made by Mr B Holden during his employment as a Building Control Manager in the Operational Services Directorate, and in the local government service over 40 years and has conveyed its best wishes to him for a long and happy retirement.

K Reynolds Chairman

176 Agenda Item 8h

Corporate Governance Panel

Report of the meeting held on 13th December 2006

Matters for Information

16. In accordance with Section 34 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) Regulations 1992 (as amended), the Panel has approved the amount calculated by the District Council as the tax base for the whole of the District for the year 2007/08 as 57,434.

The amounts for the various parishes are as follows:

Abbotsley 189 Abbots Ripton 134 Alconbury 553 Alconbury Weston 279 Alwalton 128 Barham & Woolley 26 Bluntisham 727 Brampton 1,809 Brington & Molesworth 114 Broughton 86 Buckden 1,138 Buckworth 50 Bury 583 Bythorn & Keyston 147 Catworth 136 Chesterton 59 Colne 325 Conington 73 Covington 41 Denton & Caldecote 24 Diddington 30 Earith 575 Easton 75 Ellington 234 Elton 290 Eynesbury Hardwicke 769 Farcet 570 Fenstanton 1,187 Folksworth & Washingley 350 Glatton 134 Godmanchester 2,258 Grafham 238 Great & Little Gidding 127

177 Great Gransden 458 Great Paxton 377 Great Staughton 311 Haddon 20 Hail Weston 238 Hamerton 42 Hemingford Abbots 319 Hemingford Grey 1,153 Hilton 439 Holme 241 Holywell-cum-Needingworth 973 Houghton & Wyton 1,200 Huntingdon 6,709 Kings Ripton 73 Kimbolton & Stonely 585 Leighton Bromswold 80 Little Paxton 1,122 Morborne 11 Offord Cluny 197 Offord d'Arcy 295 Old Hurst 96 Old Weston 90 Perry 266 Pidley-cum-Fenton 156 Ramsey 2,877 St Ives 5,626 St Neots 9,096 St Neots Rural 30 Sawtry 1,735 Sibson-cum-Stibbington 200 Somersham 1,361 Southoe & Midloe 157 Spaldwick 222 Steeple Gidding 10 Stilton 790 Stow Longa 60 Tetworth 18 The Stukeleys 731 Tilbrook 107 Toseland 38 Upton & Coppingford 87 Upwood & The Raveleys 411 Warboys 1,350 Waresley 128 Water Newton 43 Winwick 41 Wistow 220 Woodhurst 153 Woodwalton 86 Yaxley 2,808 Yelling 00,140 57,434

178 17. DATA PROTECTION ACT, ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION REQUEST PROCEDURE

The Panel has adopted a Data Protection Act, Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information Act and Public Sector Information Procedure for dealing with requests for information received by the Council, the terms of which reflect best practice.

18. RISK REGISTER

The Panel has been acquainted with progress on the development of the Risk Register. Members also have been informed of the options that have been identified to mitigate further “red” residual risks and the work that is ongoing to check the applicability of risks across the Council.

The Panel has approved changes to the Risk Management Strategy, which reflect best practice, by separating responsibilities for ensuring that an effective risk management strategy is in place and for acting upon mitigated risks.

19. WHISTLEBLOWING – ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE

The Corporate Governance Panel has been informed of the outcome of the annual review of the Whistleblowing Policy and Procedure, which has concluded that no changes are required.

20. REVIEW OF THE ANTI-FRAUD AND CORRUPTION STRATEGY

The Panel has been acquainted with the results of a review of the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy, as a result of which no revisions have been made to the Strategy.

21. INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE INTERIM REPORT 2006/07

The Panel has been acquainted with progress by the Internal Audit Service against the Audit Plan for 2006/07, which indicates that the work contained in the Plan is likely to be completed. As a result of the work carried out, the Internal Audit Manager is of the view that the Council’s systems continue to provide a limited level of assurance.

The Panel has been informed of the procedure for resolving disagreements between Managers and Internal Audit on the implementation of recommendations that arise from audits. Members have expressed concern with regard to recorded performance on the implementation of agreed actions. Having discussed Executive Councillors’ involvement in ensuring agreed actions are implemented, the Panel also has requested that Directors and Heads of Service are reminded of the importance of introducing actions within the agreed timescales and informed of the perceived requirement for liaison with the Executive Councillors, as appropriate, on progress in this respect.

179 22. ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2006

The Panel has been acquainted with the implications for the Council of the Accounts and Audit (Amendment) Regulations 2006, which relate principally to a new requirement to conduct annual reviews of the effectiveness of the Council’s systems of internal control and of internal audit.

C J Stephens Chairman

180 Agenda Item 8i

Elections Panel

Report of the meeting held on 15th December 2006

Matter for Information

3. PARISH ELECTORAL REVIEW - CONSULTATION

Further to Item No. 2 of their Report to the meeting of the Council held on 2nd October 2006, the Panel has considered further issues arising from the parish electoral review of the District. In so doing, Members have been advised that the draft proposals have been published for public consultation and circulated to interested parties. In discussing parishes with parish meetings, the Panel has formulated draft proposals to amalgamate such parishes with neighbouring parishes to create larger parishes to enable a parish council to be established. These additional draft proposals will be circulated to interested parties.

The Panel has discussed preparations for further publicity and has requested the preparation of a public notice on the consultation exercise to be sent to all parishes for display in their parishes and further publicity in newspapers circulating in the District.

In view of the preparation of further proposals for parish meetings, the Panel has agreed to extend the consultation period until the end of March 2007.

D Harty Chairman

181 This page is intentionally left blank

182