Navigating the Ely Area 20mph Limit Scheme: An Overview
Ely North Councillor Learn more
by Alison Whelan on 31 May, 2019
This was my first Council meeting as a District Councillor and proved to be somewhat interesting with 4 absences from the Chamber.
The effect of the European Parliament Elections was that this meeting had to be moved from the original planned date and this was given as reason for some of the apologies.
The elected Council is:
Conservative 15 Councillors
Liberal Democrats 13 Councillors
For this meeting, the parties were balanced at 12:12.
1. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME [oral]
There were no public questions
2. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN 2019/20
Councillor Lis Every was appointed Chairman (in her absence) unopposed.
3. VOTE OF THANKS TO OUTGOING CHAIRMAN AND PRESENTATION OF PAST CHAIRMAN’S MEDALLION AND SCROLL
4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies received from Lis Every, Daniel Schumann, Amy Starkey and John Trapp.
5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Declarations of interest were received in respect of items 11 and 17.
6. MINUTES – 11 APRIL 2019
The minutes of the last meeting were approved.
7. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN 2019/20
There were 2 nominations for Vice-Chairman and the results of the secret ballot was as follows:
As a result, Sue Austen (Lib Dem) was elected as Vice-Chairman of the Council. Following this, there was outrage from the Conservative side of the chamber with demands to see the spoiled paper – as if the Officers would have taken a risk of getting this wrong!
Sue Austen then took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
8. ELECTION RESULTS
These were noted
9. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Clean Air day is on 20th June and the Chair urged everyone to get involved. (More details at cleanairday.org.uk)
10. TO RECEIVE PETITION(S)
No petitions received
11. NOTICE OF MOTIONS UNDER PROCEDURE RULE 10
A motion from the Lib Dem Group led to some heated debate. The purpose of the motion was to ensure that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority were approached about increasing the level of affordable housing on the MOD site in Ely North. This followed a letter from the CPCA who asked for other authorities to consider how they could deliver more social housing at affordable rent.
The opposition came en bloc from the Conservative Group who insisted that any change would prevent the purchase of the land going ahead. It is difficult to understand what their objection actually was as this was a technical change that would make no other change other than ultimately delivering more affordable housing. Claims that it was a wrecking motion were false – the purpose was to get more affordable housing delivered. As was pointed out, there are currently 710 local families on the waiting list. The 15 properties planned will not go very far, and with nothing to lose, the failure of the Conservative group to support exploring what can be done was really quite damning. Apparently, looking at it now would prevent the development going ahead, but deferring the decision to the next Council meeting would apparently let this considered more fully.
Of course, one of the Conservative Group had rightly declared an interest in this matter and as a result, the Motion passed 12:11.
The full motion is at the end of this report.
12. TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
Questions had been received and answered in writing
13. LEADER AND DEPUTY LEADER OF THE COUNCIL, GROUP LEADERS AND DEPUTY GROUP LEADERS
These were noted
14. POLITICAL PROPORTIONALITY
These were noted
15. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND SUB COMMITTEES (INCLUDING SUBSTITUTES) AND OTHER MEMBER BODIES 2019/20
The Lib Dem Group proposed an amendment that would effectively mean that the Committees of the Council would assume the Shareholder duties of the Council’s Trading Companies. The shareholder position had only been changed at the last meeting and now there was another change which would essentially mean that the Committee was both the customer and the shareholder – a question of conflict of interest.
The amendment was defeated 12:12.
16. CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH COMBINED AUTHORITY
(a) Appointments to CPCA bodies were approved
(b) Update Report – Received. One of the Conservative Group spoke out about how we should get behind the CPCA as it is delivering so much in East Cambs, including £500k for the A10 study, £100k for the Cambridge South Station and £400k for Bus Reform, all of which affect East Cambridgeshire. It is interesting to be told how much East Cambs is benefiting when, at the very same time, we hear that: East Cambridgeshire is ‘not unfairly benefiting’ from combined authority, says Mayor Palmer
17. SUTTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN ADOPTION
The Neighbourhood plan was unanimously approved with calls for more Neighbourhood Plans to be created.
The meeting was then brought to a close
The saddest point about this meeting was the inappropriate behaviour from a number of people, talking down to new Members of the Council as if they lack the ability to understand what was going on. This is not how democracy should work.
Following the Full Council Meeting, each Committee held a short meeting to appoint Chairs and some other technical issues.
Item 11 Motion:
This Council:
1. welcomes the passage of Statutory Instrument 2019 No. 682 which came into force on 23 April 2019 and which permits accommodation provided by a private registered provider under an agreement with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to be let as social housing at an affordable rent;
2. acknowledges receipt of the letter dated 1 May 2019 from the Director of Housing & Development at the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority inviting the council to discuss schemes with the Combined Authority now that it is able to invest in new affordable homes across all tenures;
3. recognises the pressing need for affordable homes, including homes for rent, in East Cambridgeshire, and the fact that affordable house building completions in the district have fallen below 5 per cent in at least two recent years;
4. believes that in becoming a commercial property developer, the Council should aim to provide homes for those most in need even when the development is not new-build;
5. notes with concern the council’s current proposals to provide only 15 affordable homes, none of them for rent, out of the 92 refurbished MOD homes in Ely;
6. resolves to revisit its proposals for the MOD scheme, and to put to the Combined Authority a scheme to increase the proportion of affordable homes on the site to at least 50 per cent, including a significant number of homes for affordable rent.
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply