Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of 12 December 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of 12 December 2022 were confirmed and signed.

Councillor Miscandlon drew members’ attention to the civic activities undertaken by himself and the Vice Chairman in the weeks preceding Full Council.

Councillor Miscandlon paid tribute to Cyril Bellamy who had sadly passed away. Cyril had served as a councillor for 31 years and his family described him as dedicated and hard working with a mantra to always help others in the community.

Councillor Miscandlon informed members that Cyril first became a councillor in 1978 when he joined Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary Parish Councils where he also served as Chairman from 1999 to 2005 and again from 2007 to 2009. In 1999 Cyril also joined Fenland District Council as a ward councillor for Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary and during this time he served on both the Licensing and Planning Committees as well as being involved in a number of community groups.

Councillor Miscandlon offered condolences to Cyril’s family and a minute’s silence was observed in his memory.

Councillor Miscandlon advised members that the Annual General Meeting of the Twinning Association will take place at Fenland Hall at 2pm on 2 March and all are welcome to attend. 

Councillor Boden stated that he would like to bring to Members' attention that this was the last Full Council meeting for a number of Members who would not be seeking re-election on 4 May and on behalf of the Council, he extended his sincere thanks to those who were stepping down for their dedication and commitment to the people of their wards but also to the whole of Fenland. He made the point that these Members have served the public selflessly for a number of years and have achieved a number of positive improvements for their areas and congratulated their time served as a Councillor, wishing them all the very best in their future endeavours.

Councillor Boden stated that those particular members who have chosen not to seek re-election at this time have between them given 75 years of service to the Council and to their residents are Councillors Sarah Bligh, Andy Lynn, David Mason, Kay Mayor, David Topgood, Rob Skoulding and Fred Yeulett. He added that if there any other members who have decided that they are not going to re-stand for election who he has not formally recognised then they should accept his apologies and asked members of the Council to join him in a round of applause in recognition of their service.

Councillor Miscandlon added his thanks also and gave those members that wished to do so the opportunity to address Full Council.

Councillor Mrs Bligh stated that she has thoroughly enjoyed the eight years that she has served as a councillor and thanked Councillor Tierney for introducing her to politics and also to Councillor Booth for providing her with their guidance and knowledge in helping her to fulfil her role as a councillor.

Councillor Yeulett stated that he would like to thank all members and officers for their assistance provided to him over the years and he wished them well for the future.

Councillor Mason stated that it has been a privilege to serve the Council, and he has enjoyed it thoroughly. He thanked members for their support and help over the years.

Councillor Skoulding thanked everybody for their support and friendship and he stated that he would like to thank all of the officers, especially thanking the team in Member Services.

Councillor Miscandlon stated that no questions had been submitted under Procedure Rule 8.6. Under Procedure Rule 8.4, Councillor Cornwell also thanked those officers for their service and friendship who are not re standing for election in May and asked the following questions as Leader of the Opposition:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated there has been much discussion in March concerning the regeneration of the Town Centre and in particular Broad Street, with the matters particularly centred around the dissatisfaction with the supposed public consultation regarding the proposal and whilst it appears that there was some consultation it has become apparent that it was not always well delivered and was not well received. He stated that he has recently undertaken a review and it has become apparent that the consultations did not always comply with the Council’s Consultation Strategy which has led to a number of residents losing confidence in the Council and some officers, which he finds unacceptable as residents should never lose confidence in their own Local Authority, adding that if the scheme consultation is compared with the consultation which was undertaken under the planning process where there were three elements requiring planning approval and appears to have been a far better consultation system which is more wide ranging, better and a larger number of responses in a well proven adopted consultation system. Councillor Cornwell explained that there did appear to be a small discrepancy where the Council’s IT system did appear to reject a submission from one of the long-standing businesses trading in the Town Centre and he hoped the issue is being investigated. He asked Councillor Boden whether he will issue a public apology to the residents of March for some of the failings that they have experienced in the Council’s processes in relation to the proposals? Councillor Cornwell added whether a system can be adopted so that prior to any public consultation in the future, the relevant Portfolio Holder and member of the Corporate Management Team review the proposed process to ensure that it accords with the Council’s own strategy and the manner in which feedback is received and published. He also expressed the opinion that as one of the Council’s planning applications was incomplete, due to the fact that the replacement of the demolished public toilets in Broad Street was not included, can a guarantee be made for the residents of March that replacement public toilets will be provided and with some urgency following the demolition of the existing ones?

·       Councillor Boden responded that he was unaware that there had been any IT failings with regards to the planning permission and he is confident that the relevant Portfolio Holder will investigate the issue to ensure that if there is a problem it will be addressed so that it does not happen again. He added that if there has been a failing, it is the Council’s responsibility to get things right and the Council will apologise. Councillor Boden stated that with regards to the public consultations that took  ...  view the full minutes text for item C46/22

Members asked questions of Portfolio Holders in accordance with Procedure Rules 8.1 and 8.2 as follows:

·       Councillor Hay stated that she noted in the Portfolio Holder report that it mentions the Local Plan consultation and it states that the Local Plan will be considered by Full Council during 2023/2024, however, she has also read that Peterborough City Council will be withdrawing their support for planning and she asked whether that will affect the timetable for the completion of the Local Plan? Councillor Mrs Laws responded that Peterborough City Council have been undergoing an assessment of its own Planning Department, which started in July 2022 and they have advised that they are considering withdrawing certain services from the Council. She stated that discussions are currently taking place with regards to the situation as it will also affect other areas of the shared service but at the current time she has no firm answers that she is able to provide.

·       Councillor Sutton asked whether Councillor Murphy was able to provide an update with regards to whether the brown bin charge was going to be removed in place of Waste Vertical Integration (WVI)? Councillor Murphy responded that there is no intention to remove the brown bin charge and there is an increase in the amount of people who subscribe to the service with 2,800 customers paying for the service by direct debit. He explained that with regards to WVI, there is no further update from Central Government from that which was provide in 2022.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the Horizons windfall funding which had been discussed previously at Full Council, with East Cambridgeshire District Council setting up a Community Fund to make use of their share of the funding and asked the Leader whether he had given any consideration to a capital fund being raised and in particular for the rural areas who receive very little, in his opinion, but who represent 28% of the Fenland population. He added that consideration could be given for a small amount of money of £10,000 to £15,000 which would make a difference to some of the projects that the small villages would like to progress. Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Boden whether he would consider a scheme where villages can request some funding? Councillor Boden made the point that he objects to the use of the word windfall to describe the monies received from Cambridgeshire Horizons and explained that the Council was one of the original shareholders for Cambridgeshire Horizons Ltd which was a company that was set up around twenty years ago in order to promote economic growth in Cambridgeshire as a whole and in particular housing growth. He added that the company had some very specific legal objectives set out in its memorandum and articles at the time. Councillor Boden explained that the company reached a certain stage in managing to utilize the large amounts of capital funding, which was received by Central Government, but they only reached a certain point, and did spend a  ...  view the full minutes text for item C47/22

Question from Alan Melton. 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 9A, the Parish Clerk for Manea, Alan Melton attended Council and asked the following question to Councillor Mrs Laws, Portfolio Holder for Planning.

Mr Melton stated that he has been invited by a number of parishes to undertake work with them and explained that he has worked with authorities in South Cambridgeshire, East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. He expressed the view that he is concerned with regards to the level of Section 106 monies that they are in receipt of for local communities that Fenland does not appear to be receiving and asked Councillor Mrs Laws if she could clarify why does Fenland not receive these contributions and what is she going to do about it in the future.

Mr Melton continued by explaining that whilst working with East Cambridgeshire he received a letter from the Financial Officer to advise him that £60,000 had been credited to their bank account for development and a further £3,000 for a single dwelling. He explained that during the financial year he was provided with a list of all the Section 106 contributions that have been paid to all of the parishes in East Cambridgeshire with the exception of Sutton who have advised that they have invested any Section 106 monies received by Sutton Parish Council into property.

Mr Melton stated that South Cambridgeshire Council have also advised him that they will be crediting the relevant bank account and so far this year contributions of £109,000 have been received and another £60,000 is also due. He explained that whilst undertaking some work in Fenstanton he was surprised to find that there was some Section 106 accounts with over £300,000 in them which were due to be allocated to local projects.

Mr Melton expressed the opinion that he is concerned that Fenland does not have a policy which deals with Section 106 contributions, and he made reference to the Wenny Meadow development where there are no contributions for the local community and another development in Doddington Road, Chatteris where again there are no funds for the local community. He expressed the view that developers are using the legislation which is set out on the viability standards, and referred to the Wenny Meadow application where the application indicates that the developer states that the proposed selling of the dwellings will be in the region of £250,000 and the same houses on the same layout are selling for in excess of £450,000. Mr Melton stated that there needs to be a review of a policy and viability standards and criteria need to be challenged.

Councillor Mrs Laws responded that she was under the impression it was Wenny Road and the Wenny Meadow stage of the proposal has yet to be achieved. She stated that East Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire Council both operate a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme and under the Government rules for CIL the Council must give a cash proportion of the CIL income to Parish Councils and where the  ...  view the full minutes text for item C48/22

Motion submitted by Councillor Tierney concerning works to a damaged building in Wisbech.

Councillor Tierney presented his motion to members of Full Council concerning works to a damaged building in Wisbech.

Members made comments as follows:

·       Councillor Booth stated that he is happy to support the motion and added that he would like to see the process expedited in order that the Town of Wisbech and the Market Place are returned back to normal.

Proposed by Councillor Tierney, seconded by Councillor Booth and AGREED that the motion be approved for

·       officers to work with the building owners to expediate the important repairs that will put the building back in good order as early as possible; and

·       if this is not achievable, the Council exercises its statutory powers and assesses the options for enforcement action if a planning application is not forthcoming in the next few months.

For Council to consider and approve the Final Business Plan 2023-2024.

Members considered the Final Business Plan 2023-24 report presented by Councillor Boden.

Councillor Boden highlighted that the Business Plan contains a new section this year which is titled Council for the Future which highlights some of the bigger changes which are taking place and will be taking place going forward. He explained that the Transformation One agenda is being focussed on which involves the process mapping of the work that is undertaken and the reorganisation of the services that the Council has.

Councillor Boden also explained that preparation is also taking place for the Transformation 2 agenda which changes the physical and virtual footprint of the Council. He stated that the report went to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel last month and they in turn made various suggestions which have been incorporated within the report.

Membersmade comments,asked questionsand receivedresponses asfollows:

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he was surprised to see 29 people had responded positively to the Business Plan consultation out of a population of 102,500 which, in his opinion, is a very poor response. He made the point that it is concerning to see that no businesses responded, and added that could be because there is very little in the plan which deals with business and economic development and, in his view, that is an area which needs to be addressed. Councillor Cornwell stated that the feedback received did contain some very pertinent questions or answers and some people had obviously given it some thought prior to responding, although some of those views do not seem to be reflected in the final version. He referred to the Council’s consultation strategy where it states that ‘only consult if you are willing to make changes based on responses’ and he expressed the view that he does not see any changes because of those responses. Councillor Boden responded that the reason why there are so few responses is, in his opinion ,people are fed up with consultation exercises taking place by all layers of Government and people do not believe that consultations matter and they are of the view that their responses will not be even read. He added that is the reason why there are such small numbers of individuals responding. Councillor Boden made the point that it is possible as a local member to get more interest in your area out of something which is relevant by encouraging people to read what has been said and to respond to something what is particularly important to an area. He stated that all responses in this case were read, and consideration was given to the comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel, with changes were made as a result.

·       Councillor Booth stated that one of the biggest comments which seemed to come out of the consultation was that the language style used could be made clearer and simpler and whilst there have been improvements made to the presentation style rather than the content compared to previous versions.  ...  view the full minutes text for item C50/22

To consider the Cabinet recommendations in relation to the General Fund Budget Estimates 2023/24 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2023/24 to 2027/28; the Council Tax levels for 2023/24; the Capital Programme 2023-2026; and the Treasury Management Strategy Statement, Capital Strategy and Annual Treasury Investment Strategy for 2023/24.

Members considered the General Fund Budget Estimates 2023/24 and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2023/24 to 2027/28; and Capital Programme 2023-2026 report presented by Councillor Boden.

Councillor Boden highlighted that there was an item which needed to be amended within the recommendations and he explained that the recommendation at (x) makes reference to section 15 whereas it should read section 16.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Tierney explained that ever since he became an elected member, he has regularly circulated surveys asking people questions with regards to policy in order that he can ensure that the aspects that he represents reflects what the voters want him to stand up for and he explained that one of the questions that he is often asked about is Council Tax. He stated that it is only a very small proportion of people who respond who are happy with their Council Tax payments increasing, making the point that many of his fellow councillors have stated that they choose to become a councillor because they do not wish to see their residents paying too much Council Tax but then in a short period of time, they appear to accept that there will be a significant increase to Council Tax payments. Councillor Tierney stated that he has often argued for a Council Tax freeze or a cut to payments but that has often been brushed aside and added that there should never just be the presumption that the Council is going to increase peoples bills and there should be the opportunity to look at the money required and then only take the amount which is needed. He made the point that it is not the Council’s money, it is residents money and due to the current economic climate, there has never been a more important time for this reduction to be put in place. Councillor Tierney added that when the last administration came into being four years ago, the aspiration was to freeze Council Tax every year and that has been achieved every year and this year there is a proposal to cut Council Tax, which does not mean that services will be cut as the Council continues to deliver services and, in his opinion, he would like to think that the general consensus of members is that Fenland is quite a successful Council. He stated that it is the right thing to do and he knows people are going to support the proposal as money is better off in people’s pockets in order to give them their own choice on how to spend it.

·       Councillor Booth stated that the report makes the point that it is a political decision, and, in his opinion, it is an election year and that is why the proposal has been brought forward, with the reason that he is sceptical is due to the fact that at a recent Overview and Scrutiny panel meeting there was a budget report put forward which proposed 0% and  ...  view the full minutes text for item C51/22

Following consideration of the report to this Council on 20 February 2023 and the setting of the Revenue Budget for 2023/24, the Council is required to pass the resolution to set the Council Tax requirement.

Members considered the Council Tax Resolution 2023/24 report presented by Councillor Boden.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he also agrees with a council tax reduction as long as it does not put the long-term viability of the Council into jeopardy as has been seen in other places. He added that in terms of costs to residents it does still mean that Fenland is very much adrift compared with other neighbouring authorities. Councillor Sutton stated that residents who live in Black Bear Lane pay £111.37 pence more in Fenland compared to the other half of the road which is in the jurisdiction of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk. He provided the comparison in amounts from the neighbouring authorities and made the point that whilst he welcomes the reduction there is still a long way to go.

·       Councillor Hoy stated that her Council Tax has increased over the last 5 years and will rise. She added that she lives in the lowest Council Tax band and receives a single person discount but there will be some residents who will need to find the extra money in order to make their payments and they may find this a struggle.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that the Council Tax rates contain £1.9 million for the drainage levies and many large parts of the country do not have that and they get the advantage of something that Fenland does not. He explained that Lincolnshire have £3.4 million of levy payments and Norfolk have £2.8 million, which are significant figures, and, in his opinion, it is time for this to be reviewed and the drainage boards should be advised that the amounts they are charging are to be capped and if they are not happy with that course of action then they can address that with Central Government. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that the amounts are excessive and whilst support used to be provided by the Government that has now ceased and, in his view, there needs to be pressure applied to the Government to address the issue.

·       Councillor Count stated that he would like to pay tribute to the Leader, members of the Cabinet and officers who have been instrumental in putting the budget together in order to deliver a Council Tax freeze for a number of years and to now bring forward a reduction of 2% and should be highly commended. He added that he knows it is difficult to achieve and that the majority of councils have decided to increase their Council Tax. Councillor Count stated that a comment was made earlier which pointed out that Government funding is primarily one of the main sources of funding and for many years in Cambridgeshire there has been arguments put forward for a fairer funding formula as the formula has been  broken many years and there is the acknowledgement that it is broken, and Cambridgeshire has lost out because of that. He stated that when it is  ...  view the full minutes text for item C52/22

To seek approval that Fenland DC agree that they should enter into a Section 113 partnership with Broadland District Council and South Norfolk Council in order that Anglia Revenues Partnership provides fraud services.

Councillor Boden presented the report to Council to seek approval for the Anglian Revenues Partnership (ARP) entering into a Section 113 agreement with Broadland District Council and South Norfolk Council and for ARP to provide Fraud Services.

Proposed by Councillor Boden, seconded by Councillor Mrs Laws and AGREED that Fenland District Council enters into the Section 113 partnership agreement with Broadland and South Norfolk District Councils for the provision of Fraud Services.

To seek approval that Fenland DC agree that they should enter into a Section 113 partnership with Lincolnshire County Council (to include Boston Borough Council, City of Lincoln Council, East Lindsey District Council, West Lindsey District Council, South Kesteven District Council, North Kesteven District Council and South Holland District Council) for ARP to provide Single Person Discount Fraud Services.

Councillor Boden presented the report to Council to seek approval for the Anglian Revenues Partnership (ARP) entering into a Section 113 agreement with Lincolnshire County Council (to include Boston Borough Council, City of Lincoln Council, East Lindsey District Council, West Lindsey District Council, South Kesteven District Council, North Kesteven District Council and South Holland District Council) to provide Single Person Discount Fraud Services.

Proposed by Councillor Boden, seconded by Councillor Hoy and AGREED to enter into the Section 113 partnership agreement with Lincolnshire County Council (to include Boston Borough Council, City of Lincoln Council, East Lindsey District Council, West Lindsey District Council, South Kesteven District Council, North Kesteven District Council and South Holland District Council) for the provision of Fraud Services.

It is recommended that Council notes the revised political proportionality of Fenland District Council and approves the proposal that the allocations to Committees and Panels and Outside Bodies as set out at Appendix A and B continue for the remainder of the 2022/23 municipal year.

Members considered the Political Proportionality report presented by Councillor Boden.

Councillor Cornwell stated that he is very happy with the proposal put forward.

Proposed by Councillor Boden, seconded by Councillor Cornwell and AGREED that the revised political proportionality of the Council be noted and that the allocations to Committees and Panels and Outside Bodies as set out at Appendix A and B continue for the remainder of the 2022/23 municipal year.

The purpose of this report is for Council to adopt the Senior Manager Pay Policy Statement for 2022-2023 attached to the report.

Members considered the Senior Manager Pay Policy report presented by Councillor Boden.

Councillor Booth expressed the opinion the whole point of this report is to try to stop wage escalation for senior management within local councils and it is his understanding that Eric Pickles introduced the legislation some time ago.

Proposed by Councillor Boden, seconded by Councillor Count and AGREED to adopt the Senior Management Pay Policy Statement for 2022/23 at Appendix 1 as required by the Localism Act 2011.