District councillor for Sutton, Mepal, Witcham, and Wentworth (East Cambridgeshire District Council) and county councillor for Coveney, Little Downham, Mepal, Pymoor, Sutton, Wardy Hill, Way Head, Witcham, and Witchford (Cambridgeshire County Council)
If you’re one of the many who are finding life difficult and stressful in these covid times, a new helpline is here to offer support.
Cambridgeshire Workplace Chaplaincy (CWC) has launched a free helpline for anyone in the workplace who needs help with stress and wants emotional support.
All calls are anonymous. The service is available 9:00AM to 5:00PM Monday to Friday. Outside those hours you can leave a voicemail message if you would like a chaplain to contact you on a weekday.
CWC’s multifaith chaplains are a diverse group who are happy to provide support regardless of spirituality or religion – their aim is to listen and comfort. Please call 0800 246 5193 if you need support.
The Planning Inspectorate has dismissed an appeal against refusal of planning permission for development at 15 Martins Lane Witcham.
The application was for the demolition of the existing bungalow and outbuildings and their replacement by ten dwellings with a new access from Martins Lane.
The inspector found that the proposal ‘would not represent an acceptable form of development as it would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area’, and that the benefits of nine additional dwellings would be ‘significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm’ to that character and appearance.
The following planning application in the Sutton division has been published by East Cambridgeshire District Council.
20/00418/ARN Witchford Barn at Mills Lane Witchford Change of use and conversion of the barn to residential dwelling.
Further information can be found on the district council’s planning pages. If you would like to respond formally to the council about any planning application, comments should be addressed to the district council and not to me. Comments may be made
online using the council’s public access web page (the link above);
Our first online meeting – we’d hoped to be able to meet in March, but the Secretary of State hadn’t yet issued the regulations allowing us to do so.
Today we heard from Austen Adams, chair of the Combined Authority’s Business Board, who talked us through the Board’s recent evaluation as ‘needing improvement’, the changes to the Board’s membership which made it more diverse, and the Board’s strategy. We asked about Covid associated risks and capital financial support to local businesses.
The Mayor joined us to answer questions, which included the £100K homes project and modular homes, and how to revitalise bus transport after lockdown. Discussion then turned to the sudden and surprising news of the Mayor’s proposal to move the Combined Authority local stock and barrel from its Alconbury offices. He told the meeting that his proposed move to Ely was short-term, and longer-term he was looking to a site ‘next to a railway station’ where the Combined Authority could construct its own building. He denied that the move was related to the current non-existent public transport links to Alconbury. I asked about the process that had led to this point, and the Mayor advised that he had received an offer to release the Combined Authority from the Alconbury lease, which was ‘in discussion this afternoon’ and would be put to the Combined Authority Board (though not at its forthcoming meeting next week). The point was repeatedly made by members of the committee that it was important to ensure proper processes were followed and that decisions were transparent.
The committee then discussed the ‘Market Town Masterplans’ being developed for the whole of the Combined Authority area, most recently for Huntingdonshire. There was some concern about the consultation for these Masterplans, and the extent to which local residents and councillors had been listened to (or not) in their development.
We continue to be concerned that the Combined Authority still has not appointed a Chair to its Climate Change Commission, which has therefore still not got under way six months after the decision was made to establish it.
We questioned officers about the Wisbech Rail project, including its relationship to the proposed Wisbech Garden Town, and how it would help grow the North Cambridgeshire economy rather than just expanding commuting into Cambridge.
We agreed our first Annual Report as a committee, which outlines the work we have done this year and which will be presented to the Combined Authority Board.
And we finalised a list of questions which I will ask the Board next Wednesday on the committee’s behalf.
This was the last meeting of the ‘class of 2019/20’, and we will have to leave it to the 2020/21 committee to continue to hold the Combined Authority to account in the coming council year.
The county council’s Commercial & Investment Committee meets this morning. As usual the most interesting decision is taken in private session at the end.
In public session, the committee discusses the disposal of land at Dullingham and Lode, for an expected return of above £500,000 each. We’re asked to agree that with the committee chair’s agreement the officers can dispose of these sites for a lower sum, though if it’s under £450,000 they’d have to come back to the committee for further discussion. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I disagree – I say this smells a bit like a fire sale, and we shouldn’t give the chair the right to agree a sale at up to ten per cent less than what we expect. We successfully persuade the committee of this, so the recommendation is altered and agreed, and the sale will have to come back to committee if we don’t achieve the full sum we hope for.
We agree unanimously on our preferred option for procuring a contract for water supply to the council. Though I support the conclusion, I’m less convinced about how the report lays out its reasoning for the decision, which I will take up separately with the officer. She and her colleagues are an excellent team doing some really good work for the council.
As for the discussion in private session, we’re waiting for advice on how much we can say about what was discussed and how the voting went. More soon. Maybe.
My first online county council committee meeting – General Purposes Committee. It’s a pretty short agenda, with a lot of regular business not included to make meetings more manageable during lockdown.
We have to wait for Economy & Environment Committee to finish meeting first, as they are making a decision about whether to award a contract for the Kings Dyke Level Crossing closure scheme. They agree the contract award unanimously, and refer the matter to our committee to borrow the money. It’s over £2M more than the original £30M estimate (with another £1.5M in Covid-related contingency on top), but it’s still £10M less than where the scheme cost was heading a year ago.
In rather less good news, back in 2013 Conservative county councillors agreed that the county council would pay £25M towards the cost of the current A14 works – and repaying it isn’t going to be quite how it looked back then.
At the time they made this commitment, they decided they would pay it off at £1M a year for 25 years, from a Government grant the council gets for road schemes called the Integrated Transport Block. Back in 2013, this grant was about £10M a year, so £1M a year would have left ninety per cent of the grant for local projects. Now, however, the grant has plummeted to around £3M a year, so giving £1M a year out of a much smaller sum is a bigger deal, and would leave only £2M a year for our own schemes rather than the £9M originally envisaged.
No decision has been taken on how to cut this much money out of the county council’s highways spending programme, so the committee agrees by a majority to borrow it instead. Borrowing money just to pay it to someone else is very much frowned upon in local government budgeting. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues don’t support the proposal: it’s a mess Conservative councillors have made for themselves.
Like all committees meeting for the foreseeable future, the committee discusses various aspects of the coronavirus pandemic and its effects on the council, of which I comment on a few:
Council group leaders were presented with a proposed ‘virtual meetings protocol’ for the running of council meetings while they are held online. Although the report to today’s committee says this was agreed by the group leaders, it very much wasn’t agreed by my group leader (or myself and my colleagues) – it’s unnecessarily restrictive in removing public rights to speak at meetings when asking questions or presenting petitions, for example. An earlier version even tried to suggest to councillors how they should vote on items coming to the council! I express my hope that it’s loosened up sooner rather later.
Council officers have power to make some binding financial decisions during a ‘sudden emergency’. I make the point that pretty soon this is going to be an ongoing rather than a sudden emergency, and we therefore need to return soon to the usual procedure of the councillors taking decisions.
I ask for the council to include domestic abuse among its priorities for Covid-related activity. Incidents of abuse are increasing as families are shut up together for weeks on end, leaving people with no respite from their abusers. I’m assured that this is being considered very seriously.
I ask for clarity about how the county council and district council hubs work together, and which council is meeting the needs of which groups of people.
One of the most frequent queries I’m hearing as a councillor is when the household recycling centres are going to be reopened. There’s a lot of demand for this, and some pressure from the Government too. I’m told that the council is awaiting refreshed Government advice, and then will need to consider how to reopen in a way that creates a safe working environment, proper social distancing, effective traffic supervision, management of pent-up demand, and a coordinated plan with neighbouring authorities so that the first council to reopen its sites doesn’t get inundated with everyone else’s residents.
Skanska could almost certainly be doing more work during the lockdown, when fewer cars on the road make temporary traffic lights and road closures less of a problem. We’re promised a note from the relevant director about what additional work might be possible, and I’m hopeful of progress on this soon.
Finally, I ask about shortages of PPE and how this is working out locally. I’m told that the council is sourcing PPE for our own staff and that local care homes are also able to access enough PPE through the local ‘PPE hub’.
Liberal Democrat MPs have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequerasking him to do more to support small and medium businesses when the large businesses they supply don’t pay them promptly.
The letter from Sarah Olney MP has attracted cross-party signatures, and says:
We wish to draw your attention to the practice of delaying payments to suppliers by large companies. The Covid-19 pandemic spells great uncertainty for many businesses in the UK and with reduced economic activity many are concerned about receiving timely payment from large customers.
The level of late payment debt owed to small and medium-sized businesses was far too high even before the outbreak and many small firms now find themselves in a perilous position. Many still have no choice but to trade with long delays to payment imposed on them by larger customers and the pandemic has only exacerbated this problem.
In light of these difficulties, several large firms have done the right thing and paid their suppliers promptly. But many others have not. In the current crisis successful businesses, deprived of payment, may now have to take support loans from the government, lay off staff or even enter administration. Large companies should pay their suppliers on time and not hoard cash when their suppliers are struggling.
We fully support the Chancellor’s support package for businesses and employees, but we must do more for small and medium-sized businesses. By ensuring that suppliers are paid on time, the risk of bankruptcy or the need to call on government loans is greatly reduced.
To achieve this, the Small Business Commissioner should be given the power to fine companies that consistently fail to pay suppliers on time and make the Prompt Payment Code compulsory rather than voluntary for organisations with more than 250 employees. These steps will help eliminate the practice of delaying payments to suppliers and alleviate the financial pressures that this pandemic has put on so many successful businesses.
Before Carillion collapsed in 2018 it extended payment times to 120 days. It went bust owing over £2bn to 30,000 suppliers and creditors leaving many of these firms in dire straits. We must take action now to ensure that we do not see this repeated, in the current climate it could cause damage far exceeding the collapse of Carillion.
The following planning applications in the Sutton division have been published by East Cambridgeshire District Council.
20/00460/FUL Little Downham Land south of 2-2A Pymoor Lane Pymoor Construction of one four- bedroom, two-storey detached dwelling and associated works.
20/00495/FUL Little Downham 6A Third Drove Little Downham CB6 2UE Temporary siting of mobile home to include timber cladding with raised decking platform to the frontage, alterations to agricultural building and external comfort unit (retrospective).
20/00458/RMA Witchford Land north of Needhams Barn Main Street Witchford Approval of the details of the appearance and landscape for previously approved 17/00534/OUT for outline application for residential development.
Further information can be found on the district council’s planning pages. If you would like to respond formally to the council about any planning application, comments should be addressed to the district council and not to me. Comments may be made
online using the council’s public access web page (the link above);
East Cambridgeshire’s Planning Committee has this afternoon approved the development of one three-bedroom flat on top of the Deli at 65 High Street in Sutton.
Cllr Mark Inskip and I called the planning application in for determination by the planning committee on the grounds of the parking arrangements for this development.
These effectively double count two existing garages behind the Deli, which have always been connected to the commercial function of the shop, as also being parking places for the new flat. It’s clear that no occupant of the flat will want to park there and risk having to emerge between the parked cars onto the busy high street, and will simply park on the road.
The application was approved by ten votes to one.
This is what I said to the committee this afternoon.
The Deli in Sutton High Street has been an immensely popular institution ever since it opened about seven years ago. It has been a much needed amenity, and its café operation in particular has been greatly valued.
The concerns of local residents about this application are overwhelmingly about parking on this very congested stretch of road. They are supported in this by Sutton Parish Council.
On-street parking on this part of the High Street has increased considerably in recent years, as objectors to this application have noted.
Various developments have removed off-street parking for nearby businesses, and added residential development without corresponding off-street parking space.
As a ward councillor I have received complaints about parking along this stretch of the High Street. Parking enforcement in East Cambridgeshire is the responsibility of the police, who have repeatedly said it is not a priority for them so it does not happen.
The online 101 reporting website for non-urgent offences does not even include the option to report parking offences. The police quite literally do not want to know.
The two garages to the rear of the property pre-date this application, and were attached to the operation of the commercial premises. They should not therefore be double counted as parking provision for the proposed residential dwelling.
There is little turning space at the rear of the Deli, and exiting from the parking provision onto the High Street between the closely parked cars, with very limited visibility, will be difficult and dangerous. It is absolutely obvious that occupants of the proposed flat simply will not use it, and will park on the street.
The officer’s report states at 7.6.2 that the flat will be for someone working full time in the Deli; that this will alleviate parking concerns; and will be secured by condition. However, the proposed condition relates only to occupation of the flat. not to the use of the parking provision. This is not surprising, as such a condition would be unenforceable in practice, but it is hard to see that it makes the parking issues any better.
Finally, the officer report argues at 7.4.4 that there is a ‘public benefit’ in creating one extra dwelling in the High Street, and indeed says at 8.2 that this ‘outweighs’ the concerns of residents and the Parish Council about the parking problems that this will cause.
It is hard to see the overwhelming benefit of one dwelling, when 77 homes are currently being built at the top of Mepal Road in Sutton, with a further 173 applied for, and permission granted for up to 53 dwellings at Garden Close in Sutton.
Last week over 30 senior Liberal Democrat local government leaders wrote to Robert Jenrick, Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government, stating that councils are in desperate need of more support, and that extra help is needed now if they are to continue fulfilling their role in combatting coronavirus.
The letter said:
We represent councils up and down the country and we are writing to you as we are in desperate need of more support. Local authorities are on the front line in the fight against coronavirus, but to ensure we can fulfil our role to keep our communities safe and help stop the spread, urgent measures needed include the examples below.
A major concern is the lack of support we have seen from government for the social care sector. Similar to the NHS, the coronavirus crisis has brought to the fore how desperately underfunded our social care system is. With around 122,000 vacancies and a funding shortfall, of £3.5 billion by 2024/25, it paints a worrying picture across the care sector.
Social care workers look after the most vulnerable in our communities and it is vital we give them the tools they need in what is already an incredibly challenging and unprecedented situation. Not only should they be a priority for testing, but it is vital we increase availability for Personal Protective Equipment.
One crucial way that councils up and down the country could help those struggling financially as a result of the crisis is get more support from government in helping people in financial hardship with council tax bills. The coronavirus crisis has plunged many people into financial insecurity, with people losing their livelihoods overnight, and we believe that extra funding from Whitehall to assist those people is a measure that could ease some of the burden on those wondering how they will be able to put food on the table over the next few months.
For many years local authorities have faced slashed public health grants leading to a decline in public health information. The £3.3 billion public health grant is welcome, but we do not think it will be enough. The government must confirm that the public health grant will be increased if the outbreak continues allowing us to properly combat the spread of coronavirus. The Government has said on various occasions that the best way to reduce the peak of coronavirus is to contain and delay it – public health information is a key part of that strategy and it must not be neglected by this government.
Councils have put in a monumental effort to get rough sleepers and homeless people off the street since the coronavirus outbreak. They have now managed to find housing for nearly all people sleeping rough, a task that has been made all the more difficult following the recent closures of hotels and caravan parks.
In a small minority of cases, councils have encountered difficulties where people sleeping rough refuse to take up the offer of help and we will continue to engage with these cases, but we ask that government fully funds the extra costs associated with this provision. We welcome the initial £1.6 bn for councils but there is an urgent need for this to be supplemented by further support from the Government, given the financial pressures faced across local government. Local councils are very willing to be accountable and transparent about how government support is used, but extra help is needed now.
We hope you will listen to our calls and would be happy to discuss them with you further.
