Minutes for Council meeting, Jul 22 2010, 2.00PM official page

Prior to the start of the formal meeting, the Chairman presented Long Service Awards to Gail Cooke, Housing Services Officer, and Sean Geoffrey O’Connor, DSO Operative, in recognition of their completion of 25 years’ respective service with the Council.

 

The Chairman also presented retiring Chief Executive Greg Harlock with a garden fork and engraved shovel to commemorate his years at South Cambridgeshire District Council.  The Leader, Councillor Ray Manning; Major Opposition Group Leader, Councillor Sebastian Kindersley; and Independent Group Convenor, Councillor Alex Riley, led tributes to Mr Harlock.  Mr Harlock offered the Council his best wishes in the future addressing the challenges and opportunities ahead.

Councillors John Batchelor, Sebastian Kindersley and Tony Orgee, all elected Cambridgeshire County Councillors, declared personal non-prejudicial interests in any items relating to Cambridgeshire County Council.  In response to a query, the Acting Legal and Democratic Services Manager confirmed that it was not necessary to declare such an interest generally at the start of each meeting.

 

Councillor Frances Amrani declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in the Government Review of Council Housing Finance, as her brother was a Council tenant and Councillor Amrani had, in the past, been a tenant of another authority and had been through the homeless family referral unit.  Notwithstanding this interest, Councillor Amrani remained in the Council Chamber and participated in the debate and vote on this item.

 

Councillor Mark Howell declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in the Government Review of Council Housing Finance as a former Council tenant.  Notwithstanding this interest, Councillor Howell remained in the Council Chamber and participated in the debate and vote on this item.

 

Councillor Mrs Liz Heazell declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in the Appointments to the Standards Committee 2010-14 as a former university classmate of Mrs Diane Best, Independent Member.  Notwithstanding this interest, Councillor Heazell remained in the Council Chamber for the duration of this item.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2010 as a correct record.

The Chairman signed the minutes of the 27 May 2010 Council meeting as a correct record.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader, the executive or the head of paid service.

The Chairman asked Members to remind their parish councils of the 31 July 2010 deadline for nominations for the Village Hero and Community Pride awards.

 

The Leader announced that the government had frozen all Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) grant funding, which had brought to a halt all Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) projects.  He commended officers, whose successful work to achieve the LPSA stretch targets had brought £9 million in reward grant to Cambridgeshire County Council for onwards distribution to the districts.  Approximately £468,000 in funds were on hold, which would affect not only larger programmes like the Sustainable Parish Energy Partnership and the Quality Parish Council scheme, but also the Community Chest grants of £500-£1,000 for smaller local groups.

On the proposal of Councillor Charlie Nightingale, seconded by Councillor Tony Orgee, Council RESOLVED that Standing Order 10.1, footnote 1, item 5 – “A maximum of ten minutes will be allowed for public questions on any specific agenda item” – be suspended for the duration of the public and member questions.

Before responding to the eight questions regarding Hauxton, the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder made the following statement: “Members will be aware that there is one councillor and seven public questions regarding the former Bayer site at Hauxton.  Prior to answering these, I would like to make some general points about the council’s role and responsibilities at this site, building on the points made by the Executive Director at the last Council meeting.

 

“The Council takes its responsibilities to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its residents very seriously and our staff in Planning and Environmental Health services have been working diligently to ensure the site is remediated and implement the Council’s Planning Committee decision.  In the course of achieving this objective, they have been working with the other public bodies who have duties in this matter, namely the Environment Agency, NHS Cambridgeshire and the Health Protection Agency, and have ensured that local people and their elected representatives are receiving, up to date, factual information about operations on site.

 

“Our staff and their colleagues in the Environment Agency are in daily contact with the developer, Harrow Estates and their contractor Vertase FLI, to influence on site operations to minimise the impact of the works on local people and the local environment.

 

“Members will appreciate that this is a very serious matter, but it is also a very complex one which requires careful consideration of the facts and a high level of specialist technical expertise.  I make no apology therefore for the length and detail of my replies to questions, and for the same reason I do not intend to respond to supplementary questions without the benefit of professional and technical advice.  I shall however be pleased to respond to any supplementary questions in writing and I shall commit to publishing the questions and my answers on the Council’s website.” 

“In the light of the public concern regarding unpleasant physical symptoms being experienced in and around Hauxton as well as the generally obnoxious odours being emitted day after day which are destroying the quality of life for so many residents of South Cambridgeshire and which goes against all the supposed values of SCDC will the council now take control of this situation, distance itself from the developers and their contractors, demand truly independent monitoring / evaluation, look at alternative methods of remediation that would not allow the airborne pollution to occur and thereby be seen to be acting in the public interest rather than as partners in the development of the former chemical works?“

From Councillor Deborah Roberts to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“In the light of the public concern regarding unpleasant physical symptoms being experienced in and around Hauxton as well as the generally obnoxious odours being emitted day after day which are destroying the quality of life for so many residents of South Cambridgeshire and which goes against all the supposed values of SCDC will the council now take control of this situation, distance itself from the developers and their contractors, demand truly independent monitoring / evaluation, look at alternative methods of remediation that would not allow the airborne pollution to occur and thereby be seen to be acting in the public interest rather than as partners in the development of the former chemical works?“

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied:

“Thank you for your question.  I am aware that there has been extensive dialogue between yourself and officers on the technical aspects of this site.  Having read those communications, I believe that this Council does have control of the situation and are acting in the public interest to achieve the successful remediation of this site. Our officers are leading the multi agency group of organisations involved in the site that is working to ensure that all measures are put in place to minimise the effect on the local community.  However, in order to do this, we must work closely with the site developers and contractors to find appropriate solutions.

 

“The Health Protection Agency’s advice, following review of all current air monitoring, is that emissions from site are unlikely to cause any health effects to the local residents. The human nose is very sensitive to odours and some can cause a reaction in individuals. 

 

“The Council has already taken all appropriate steps to secure the benefit of independent expert advice by way of a legal obligation creating a duty of care (collateral warranty) from both the Contractor (Vertase FLI) and the Consultants (Atkins). Atkins is one of the leading environmental consultancies in the UK. They have and will continue to act impartially and independently in their role as specialist consultant for the remediation works at the Hauxton site. They have a continual site presence to oversee the remediation work that Vertase are carrying out.  Analysis of all samples taken from site are also analysed by an independent and accredited laboratory.

 

“When assessing the remediation application, costs were not a consideration to the council.  The application was assessed on technical merit and on the basis of whether the methodology proposed would address the significant pollutant linkages that exist on the site. Both the Environment Agency and this Council considered that the remediation methodology put forward, i.e. excavation and treatment, was the only method that would satisfactorily address the contamination at the former Bayer site.  The soil material needs to be excavated because the contaminants cannot be effectively treated in the ground due to the geology and the nature of some of the contamination. The current methodology for the treatment of excavated soil  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30c

The day to day checks and monitoring are being done on site by the contractor, who is working for the developer and are then overseen by Atkins who are also financially involved with the developer.

 

With the present problems in mind this is hardly seen as a true independent and transparent process.

 

In order to give the public some sort of confidence will South Cambridgeshire District Council now order the developer to pay for an objective independant expert in this field to be employed to do the required testing.

 

Can this also include analysing the minor chemicals and components on site because as at present only the top 10 are being done. 

From Trisha McCrae, Resident of Hauxton, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“The day to day checks and monitoring are being done on site by the contractor, who is working for the developer and are then overseen by Atkins who are also financially involved with the developer.

 

“With the present problems in mind this is hardly seen as a true independent and transparent process.

 

“In order to give the public some sort of confidence will South Cambridgeshire District Council now order the developer to pay for an objective independant expert in this field to be employed to do the required testing.

 

“Can this also include analysing the minor chemicals and components on site because as at present only the top 10 are being done.”

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied:

“The Council has already taken all appropriate steps to secure the benefit of independent expert advice by way of the legal obligation creating a duty of care from both the Contractor (Vertase) and the Consultants (Atkins). Atkins is one of the leading environmental consultancies in the UK. They have and will continue to act impartially and independently in their role of specialist consultant for the remediation works at the Hauxton site. They have a continual site presence to oversee the remediation work that Vertase are carrying out.  Analysis of all samples taken from site are also analysed by an independent and accredited laboratory.

 

“Regarding the monitoring of soil and water samples, there has been extensive site investigation and risk assessments undertaken to establish a set of Contaminants, a procedure set out in industry guidance.  It is these contaminants of concern that are routinely analysed in soil and water throughout the remediation process. In addition, condition 4 of the planning consent requires additional samples to be taken and analysed for any further contaminants that have not previously been identified to ensure that no new contaminants are being missed.  The analysis of all samples is carried out by an independent and accredited laboratory.

 

“The analysis of the tubes used to monitor the air quality around the site are also sent to an independent and accredited laboratory. The laboratory reports the 10 compounds with the greatest concentration. Based on testing to date, it is unlikely that further significant compounds would be detected. The current monitoring reports include the top ten contaminants for each location. This method ensures that any substance that may not be expected is identified. We are sampling for all potential compounds but only the top ten in each location are reported because the remainder are at or below detection levels.

 

“All sample analysis results are posted on the joint website pages accompanied by the Health Protection Agency’s comments once they have been reviewed.

 

Ms McCrae asked, as her supplementary question, “I agree that Atkins is a big company.  The first sentence of their methodology statement says that they have never done a cocktail like that at Hauxton before -- effectively letting them off the hook.  Vertase says differently, says that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30d

It appears that at the end of all this aggravation South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency will sign the job off .

 

If some years down the line, remembering that know one to date will give a 100 % guarantee that everything here is OK, if we were to experience another Corby like scenario will the responsibility not be fairly and squarely down to South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency ? 

From Linda Bland, resident of Hauxton, and Rob Thomas, resident of Harston, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“It appears that at the end of all this aggravation South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency will sign the job off .

 

“If some years down the line, remembering that know one to date will give a 100 % guarantee that everything here is OK, if we were to experience another Corby like scenario will the responsibility not be fairly and squarely down to South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency ?”

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied:

“At Corby the Local Authority was not only the Planning Authority but was also the relevant landowner and had accepted legal responsibility for the decontamination and remediation works which it failed to carry out in a safe way.  At Hauxton, South Cambridgeshire District Council is not the landowner and has no contractual /land ownership responsibilities/liabilities in relation to the decontamination and remediation works.  The District Council's legal responsibilities are limited to its two roles as  (i) Local Planning Authority in terms of it regulating the planning conditions, and (ii) in terms of its duty to inspect its area to detect any statutory nuisances and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate any complaint of a statutory nuisance.

 

“The long-term responsibility will remain with the landowner carrying out the decontamination and remediation works.  Once the remediation process is complete there will be a minimum of at least six months monitoring to ensure that the works have been successful.  At the end of this period Atkins will submit a full report to the Council detailing the works undertaken and the results of all sampling and analysis undertaken to verify the achievement of the target levels.  Approval of this Verification Report does not give 100% guarantee that everything is OK.  That responsibility remains with the landowner and with the authors of the Report.  If any initial Verification Report does not demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation works, and the Council is not satisfied, it will not be approved and no residential development will be permitted until a Verification Report is produced which does demonstrate the necessary effectiveness.”

 

Ms Bland asked, as her supplementary question, "What kind of insurance policy does the Council have and does it provide for claims against individual councillors?"

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied that, as previously stated, the Council was not the landowner and the responsibility remained with the landowner and the remediation works provider.

In their Remediation Method Statement discussing “Contaminants of concern” Vertase noted:

 

(A) The recommended targets produced by Atkins are certainly protective of all identified receptors …. However, for the avoidance of doubt we do not believe these targets are achievable through the use of readily available and commercially viable remediation technologies or without significant export of contaminated materials off site. (Page 60, Section 18.1)

 

(B) It does mean that some material will be replaced at the site that does not meet the present generic criteria  (Page 14, Section 6.4).

 

Which are, and what is the nature of the chemicals that cannot be remediated -  or not to the target levels - and so will be replaced and, more importantly, what measures  will be taken to isolate them to ensure the safety of humans and groundwater?

From Dr Charles Turner on behalf of the Cam Valley Forum to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“In their Remediation Method Statement discussing “Contaminants of concern” Vertase noted:

 

“(A) The recommended targets produced by Atkins are certainly protective of all identified receptors …. However, for the avoidance of doubt we do not believe these targets are achievable through the use of readily available and commercially viable remediation technologies or without significant export of contaminated materials off site. (Page 60, Section 18.1)

 

“(B) It does mean that some material will be replaced at the site that does not meet the present generic criteria  (Page 14, Section 6.4).

 

“Which are, and what is the nature of the chemicals that cannot be remediated -  or not to the target levels - and so will be replaced and, more importantly, what measures  will be taken to isolate them to ensure the safety of humans and groundwater?”

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “The statements quoted from the Remediation Method Statement need to be read in the context of the sections from which they have been taken.  These sections set out the possibility of reviewing the numbers that were used for the computer model to calculate the target levels for remediation. The numbers currently used are very conservative estimates, however, through the excavation and remediation process more accurate numbers will be measured on site and these can be used in the models to produce new targets.

 

“Any proposed changes to the remediation targets following such a review of the computer model would have to be submitted and agreed as set out in condition 2 of the planning consent.

 

“The Remediation Method Statement correctly identifies that some contaminants are more treatable than others.  South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Environment Agency will not accept the replacement of any soil that does not comply with agreed remedial targets.  Any soils that, after extensive treatment, still have contaminant concentrations exceeding the agreed targets will need to be exported off site to a suitable licensed landfill.  This is covered in the Remediation Method Statement to ensure that the treatment of excavated soil is comprehensive and that there is an appropriate option for all material that may be found on site.”

 

Dr Turner asked, as a supplementary question, "So you don't know whether there is a material that cannot be remediated?", to which the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied that the Council did not.

 

Dr Turner further asked, "In a letter to the Council from GTA Grimley in a report to Natural England, the cover system was designed to be protective to human health and must not be breached.  In a response from Claire Sproats, the human health targets are limited to the top 1 metre.  There must be some materials affecting human health and getting into the drainage system - do you regard as satisfactory the solution / remediation strategy which accepts that there are contaminants underneath and a cover on top?"  The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder promised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30f

As the owner of the old gravel pit site opposite the former Bayer site at Hauxton, I have serious concern for those who work here. They are exposed all day to the obnoxious smells and volatile chemicals in the air since remediation commenced in March.

 

My daughter, Jackie Williams, proprietor of the Organic Health shop on our site, has had to be rushed to hospital on three occasions with severe breathing difficulties. She has never suffered breathing difficulties in her life before but occupational asthma has now been diagnosed and I am very concerned about her future health. She has had to close her shop as she is advised by the hospital doctors to keep away from the area.

 

Mr and Mrs Noble run Cambridge Farm Machinery Company. They and their employees suffer symptoms such as sore throats and dry coughs, headaches, tingling lips and numb tongues. Much work on modern agricultural machinery needs to be done outside. However they are driven to operate in the workshop with the roller doors shut.

 

At home in the village they, like so many residents of Hauxton, have to keep windows closed and are unable to sit in the garden.

 

They are expected to exist like this for another 15 months.

 

Would members of the South Cambridgeshire District Council tolerate these living and working conditions for themselves and their families?

From William Garfit, resident of Harlton, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder:

“As the owner of the old gravel pit site opposite the former Bayer site at Hauxton, I have serious concern for those who work here. They are exposed all day to the obnoxious smells and volatile chemicals in the air since remediation commenced in March.

 

“My daughter, Jackie Williams, proprietor of the Organic Health shop on our site, has had to be rushed to hospital on three occasions with severe breathing difficulties. She has never suffered breathing difficulties in her life before but occupational asthma has now been diagnosed and I am very concerned about her future health. She has had to close her shop as she is advised by the hospital doctors to keep away from the area.

 

“Mr and Mrs Noble run Cambridge Farm Machinery Company. They and their employees suffer symptoms such as sore throats and dry coughs, headaches, tingling lips and numb tongues. Much work on modern agricultural machinery needs to be done outside. However they are driven to operate in the workshop with the roller doors shut.

 

“At home in the village they, like so many residents of Hauxton, have to keep windows closed and are unable to sit in the garden.

 

“They are expected to exist like this for another 15 months.

 

“Would members of the South Cambridgeshire District Council tolerate these living and working conditions for themselves and their families?”

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “I acknowledge that residents appear to be affected by the remediation process and the Council continues to work with all organisations involved to do everything possible to reduce the odours from the site.

 

“The issue of asthma isn't a straightforward one and the HPA cannot comment on individual cases. However, in general it remains the HPA’s opinion that there is no reason to suspect emissions from the remediation works at Hauxton are sufficient to cause asthma. In individuals with pre-existing asthma, episodes can be triggered by contaminants in the air. Such contaminants might include volatile organic substances or odours but any effect would depend upon their chemical composition, the levels and duration of exposure and an individual's sensitivity to odour. The main substances of concern for asthma triggers are allergens and irritant gases, which are present in the air from a variety of sources including natural and human activities. It is unlikely that emissions from the remedial works at Hauxton would trigger asthma. It is likely that other potential sources of asthma triggers (e.g. plant pollen, traffic) are more important factors.”

 

Mr Garfit indicated that he did not accept the Portfolio Holder’s answer as a response to his question and, as a supplementary question, asked, "Open remediation is not appropriate.  I invite the Leader and Deputy Leader to visit Hauxton and the homes of those affected.  If SCDC officers lived there, would you tolerate these conditions?  I repeat my invitation: would you and the Council be happy to live and work in these conditions?"

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30g

The council has said and written much about working to ensure its residents have a good quality of life by looking after them, and their environment.

 

Its constitution claims that it is "committed to ensuring that South Cambridgeshire continues to be a safe and healthy place for you and your family".

 

It has powers to stop this nuisance to its residents' quality of life.  Why is it not doing so?

From Martin Goldman, resident of Great Shelford, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder “South Cambridgeshire District Council granted a licence for the so-called remediation at the Hauxton Bayer Crop Science site and consulted residents in Hauxton and Harston.  In this matter, it did not consult or inform people in Grantchester, Barton, Coton, Haslingfield, Newton, Whittlesford, Stapleford, The Shelfords, Trumpington, south Cambridge and further afield.”

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “For any planning application, this Council has a duty to consult owners of adjoining land, either directly or by the posting of a notice on site. In addition the practice is that it consults with the relevant Parish Council where the site lies within its area. Consultations for the remediation application included the Parish Councils of Hauxton, Haslingfield, Great Shelford and Harston who were identified as the immediate neighbours.  Four site notices were erected around the site and publication put in two places in the Cambridge Evening News on 19th December 2006.  Both the remediation and development application were discussed in planning committee on two occasions and public minutes were published following these meetings.“

 

Mr Goldman asked, as his supplementary question, “The council has said and written much about working to ensure its residents have a good quality of life by looking after them, and their environment.

 

“Its constitution claims that it is "committed to ensuring that South Cambridgeshire continues to be a safe and healthy place for you and your family".

 

“It has powers to stop this nuisance to its residents' quality of life.  Why is it not doing so?”

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “South Cambridgeshire District Council has powers available to it in respect of statutory nuisance.  We can only operate within the regulatory framework which requires us to make our judgements on the ordinary normal person.   When investigating any complaint of disturbance, several factors need careful consideration by the Environmental Health Officer in determining whether the source is likely to constitute a statutory nuisance. Considerations to which the test of an ordinary normal person will be applied include location, time, duration, frequency, convention, importance to the community of activity and difficulty in avoiding external effects of activity.

 

Investigations have been undertaken at locations where complaints have been received, at all times of the working day during variable weather conditions, as well as early in the morning, at night and on weekends.  If a statutory nuisance is established then South Cambridgeshire District Council must serve an abatement notice in accordance with the council’s enforcement policy. However the Council is limited to the extent of enforcement action we can take at Hauxton due to the existence of the environmental permit.  Any enforcement action for statutory nuisance would have to be approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment, as the primary enforcement body is the Environment Agency in its regulation of the environmental permit.

 

In the last fortnight I have asked for officers to undertake a review of the evidence of nuisance in respect of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30h

I was surprised to see that the Council and other public bodies are sharing a website with the contractors carrying out the remediation work, rather than taking a more detached and regulatory stance.   It also appears that the contractors are doing their own monitoring.  Are these normal practices, and if so, how do the public bodies confirm that the measurements made by the contractor are done correctly? 

From Linda Whitebread on behalf of the South Cambridgeshire Green Party to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder: “I was surprised to see that the Council and other public bodies are sharing a website with the contractors carrying out the remediation work, rather than taking a more detached and regulatory stance.   It also appears that the contractors are doing their own monitoring.  Are these normal practices, and if so, how do the public bodies confirm that the measurements made by the contractor are done correctly?”

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “The website you refer to is hosted and controlled by this Council as a means of providing information about the Bayer site to local residents. Whilst the developer and contractor share information, such as site photographs etc, they have their own web pages in relation to the site through their respective company’s websites.

 

“It is normal practice for contractors to monitor their own work and this is a requirement of their Environmental Permit, which is regulated by the Environment Agency. The monitoring is verified by Atkins as an independent consultant and all of the analysis is carried out at an independent and accredited laboratory. All of the results are provided to this Council, the Environment Agency and the HPA for review, in addition they are all published on the dedicated website.  SCDC and the Environment Agency also carry out random visits to monitor and validate procedures as well as any complaints.“

 

Ms Whitebread asked, as her supplementary question, “All agree that the land needs to be cleaned up and it is a legitimate of the Council to require the developer to make sure the work is done before permission is granted to build houses.  However, we are not happy with the shared website.  It creates a conflict of interests.  It is unfortunate to say that Council officers are working closely with contractors and are happy with the spot checks.  The perception is that the Council is hand-in-glove with the developers.  Will the Council consider detaching itself from the developers, using a separate website with a link to the contractor?"

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder noted Ms Whitebread’s concerns and said that the Council was willing to consider these suggestions and would see if it were practical for all concerned to implement.

As the owner of an organic food business in Church Road, Hauxton who has had to go to A&E twice in May and be seen by paramedics on a third occaision with breathing problems confirmed by A&E Doctors as being due to chemical inhilation, I would like S.C.D.C. to tell me if they consider the cocktail of chemicals being released from the Bayer Site to be safe for a pregnant woman to breath in approximately 48 hours per week?  I am particularly concerned about research that shows that in some instances two toxic chemicals mixed together can be one thousand times more toxic than one of the original chemicals.  Please bear this in mind before commenting on the safety of an unborn child.

From Jackie Williams, resident of Little Eversden, to the Environmental Services Portfolio Holder: "As the owner of an organic food business in Church Road, Hauxton who has had to go to A&E twice in May and be seen by paramedics on a third occaision with breathing problems confirmed by A&E Doctors as being due to chemical inhilation, I would like S.C.D.C. to tell me if they consider the cocktail of chemicals being released from the Bayer Site to be safe for a pregnant woman to breath in approximately 48 hours per week?  I am particularly concerned about research that shows that in some instances two toxic chemicals mixed together can be one thousand times more toxic than one of the original chemicals.  Please bear this in mind before commenting on the safety of an unborn child."

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied, “The Health Protection Agency has advised us that they do not expect an appreciable increase in the risk of cancers or birth defects to be caused by emissions from the remediation activities at this site.  Their assessment is based on the results of air monitoring data at the site boundary.  The current scientific view is that the probability of any health risk from exposure to mixtures of chemicals present at low levels is likely to be small. Furthermore, when there is exposure to multiple chemicals that cause toxicity in the same way, the combined effects are likely to be no greater than the additive effect. Only two chemicals, toluene and tetrachloroethylene have consistently been detected by the monthly monitoring at the site boundary. Even if these two chemicals were to cause toxicity in the same way, there would be no reason to expect adverse health effects, since the levels detected are many times below the levels required to cause ill health.

 

“I have been advised that the multi agency group working on the management of Hauxton issues remain open to receiving any relevant evidence to the contrary of this opinion.”

 

Ms Williams asked, as her supplementary question, "We keep getting told that the chemicals are safe and there are no side effects.  I have twice been to A&E and 1 time seen by paramedics: I do not consider this safe.  Would you take such risks?"

 

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder replied that she was not qualified to answer personally, but that the Health Protection Agency (HPA) advice was that there was no risk that they were able to identify.

“I was concerned to read in the Cambridge News that Dr Bard had decided to slow down even further the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan document (GTDPD). Policies on provision for this sizeable minority of the residents of South Cambs are referred to in our main LDF documents which were adopted many years ago now. We have looked into the needs of local Gypsies and Travellers at local and regional level to justify with evidence the numbers of pitches we were going to have to provide, just on the basis of families growing up and getting independent plots of their own. We know that the trajectory of new plots required was 69 from 2006 to 2011, another 27 up to 2016 and a further 31 to 2021 under the slimmed-down figures. As the RSS has now been abolished and neighbouring authorities in the East of England are now not having to make provision the need will be greater, perhaps up to half as much again.

 

“We have given permanent consent to 40 I know of, or perhaps a few more, up to now. There is also temporary consent to around 60 plots, many of them in Milton ward, and the GTDPD is now unlikely to be adopted in time for the end of the temporary permissions which have been given.

 

“Travellers have a justified expectation that this authority should have a proper policy, and tell them once and for all whether they can expect to be able to stay on their own land. Planning applications are increasingly likely to succeed on appeal, the longer we are without a credible strategy for providing for this community's needs. What is the administration's plan for the policy in this area?”

From Councillor Hazel Smith to the New Communities Portfolio Holder: “I was concerned to read in the Cambridge News that Dr Bard had decided to slow down even further the preparation of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan document (GTDPD). Policies on provision for this sizeable minority of the residents of South Cambs are referred to in our main LDF documents which were adopted many years ago now. We have looked into the needs of local Gypsies and Travellers at local and regional level to justify with evidence the numbers of pitches we were going to have to provide, just on the basis of families growing up and getting independent plots of their own. We know that the trajectory of new plots required was 69 from 2006 to 2011, another 27 up to 2016 and a further 31 to 2021 under the slimmed-down figures. As the RSS has now been abolished and neighbouring authorities in the East of England are now not having to make provision the need will be greater, perhaps up to half as much again.

 

“We have given permanent consent to 40 I know of, or perhaps a few more, up to now. There is also temporary consent to around 60 plots, many of them in Milton ward, and the GTDPD is now unlikely to be adopted in time for the end of the temporary permissions which have been given.

 

“Travellers have a justified expectation that this authority should have a proper policy, and tell them once and for all whether they can expect to be able to stay on their own land. Planning applications are increasingly likely to succeed on appeal, the longer we are without a credible strategy for providing for this community's needs. What is the administration's plan for the policy in this area?”

 

Councillor David Bard, New Communities Portfolio Holder, replied, “I am well aware of the importance of planning for the needs of our Gypsies and Travellers, who account for 1% of South Cambs population.  The Council has been working for some time on the preparation of a Gypsy and Traveller DPD in view of the level of need for new pitches in the district, and two rounds of public consultation have already been undertaken.

 

“Unfortunately, just as we were making progress towards a further round of consultation leading to the preparation of a draft DPD, the significant changes being made by the new Government have meant that we have had to slow down that work.  It is unfortunate, but there are good reasons for it.

 

“Members will recall that the Gypsy and Traveller DPD was aiming to meet the targets for pitch numbers set out in the East of England Plan. Members will also know that on 6th July, regional spatial strategies were revoked by the Secretary of State, meaning that they no longer form part of the development plan.  As a consequence, we do not currently have an agreed target to provide for and it will be for the District  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30k

“Would the Portfolio holder please advise Council what the Administration's position is on Local Enterprise Partnerships? In particular I am interested to know with whom the Council expects to work; what the anticipated timeline for this is and what discussions have so far taken place."

From Councillor Sebastian Kindersley to the Planning Portfolio Holder: “Would the Portfolio holder please advise Council what the Administration's position is on Local Enterprise Partnerships? In particular I am interested to know with whom the Council expects to work; what the anticipated timeline for this is and what discussions have so far taken place."

 

Councillor Nick Wright, Planning Portfolio Holder replied, “On 29th June, the Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and for Communities and Local Government wrote to local authorities and business leaders requesting outline proposals from partnerships of local authorities and businesses for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP’s) by 6 September. 

 

“The Government’s stated expectation is that Local Enterprise Partnerships will be about setting the right conditions for growth and business, tackling issues such as planning and housing, local transport and infrastructure priorities, employment and enterprise and the transition of the low carbon economy.  Supporting small business start-ups will be important.  The Government has also said that Partnerships will work closely with academic institutions and that tourism will be important in some areas. 

 

“It is expected that Partnerships will focus on supporting and enabling the private sector.

 

“The Council expects to work with the city council, the county council, the business and academic communities (especially these two) to submit a proposal for a LEP by 6 September.  Discussions with these and other parties is ongoing, with the next high level meeting arranged for 28 July.”

 

Councillor Kindersley asked, as his supplementary question, "If we are to be fully behind our own LEP, you need to engage all members now – will you assure members that this will not be Making Cambridgeshire Count v2?"

 

Councillor Wright replied that the proposal had been around for several months now and it had seemed appropriate to Cabinet to involve SCDC, Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, the University of Cambridge and local businesses as the highest level of growth in the County was in these areas and not in neighbouring Cambridgeshire districts.  The Secretary of State was now suggesting that Cambridgeshire County Council work with other County Councils across the sub-region from Peterborough to Stansted.

“Will the Portfolio Holder please tell us how it is possible that an upgrade of a perfectly-functioning planning website, on which many Parish Councillors rely to fulfil their duties, can take over three weeks rather than the three milliseconds which switching systems in the 21^st century would normally be expected to take?”

From Councillor Douglas de Lacey to the Planning Portfolio Holder: “Will the Portfolio Holder please tell us how it is possible that an upgrade of a perfectly-functioning planning website, on which many Parish Councillors rely to fulfil their duties, can take over three weeks rather than the three milliseconds which switching systems in the 21st century would normally be expected to take?”

 

Councillor Nick Wright, Planning Portfolio Holder replied, “I agree that the changing or switching of websites takes but a moment. However the work being undertaken is much more than this and involves the closure of the existing planning database, the extraction of data and all related records back to 1948. This was then sent to our new supplier Swift LG where the data has been converted for import back into the new planning system.

 

“This work was scheduled to take two weeks and I can confirm it has been completed successfully. Testing of the data has taken place and the system went live on Monday.

 

“The planning service is acutely aware of the disruption to customers and has minimised this by clear scheduling of work and taking mitigating actions including interim working arrangements that allow members to be kept up to date with records of submitted applications, whilst at the same time publishing as much information as possible to the public. Please note that:

· A recommendation is not a decision.”

 

Scrutiny and Overview Committee Procedure Rules

That Council amend the Scrutiny and Overview Committee Procedure Rules as follows:

·