PDF Version of Graham Cone’s report
My motion on rural exception sites
I was pleased all councillors voted to support the motion I put forward to ensure the council takes every opportunity to defend rural exception sites in future planning legislation, including asking the Leader and Leader of the opposition to write to the Minister of State for Housing and Planning to express the importance of rural exception sites in our district. Rural exception sites provide affordable housing on the edge of villages to enable local people to stay living within their communities, as occupants are required to have a local connection to live there. Given the significance of Cambridgeshire to the Government’s growth and development plans, I believe it is vital to ensure development occurs in the right places to benefit communities.
Improving the High Street grants
I am pleased to see the High Street improvement grants available to businesses and communities this year, with £90,000 in funding available. Grants of between £5,000 and £20,000 per project will be available to local businesses, charities, community groups and parish councils. We all value our high streets as the heart of our communities and this grant will help to promote local shopping for residents. We would therefore encourage you to apply for this funding – more information is available on the Council’s webpage. You have until the 12/09/25 to apply.
Improving the High Street grant (open) – South Cambs District Council
Grants for community groups and parish councils
If you are from a local community group or parish council, we are encouraging you to make the most of the council’s available grant schemes. The Grant Grabber service helps you search for available grants – all in one place.
Home | Support Cambridgeshire 4 Community
Local Government Reorganisation update
At the most recent full council meeting in July, the administration stated that its preferred option for our area regarding Local Government Reorganisation was a Greater Cambridgeshire unitary, consisting of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire. We, as the opposition group, are disappointed that the administration declared its position before the public consultation on Local Government Reorganisation closed. In our view, this risks ignoring the results of the public consultation – which we believe is very important as it is essential that we listen to our residents on a matter of this magnitude. This process will change the way residents interact with their council across England for decades to come. Therefore, we believe it is inappropriate to state a position before finding out what residents have to say about it. In response to this at the meeting, we expressed our concerns that a Greater Cambridgeshire unitary may simply become an urban extension of Cambridge City – drowning out the concerns of residents living in rural South Cambridgeshire. It is for this reason that we believe future unitary authorities should have a better balance between urban and rural populations to ensure all voices can be heard. We supported the council’s move to consider the three remaining proposals for the future of local government in our area because we believe it is important to see the business cases and the public consultation responses first and then use this information to decide which arrangement will be best for residents.
Update to council’s 2024/25 accounts
It was pleasing to see the council approve its 2024/25 accounts after several frustrating years of audit delays. Some of the previous years will now not be audited as it is deemed unrealistic that the council can catch up. There is an audit plan now in place for the 2024/25 accounts and we hope this will see us begin to report in a more meaningful way. It’s really important that councillors are able to scrutinise and ask questions about up to date accounts and audits to clarify how the council is spending taxpayers’ money and to ensure that council services are appropriately resourced. In scrutinising the accounts document, we also requested additional commentary to ensure the document contains clear explanations of any large variances in the figures. We are grateful for the hard work of the finance department at the council for getting us back up to date.
4-day week made permanent at the council
On Thursday 17 July, the administration voted to make the council a permanent 4-day week employer. This means residents will be paying 37 hours for 32 hours work each week, every week. Our group voted unanimously against making the 4-day week permanent. Since the very beginning back when the idea was first raised by the Cabinet in 2022, our group has consistently opposed the 4-day week as we do not think it is fair or right that residents working hard 5 days a week are being forced to pay for council staff to have a fully paid day off every week. In the context of rising council tax and rents, this has become increasingly unacceptable for our group, as we do not believe it is right that residents are paying the council more – but getting less. The reports considered by councillors were clear. Resident satisfaction with council services was down across the board since the 4-day week trial began, and just 12% of businesses expressed support for the trial. We now know that over 150 process changes, such as automating services and cutting down on meetings, have been implemented by the council during the trial, reinforcing the report’s own admission that “the analysis cannot prove that 4-day week working was the direct cause” of any performance changes. Given that the council has employed 97 more staff during the 4-day week – a 15% increase – when staff have reduced their hours by 13.5%, we remain strongly unconvinced that any performance changes should be attributed to the 4-day week alone. We have scrutinised the administration’s proclaimed savings from the 4-day week trial since the beginning. As a result of our recent information request, we now know that the council has spent more money on agency staff during the 4-day week than before the trial began. We also raised the fact that costs such as the national introduction of weekly food waste collections – which will require two extra bin lorries and crews because of the 4-day week – were not included in the costings. Consequently, we are not convinced that the proclaimed £400,000 saving is accurate at all. Furthermore, the reports clearly showed that 1 in 3 staff are still having to work over 4 days a week in order to get their work done – proof that the 4-day week does not work. Motivation has declined since its peak, as shown in the staff wellbeing survey, implying that burnout is setting in and people cannot sustain such intense working to fit their work into 4 days a week. Although the administration has decided to make this permanent – despite 77% of residents and 88% of businesses not supporting it – we will continue to fight against this shocking waste of taxpayers’ money.
£13m public money down the drain after failed attempt to relocate Cambridgeshire sewage works
This is bittersweet news. On the one hand, I’m delighted that Honey Hill and its natural beauty will no longer be carved up by sewage works. On the other hand, it is obviously disappointing that millions of pounds of public money have been thrown down the drain on plans which did not consider residents’ views from the beginning. Only early this year we had a cabinet minster saying this project would go ahead despite the planning inspector’s concerns, it was deemed to be of national importance, we then have a cabinet minster a few months down the line say it can’t be afforded.
I am the only councillor of the 45 at SCDC to publicly raise questions and motions on this issue. I have tried to represent resident views, work with resident groups and Parish Councillors, make clear there is no operational need for the sewage works to move, make the link between housing in our local plan and the movement of the sewerage works being hand in glove, explain the impact on the green belt (we can’t pretend housing is on brown field in our plan if you move the sewage works to green belt) and made clear the impact on the tax payer. I have warned in the past that to rely on this housing without a plan B is dangerous. I have spoken to the lead officer for planning and its clear this gap will now need to be filled, the council will have to look at alternative locations for housing delivery.
Thank you for taking the time to read my report; if you have any questions or want to discuss any of the issues raised email me on graham.cone@councillor.online or ring 07595 361 285 (please leave a voicemail if I am unavailable) Councillor Graham Cone