Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of 19 July 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of 19 May 2025 were confirmed and signed.

The Chairman drew members’ attention to the civic activities undertaken by herself and the Vice-Chairman in the weeks preceding Full Council.

The Chairman announced that her Civic Reception will take place at Gorefield Community Hall from 6.30pm on 19^th September and her coffee morning in aid of Damsons will be in the Council Chamber from 10am on 23^rd October. She thanked members for their support and looks forward to seeing as many of them as possible at these events.

There were no announcements from the Chief Executive.

The Chairman stated that no written questions had been received under Procedure Rule 8.6. In the absence of Councillor Gavin Booth, Leader of the Opposition, and having been nominated by him to deputise, Councillor John Clark stated that he had no questions to raise under Procedure Rule 8.4.

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

·         Councillor Cutler thanked all involved in the Fenland Inspire! projects and asked if anything will be done about the lack of play equipment in Murrow. She understands that Cabinet had said it is not financially prudent to pursue all the proposed projects, but those going ahead all appear to be town-based. Councillor Boden agreed he had said it is not currently financially viable to proceed with all the projects, but the aim is to provide a legacy for all Fenland residents and there are several out-of-town schemes, one of which is the district-wide play equipment assessment. This will include the villages, particularly those that are currently poorly served. Furthermore, it is not a one-off project but will run to March 2028 and he will ensure that the villages are not disadvantaged in the order of which works will arise.

·         Councillor Nawaz said it is commendable to provide play equipment for young children, and the Council must do its utmost to deliver outdoor facilities. He asked if the Station Road recreation ground in Whittlesey is on the list as well as the villages of Coates, Eastrea, Turves and Pondersbridge and if not, why not? Councillor Boden responded that a full assessment is yet to be completed but it will review areas where there is little or no provision, including those mentioned. Meanwhile Councillor Nawaz will be aware that members stopped the Station Road ground being sold some months ago and work is being done to make the area available for the public in the long term. However, this area has been subjected to repeated serious vandalism and so there is no appetite to invest further money there. Councillor Nawaz said that vandalism can occur anywhere and requested that this be reviewed. The better option would be to work with the community and police to get vandalism under control otherwise this could be perceived as a collective punishment for the community. He is aware this is taxpayers’ money and knows how carefully it is scrutinised, but the money is being spent on them, and decent young people should not be punished. Councillor Boden said the extent of this vandalism is far greater than anywhere else in the whole of Fenland and in this case there is alternative provision available at the nearby Manor Leisure Centre. He does not like the idea of withdrawing a facility but ultimately if the community fails to ensure a resource continues to an operational standard, a decision must be made on cost. Based on the level of vandalism previously, how long would new equipment at this site last, nine months, six months, a week?

·         Councillor Nawaz voiced his concern at the mixed feedback for customer satisfaction at the leisure centres, noting that Freedom Leisure’s national average score is 21 compared to Fenland’s average score of 13. He asked what the plans are to increase this score and how it will  ...  view the full minutes text for item C19/25

Councillor Taylor presented his motion regarding meat labelling, which was seconded by Councillor Foice-Beard.

The item was opened for discussion and Members commented as follows:

·         Councillor Carney said he would support this motion wholeheartedly, particularly due to dietary requirements and people becoming more aware of problems with food. However, he would ask for a recognised logo of halal friendly products as there are with other types of food.

·         Councill Tierney gave his support for the motion saying more information is needed regardless, but he gets frustrated when all Council can do is write to the Government, which he sees as virtue signalling. He would encourage members to think about what can be done within this Council’s powers rather than just write to the Government as he believes they do not listen.

·         Councillor Hay gave her support to what she said was a well written motion as she is against any unnecessary suffering to animals.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough agreed with Councillor Hay; however, she wonders if FDC has the leverage to lobby DEFRA. She is also concerned that halal practices are being singled out; it may be seen as targeting one religious group and where does this stop? It is a complex path that needs to be addressed with wider public engagement. She is not against supporting the motion but as stated, wonders if FDC has the lever to enact this through.

·         Councillor Nawaz endorsed the points made by Councillor Sennitt Clough and Councillor Tierney. All members would be against suffering inflicted on animals. Halal has strict conditions but how many of us are aware of those? He echoes the points about the way this motion has been presented; it would appear that FDC is singling out one group in particular which may affect the credibility of the good cause being pursued. Would it apply to kosher meat, which also has a ritual attached to it? How effective is FDC going to be? He suggested consulting experts on both halal and kosher meats to find out exactly how they do things and then come back to Council with the motion. He asked if Councillor Taylor is seeking a simple labelling process. Councillor Nawaz added that the information he has is yes, it would benefit both but as far as he is aware halal is always marked otherwise Muslims would not buy it. He would agree that non-halal meat eaters have valid points. Halal is already labelled; non-halal is not and there may be some merit in ensuring non-halal is labelled as such.

·         Councillor Boden said the situation is more complicated. As far as kosher is concerned the meat is slaughtered in ordinary slaughterhouses, but halal meat is only able to be slaughtered in houses that follow halal practices. That is why it is easy to indicate which are the halal slaughterhouses with an ‘H’. In terms of consumer choice, the public should be able to see which ones are halal. He does not understand why this is being denied or restricted.  ...  view the full minutes text for item C20/25

To consider the overall financial and operational performance of the Council’s treasury management activity for 2024/25.

Members considered the Treasury Management Annual Report 2024/25 presented by Councillor Boden.

Proposed by Councillor Boden, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and AGREED to note the report.

(Councillor Marks left the meeting at the end of this item).

To provide a Local Government Reorganisation (LGO) progress update for the Peterborough and Cambridgeshire area, and for Members to review and advise Cabinet of their feedback in regard to the 3 emerging proposals for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

Members considered the Local Government Reorganisation Update report presented by Councillor Boden, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs French.

Members commented as follows:

·         Councillor Cutler thanked Councillor Boden for the update on the three options and asked if the fourth option being put forward by Peterborough is likely to get off the drawing board and if Council also need to consider this.

·         Councillor Boden responded that it is true that the two labour MPs in Peterborough have decided they would prefer something different for Peterborough, and it is a very interesting proposal for three unitary authorities instead of two. Currently there are two upper tier authorities, and they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of spend, 80% of the spend being social services. If there are three instead of two, the area with the greatest amount of spend will have a lesser economy of scale and that is concerning.  Especially seeing how the areas have been divided up – Fenland is with East Cambs with a slither of Huntingdon from Ramsey to St Neots. Ramsey would be included, Sawtry would not. It is a dog’s dinner. What is worse is that LGR will force disaggregation of assets, liabilities and responsibilities. Assets which the County Council has will all need to be split up and this is a massively complex process. Northamptonshire, who had unitarisation thrust upon them three years ago have still not managed to resolve this.  Peterborough MPs want to disaggregate not just Cambridgeshire County Council but also Huntingdonshire District Council.  If his understanding of their map is correct, they also want to split Huntingdonshire Town Council into different areas. He sees this proposal as being one which is absolutely determined by a very Peterborough ‘centric’ attitude and has severe doubts it will get through Peterborough City Council when it is put before them, and it is necessary for at least one local authority to put forward a scheme for it to be considered. He doubts that any authority will.

·         Councillor Taylor said this is something he has not agreed with, it is just political party point scoring but through his motion, members will know the people he is dealing with and there is a strong movement that this may not happen yet. Jim McMann seems to be doing things on his own, so he just sees this as major point scoring with no one having a specific plan of what they want to do and how, and no chance of it happening by November this year.

·         Councillor Woollard said looking purely at the three proposals, personally he is in favour of Option C – combining FDC with East Cambs, unfortunately also Peterborough City Council.  This combination will safeguard the rural nature of Fenland along with East Cambs and water down the effect of the urban takeover from Peterborough.

·         Councillor Tierney commented that since the current government came to power, they have made a lot of mistakes, but he does not think many people realise this is the most  ...  view the full minutes text for item C22/25

The Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report reflects what has been undertaken and achieved by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel during 2024/25 and takes a forward look at the programme of work and challenges for the Panel in 2025/26.

Members considered the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report presented by Councillor Mrs Davis as Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Meekins and AGREED to note the report. 

For Members to review the decision-making process in relation to street trading licenses as set out in the Council’s Street Trading Policy.

Members considered the Constitutional Amendment Report presented by Councillor Hoy.

Proposed by Councillor Hoy, seconded by Councillor Sennitt Clough and AGREED to approve the amendments to the Constitution and Street Trading Policy as set out in the appendices, and to delegate to the Monitoring Officer to update the Council’s Constitution accordingly.