Agenda and minutes

The Chair addressed the Chamber and proposed under Council Procedure Rule 13.1(c) that the order of business be varied with Agenda Item 8 followed by Item 7 to be taken immediately after Item 3 and that the motions be considered at the end of the Agenda. Having being duly seconded, the chamber voted in favour of the motion to vary the order of business.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 15th July 2026 and the Extraordinary meeting held on the 1st September 2026.

Subject to the following changes:

Councillor L Davenport-Ray spoke to the motion, stating that it was premature and that its potential consequences had not been fully considered.

Councillor J Francis.

Councillor R Tomlinson.

the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 15th July 2026 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 1st September 2026 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive from Members declarations as to disclosable pecuniary, other registerable and non-registerable interests in relation to any Agenda item. See Notes below.

No declarations were received.

To note the Chair’s engagements since the last Council meeting.

The Council noted those engagements attended by the Chair and Vice-Chair since the last meeting (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book). The Chair also formally welcomed back Councillor I Taylor to the Council following his successful election.

To consider a report by the Chief Executive on the appointment of an Interim Monitoring Officer for the District Council.

With the assistance of a report by the Chief Executive (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Council were advised of the outcome of the Senior Officers Committee meeting held on 12th August 2026 regarding the appointment of an Interim Monitoring Officer. Having noted that the recommendation of the Committee was unanimous, the proposal by Councillor B Mickelburgh was seconded by Councillor R Martin. Accordingly, it was

RESOLVED

that Lee Gardner be designated as the District Council’s Interim  Monitoring Officer with effect from 9th September 2026.

Executive Councillor for Planning to present the Pre-Submission Local Plan 2046: Sustainability and Supporting Documents

The report has been considered at a meeting of the Cabinet earlier in the evening. The recommendations of which will be reported verbally at the meeting.

A copy of the draft Plan has been shared separately to all Members on the Member’s Sharepoint site and is available on the District Council’s website.

The Executive Councillor for Economy, Regeneration and Housing, Councillor B Mickelburgh introduced the report on behalf of Councillor T Sanderson and thanked Members, stakeholders and Officers for their contributions to the preparation of the Local Plan. The Plan was supported by extensive consultation and evidence and would provide a locally led framework for growth to 2046, helping to direct development and secure supporting infrastructure. Approval would enable submission of the Plan for consultation and independent examination. Failure to meet the Government's submission deadline could require the plan-making process to restart.

The Executive Leader, Councillor S Conboy seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.

Councillor P Gammons stated that he could not support the proposed housing target of 32,200 additional homes by 2049, which he considered excessive and above the national average. The scale of growth proposed would place unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure. He believed the Plan did not reflect the views of many residents and would have a detrimental impact on local communities and infrastructure.

Councillor D McIlwain supported the delivery of homes, jobs and investment, but had concerns about the scale and location of growth and about whether the necessary infrastructure could be delivered. The Plan prioritised housing delivery ahead of infrastructure provision, particularly in relation to transport. Growth should only proceed where there was clear evidence that it was sustainable, deliverable and supported by the necessary infrastructure and community facilities.

Councillor D Keane acknowledged the need for new homes but questioned whether the Plan had the right approach to delivering growth. He also questioned the benefits of progressing the plan through the current process in light of recent changes to the national planning framework and raised concerns about the long-term robustness of viability and delivery assumptions. The decision would have long-term implications for the District and its communities.

Councillor N Wells referred to the Infrastructure Readiness Report, stated that the A141 and St Ives improvement schemes should be delivered before substantial development took place. He sought assurance that the proposed development at Giffords Farm would be regarded as substantial development and therefore be subject to the same infrastructure requirements.

Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor N Hunt, emphasised the need for additional housing for young people. He argued that, without a Local Plan, growth would be imposed through speculative development, reducing the Council’s ability to shape development and secure supporting infrastructure. Community feedback had influenced a number of policy changes. The Plan provided the opportunity to deliver necessary growth, secure infrastructure, and protect the District from unplanned development.

Councillor K Maheshwari stated that growth should only take place where the necessary infrastructure, public services and funding were in place. Housing pressures varied across the country. Investment and job creation should be directed towards less prosperous areas rather than concentrating development in areas such as Cambridgeshire.

Councillor S Hodgson-Jones stated that she could not support the Local Plan in its current form. The 14 proposed development sites within her Ward would have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To receive and respond to questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 10.1.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1, the following Public Question was presented to the Council by Peter Clark –

There are a number of inter-related issues regarding transport and parking, but there does not appear to be any co-ordination.

1. The Council launched a survey regarding its parking strategy, closing on 16 August, but only notified parish and town councils on 30 July.
2. The day after this survey closed Capital and Centric held "events"

regarding three well-used town centre car parks without indicating  how those parking spaces will be replaced. 

3. The Combined Authority wants to provide an hour's free parking  rather than use  the funds to improve the local bus services, instead it is reducing them.
4. The speed limit on the busway imposed whilst the drawn-out installation of fencing takes place has lengthened journey times and reduced passenger numbers, which now has resulted in a reduced frequency.

Why is there no joined-up thinking, why have a short consultation period during summer holidays, what on earth is going on with your existing car parks and why does it appear that nobody is talking to each other?

All these issues matter to those living outside the three main towns in the district.

The Executive Councillor for Parks and Countryside, Waste and Street Scene, Councillor J Kerr, advised that two phases of public engagement had informed the Parking Strategy: a District-wide survey in December 2025 and a further survey in summer 2026 on the emerging Strategy. The communication sent to Town and Parish Councils on 30th July 2026 was intended to encourage promotion of the survey rather than seek formal responses. The Parking Strategy and town centre engagement work were separate exercises. No decisions had been taken on the redevelopment of any sites, and any future proposals would include consideration of parking provision and potential replacement or relocation of spaces. Transport funding and bus service decisions fell within the remit of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, while responsibility for the Guided Busway rested with Cambridgeshire County Council. Although the District Council was not responsible for these matters, it continued to work with partners and raised residents’ concerns where appropriate. In conclusion, Councillor Kerr acknowledged residents’ concerns regarding coordination across transport and parking matters but emphasised that each authority had distinct statutory responsibilities and consultation processes, with the Council continuing to engage with partners on issues affecting Huntingdonshire residents.

The Public Question submitted by Laura Gosling wasread by the Chair in her absence.

To the Leader of the Council. If there is currently no Leader, then my question is to the Cabinet member responsible for Country Parks.

Hinchingbrooke Country Park has increased the number of activities available for visitors. The new inflatable obstacle course on the lake really concerns me. 

I have seen the Press Release published by the Council in June which says that “Ecological assessments have informed the project from the outset.” Why is the Environmental Impact report not available to be viewed by the public?

The Executive Councillor for Parks  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules, all questions –

• Must be relevant to an item which the Council has powers or duties;
• Must not relate to an item which is included elsewhere on the Agenda;
• Should be limited to obtaining information or pressing for action; and
• Should not exceed two minutes in duration.

Questions should not divulge or require to be divulged, confidential or exempt information.

Councillor S Bywater requested a written response from the Executive Councillor for Planning regarding planning consent 24/02252/TREE . The consent was granted on 25th February 2025 and remained within the two-year implementation period but the Council had subsequently indicated it could not, or may not, be lawfully implemented. He asked the Council to clarify the current legal status of the consent and, if its status had changed, to identify the legal mechanism and date on which that change occurred. He further requested confirmation that residents should be provided with this clarity before further public or private resources were committed to related applications.

The Executive Leader, Councillor S Conboy, thanked the Member for submitting the question in advance and assured him that a written response would be provided.

Councillor S Bywater clarified that the question did not relate to land ownership, access rights or independent legal advice. He asked whether the consent remained legally valid and enforceable, and, if not, requested details of the legal mechanism by which it had ceased to have effect and the date on which this occurred.

Councillor L Davenport-Ray referred to efforts made, while serving as Cabinet Member for Climate, to arrange a screening of The People's Emergency Briefing, a non-party-political film addressing climate change and associated risks. Despite the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency and objectives within the Corporate Plan relating to carbon reduction, a screening had not taken place. Councillor Davenport-Ray asked whether a commitment would be given to screen the film in Council buildings so that residents could learn more about the challenges posed by climate change.

The Executive Leader, Councillor S Conboy, advised that, as advance notice had not been received, a detailed response could not be provided at the meeting. Further advice would be sought before a response was provided.

Councillor L Davenport-Ray also sought clarification as to why the position taken locally appeared to differ from that of Liberal Democrat representatives elsewhere when parliamentary Liberal Democrats and other Liberal Democrat-led councils had supported screenings.

The Executive Leader indicated that she had not been aware that the film was being shown by other Liberal Democrat-led councils or supported by Liberal Democrat parliamentarians. The matter would be revisited, including the advice previously received, and confirmed that a response would be provided in due course.

Councillor D McIlwain again sought information regarding 4G and 5G mobile coverage in his ward and elsewhere in the District. Councillor K Maheshwari also highlighted the importance of this matter. Councillor S Conboy apologised and undertook to provide a response.

Councillor R Tomlinson referred to the Capital & Centric project and his concerns regarding project governance, financial control and Member oversight within the regeneration portfolio. Other major projects, including the Priory Centre project in St Neots, were experiencing delays and increased costs. He asked what steps had been taken since the Executive Councillor assumed responsibility for the portfolio to assure himself that projects were not affected by the same issues.

The Executive Councillor for Economy, Regeneration and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To consider a report by the Elections and Democratic Services Manager on the representation of political groups on Committees and Panels in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the District Council’s Constitution.

A report was submitted by the Elections and Democratic Services Manager (a copy of which was appended in the Minute Book) relating to the principles and proportionality to be applied to the appointment of Committees and Panels in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and Part II of the Local Government Act 2000. Whereupon it was

RESOLVED

that the allocation of seats on District Council Committees and Panels to political groups and non-aligned Members be determined as set out in the report now submitted.

This item provides an opportunity for District Council Members to ask questions on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority issues.

If Members wish to raise questions or issues requiring a detailed response, it would be helpful if they can provide prior notice so that the necessary information can be obtained in advance of the meeting.

The Council received and noted with the contents the decision summaries of recent meetings of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Copies of the decision summaries are appended in the Minute Book.

Councillor R Coogan referred to a recent briefing on a proposed project and the scale of the investment involved. He expressed concerns about the proposal, particularly the route affecting St Ives, and called on the Council’s representatives on the CPCA to undertake further scrutiny and explore alternative options which he believed would provide a better outcome.

In response, the Executive Leader advised that the project had been under development for approximately 12 years and had now reached the business case stage. The current proposal had evolved significantly and would be subject to scrutiny through the relevant Overview and Scrutiny processes and offered to discuss the matter further with Councillor Coogan outside of the meeting.

Councillor L Davenport-Ray referred to decisions taken by the CPCA Transport Committee regarding reductions to bus services and asked the Executive Leader whether the Council would accept any additional CPCA funding for parking initiatives if funds allocated for bus services were not fully utilised. The Executive Leader stated that she was not aware of any additional funding being offered by the Mayor. She advised that the Mayor wished to continue discussions regarding the use of funding already identified but that it did not form part of the transport budget.

An opportunity for Members to raise any issues or ask questions arising from recent meetings of the Council’s Committees and Panels.

A list of meetings held since the last Council meeting is attached for information and Members are requested to address their questions to Committee and Panel Chairs.

A copy of the list of meetings held since the last meeting of the Council held on 15th July 2026 is appended in the Minute Book and Members were advised that any issues or questions could be raised in relation to these meetings.

No questions were raised.

Group Leaders to report on variations to the Membership of Committees and Panels if necessary.

On the recommendation of Councillors S Conboy, R Martin, R Coogan, J Kerr and L Davenport-Ray, it was

RESOLVED

a)  that Councillor S Claffey be appointed to Cabinet as the Executive Councillor for Climate, Transformation and Workforce.;

b)  that Councillor I Taylor be appointed to the membership of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Environment, Communities and Partnerships) in place of Councillor S Claffey;

c)  that Councillor M Burke be appointed to the membership of the Corporate Governance Committee in place of Councillor S Claffey;

d)  that Councillor N Wells be appointed to the membership of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Environment, Communities and Partnerships) in place of Councillor J Francis; and

e)  that Councillor S Lancaster be appointed to the membership of the Licensing Committee.

a)  Motion from Councillor R Coogan

Capital & Centric Regeneration Schemes, Accountability and Protection of Public Funds

This Council notes that:

1. Huntingdonshire District Council has committed public resources to regeneration work undertaken with Capital & Centric in relation to:

2. Regeneration is important to the future prosperity of Huntingdonshire's towns. However, regeneration involving public money and publicly owned assets must be founded upon clear objectives, a robust business case, demonstrable public benefit, value for money, proper scrutiny and meaningful engagement with the communities affected.

3. Members who previously supported progression of this work have subsequently expressed publicly that the proposals which emerged were not what they understood the Council had sought or expected from the process.

4. Those concerns create a legitimate need to establish, as a matter of fact, what services, outputs and deliverables were commissioned, what was subsequently authorised, what has been delivered and what public money has been expended.

5. Where a council commissions work from an external organisation, residents are entitled to expect that the Council will satisfy itself that the services and deliverables paid for were provided in accordance with the contractual arrangements, approved instructions and agreed objectives.

6. Equally, no conclusion that any contractor, consultant or development partner has failed in its contractual obligations should be reached without examination of the evidence, contractual documentation and appropriate professional legal advice.

7. Money already spent must never, of itself, become a justification for spending further public money. Decisions about future expenditure should be based upon the current merits, costs, risks and likely public benefits of proceeding.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1. Protecting taxpayers' money is a fundamental responsibility of this Council.

2. Regeneration should enhance town centres, support existing and future businesses, improve accessibility and confidence, and deliver identifiable benefits for the residents whose assets and money are being used.

3. Where the objectives of a publicly funded project have materially changed, have not been delivered, or no longer represent sufficient value for money, the Council should be prepared to stop, reassess and, where necessary, change course.

4. Where professional examination establishes that services or deliverables paid for by this Council were not provided in accordance with contractual obligations, the Council should pursue every proportionate and lawful avenue available to protect the public purse and recover money properly due to it.

5. Such decisions must be based upon evidence and professional advice, rather than political preference, retrospective disagreement with a design proposal, or assumptions about contractual performance.

6. Residents should be able to see clearly what public money was spent, what was commissioned, what was delivered and what action has been taken to protect their interests.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1. State that Full Council does not support the further progression of the current contract, and disengages with Capital & Centric completely including work started on:

·  Tebbutts Road car park, St Neots;

·  Princes Street bus station and car park, Huntingdon; and

·  the former cattle market square  ...  view the full agenda text for item 50.

The Chair proposed suspending Council Procedure Rule 14.8(e) for the remainder of the meeting to avoid reading amended motions in full, citing the length of motions and to assist the efficient conduct of business. The proposal was seconded and approved by Council.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer reminded Members of the legal and constitutional framework governing consideration of motions. The Council may express views and make recommendations, but cannot override legal obligations, predetermine future decisions, or exercise functions reserved to Cabinet or delegated officers. Members were advised to avoid comments relating to liability, misconduct, contractual matters, or issues that could prejudice future statutory decisions, and were reminded of their obligations under the Members' Code of Conduct. Any recommendations arising from motions would be considered by the appropriate decision-makers in accordance with legal, governance and statutory requirements.

The Chair advised that significant amendments to the motion had been submitted and sought Council's consent to accept them. On being put to the vote the amendments were accepted and incorporated into the substantive motion.

Motion from Councillor R Coogan

Capital & Centric Regeneration Schemes, Accountability and Protection of Public Funds

This Council notes that:

1. Huntingdonshire District Council has committed public resources to regeneration work undertaken with Capital & Centric in relation to:

·  Tebbutts Road car park, St Neots;

·  Princes Street bus station and car park, Huntingdon; and

·  the former cattle market square and gatehouse, St Ives.

2. Regeneration is important to the future prosperity of Huntingdonshire's towns. However, regeneration involving public money and publicly owned assets must be founded upon clear objectives, a robust business case, demonstrable public benefit, value for money, proper scrutiny and meaningful engagement with the communities affected.

3. Members who previously supported progression of this work have subsequently expressed publicly that the proposals which emerged were not what they understood the Council had sought or expected from the process.

4. Those concerns create a legitimate need to establish, as a matter of fact, what services, outputs and deliverables were commissioned, what was subsequently authorised, what has been delivered and what public money has been expended.

5. Where a council commissions work from an external organisation, residents are entitled to expect that the Council will satisfy itself that the services and deliverables paid for were provided in accordance with the contractual arrangements, approved instructions and agreed objectives.

6. Equally, no conclusion that any contractor, consultant or development partner has failed in its contractual obligations should be reached without examination of the evidence, contractual documentation and appropriate professional legal advice.

7. Money already spent must never, of itself, become a justification for spending further public money. Decisions about future expenditure should be based upon the current merits, costs, risks and likely public benefits of proceeding.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1. Protecting taxpayers' money is a fundamental responsibility of this Council.

2. Regeneration should enhance town centres, support existing and future businesses, improve accessibility and confidence, and deliver identifiable benefits for the residents whose assets and money are being used.

3. Where the objectives of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Councillor L Davenport-Ray moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded.

Having been put to the vote, the Motion was declared to be CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned at 11.02pm