Issue - meetings

Report attached separately.

 

The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery & Environmental Manager.

 

The report requested that the Committee determine which of the proposed new Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP) schemes should be allocated funding as part of the 2014/15 Environmental Improvement Programme, from those listed in Appendix A of Officer’s report. This included the allocation of necessary third party funding for schemes that had secured contributions from Cambridgeshire County Council’s Local Highway Improvement Programme.

 

The report also requested the Committee considered the reallocation of funding currently allocated to projects that are either not feasible or no longer required.

 

The Project Delivery & Environmental Manager informed the Committee that the calculations of the recommendations in the report had changed (original text strike through and amended text underlined).

 

The following recommendations were put forward for the Committee’s consideration:

 

     i.        To reallocate the £10,000 currently allocated to the Eltisley Avenue Planting Scheme that has proved not to be feasible.

    ii.        To allocate additional funding of £5,000 to the existing Grantchester Rd Traffic Calming Project.

   iii.        To allocate additional funding of £7,000 £4,000 to the existing Kite Area Parking Project.

  iv.        To allocate the required £33,000 £28,000 of match funding to the schemes that have secured a contribution from Cambridgeshire County Council’s Local Highway Improvement Programme.

   v.        To allocate the remaining £12,159 £18,159 to the remaining proposed projects in Appendix A of this report.

  vi.        To approve all new projects for implementation, subject to positive consultation where required and final approval by Ward Councillors.

 vii.        To note the progress of existing schemes listed in Appendix C of this report.

 

 

 

Comments from members of the public:

 

Alistair Storer, Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Item WC3 (Appendix A): We support residents parking schemes on the basis that they should reduce commuter parking in the city.

 

Item WC4 (Appendix A): We support the scheme but note only a small amount of funding has been allocated and would like to see a major project in the area that links to Barton Road.

 

Item WC7: We support the scheme but advise that the word ‘vehicles’ should be replaced by ‘motor vehicles’.

 

Item WC8  (Appendix A): We support the removal of the barriers as they would allow none standard cycle bikes through such as cargo cycles and cycles with trailers.

 

Item WC9 (Appendix A): We support the scheme and hope in the future that the end of Kings Road is closed entirely to all motor vehicles.

 

Item WC10 (Appendix A): We appreciate that the road is not best for pedestrians but the road is already narrow and narrowing this would make the environment hostile to cycle users.

 

Item WC11 (Appendix A): We are in agreement with Park Street Residents’ Association that parking should not be permitted on the footpaths.

 

Item WC12 (Appendix A): We support the development of double yellow lines as this would reduce obstructions for cycle users.

 

Colin Rosenstiel

Item WC5 (Appendix A): Has the Committee considered the cost of maintenance in this area for existing and additional planting and does the Committee agree that that the cost should be met with payment taken from the car park?

 

Item WC11 (Appendix A): If the installation of double yellow lines is not supported by the Park Street Residents’ Association should this scheme be considered?

 

Item WC9 (Appendix A): Would like to see the end of Kings Road closed entirely to all motor vehicles

 

Both Councillors Cantrill and Reid acknowledged that money had been spent from the car park funds on previous schemes and it would beneficial to investigate if this was possible once again.

 

Councillor Cantrill commented that some of the trees already planted were not well maintained and there was a need to ensure that the maintenance was carried out on a regular basis.

 

Councillor Bick stated he was aware of a similar approach taken at the County Council used by the Highways Division and suggested that the Project Delivery & Environmental Manager talk to the relevant City Council department responsible and investigate if funding could be obtained. ACTION: Project Delivery & Environmental Manager

 

Richard Price, Park Street Residents’ Association (PSRA)

Item WC11 (Appendix A): We were surprised to find this item on the list in the Environmental Improvement Programme. We had no idea that this matter would be up for consideration and are concerned at the suggestions ‘to allow partial footway parking’.

 

At short notice, a meeting of PSRA committee was convened last evening and I have the committee’s full support to oppose any plan to permit even partial footway parking of vehicles in Portugal Street. Could I ask the Committee, when this item is considered, to confirm that vehicles will never be permitted to park on the footway in Portugal Street?

 

For the sake of clarification any proposal to replace the existing single yellow line by a double yellow line on the North side of Portugal Street would not be supported by residents in the PSRA area who do not have off street parking.

 

Mary Wheater, Windsor Road Residents’ Association

Item WC8 (Appendix A): We welcome and support the allocation of funds to improve safety at the school end of the Warwick Road – Windsor Road passageway and do not wish to cause any delay to it.

The Windsor Road end of the passageway is also hazardous as cycles and children can exit it at speed into traffic. It too deserves modification to make it safer, and will require a separate allocation of funds at a later stage.

 

In addition, work at the Windsor Road end must be coordinated with other plans in the local area. The first is the new foul sewer for Darwin Green planned to run down Windsor Road. The second is a scheme, to mitigate the increased traffic along the Oxford Road/Windsor Road link between Histon and Huntingdon Roads that is anticipated to result from the University NW development.  S106 money is already allocated for this.

 

Rosemary Young supported by DR White (written statement)

Item WC5 (Appendix A): I would like to support the proposals made by Councillor Tim Bick in connection with visual improvements to the Adam and Eve Street Car Park.

 

A few years ago the railing along this car park had fallen into disrepair, several were missing and others were damaged. The Council replaced these with functional but unattractive boards and bright yellow metal posts which did little to enhance the visual aspect of the car park, which is on the boundary of the conservation area.

 

In addition, some of the trees are now in poor condition, we have seen an increase in the number of industrial sized rubbish bins which are clearly visible from the road.

 

I would support any suggestions for greening the street edge of the car park, possibly using urban friendly plants similar to those in the existing beds at the ends of Paradise, Grafton and John Street which require little maintenance. In due course when the trees die it might be an improvement to replace them with similar mountain ash to those already thriving in the area. This would create a cohesive identity for all the local planting as well as a degree of screening for the car park.

 

I agree with the eligibility comments that this would provide a “direct lasting and noticeable improvement to the appearance of the street”, and would be “publicly visible”, and would welcome any improvements which work to this end.

 

Anna Snowden

Item WC5 (Appendix A): I support the written statement from Rosemary Young; the current layout is hard and unattractive, particular the colour of the railings. The area is industrial looking and unattractive. Any kind of border planting would soften the view. 

 

Members’ Comments:

 

     i.        Welcomed the allocation of funding to the existing Kite Area parking project as the public had been waiting three years for the completion of the scheme.

    ii.        Pleased to note the recommendation of £5,000 to the existing Grantchester Road Traffic Calming Project.

   iii.        Questioned whether additional projects could be put forward for consideration.

  iv.        Hoped that item WC4 could be extended with future s106 funding.

   v.        Commented that the cost of item WC2 was high.

vi.          Queried what would happen to the money that the County Council had agreed to provide funding contributions to if the Committee did not elect that scheme. 

vii.          Enquired if the County Council had a reserved list of schemes and where would match funding come from.

viii.          Highlighted specific streets for item WC12 (Appendix A) in the Castle Ward - McManus Estate, Warwick Road, Carisbrooke Road and Tavistock Street as requiring urgent attention.

ix.          Recommended the cost of the physical changes be removed from the costing of item WC2 (Appendix A).

  x.          Suggested that an external agency be used for the design of the resident parking for item WC2 (Appendix A).

xi.          Requested that Barton Close be removed from item WC2 (Appendix A).

xii.          Noted that the schemes for the Environmental Improvement Programme could be hi-jacked by transport schemes due to the funding contributions from County Council.

xiii.          Questioned if the entire budget for item WC7 (Appendix A) was necessary and if the scheme would be fully supported by the public.

xiv.             Suggested that funding be allocated for a full public consultation (to include stakeholders) only.

 

The Committee:

 

At the request of the Committee the Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately, with the exception of recommendation V of the Officer’s report. Each scheme in that recommendation (Appendix A) would be voted on separately. 

 

The Chair proposed the funding of £2,000 recommended for item WC2 (Appendix A) of the Officer’s report be reduced to £1,000.

 

Resolved unanimously to do so.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed the funding of £5,000 recommended for item WC3 (Appendix A) of the Officer’s report be reduced to £2,000 to cover the cost of consultation only.

 

Resolved unanimously to do so.

 

Councillor Bick proposed the funding of £10,000 be reduced to £2,700 for item WC7 (Appendix A) to cover the cost of consultation only.

 

Resolved unanimously to do so.

 

Councillor Bick proposed that item WC11 was withdrawn from the EIP Scheme.

 

Resolved unanimously to do so.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed the remaining funding of £4359 be allocated to an additional scheme entitled W13 (Newnham Croft).

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

To approve recommendation (i) of the Officer’s report.

 

To approve recommendation (ii) of the Officer’s report.

 

To approve recommendation (iii) of the Officer’s report.

 

To approve recommendation (iv) of the Officer’s report.

 

To approve recommendation (v) of the Officer’s report as follows (original text strike through and amended text underlined):

 

WC1: Histon Rd pedestrian crossing                        £3000

 

WC2: All Souls Lane road sign & noticeboard                   £2000        £1,000

 

WC3: Newnham parking consultation                       £5,000       £2000

 

WC4:          Barton Road / Newnham Road / Grantchester Street junction improvements                                                                   £500

 

WC5:          Adam & Eve Street car park                             £15,000

 

WC6:Albion Row                                                                   £15,000

 

WC7: Elm St / Prospect Row                                               £2,700

 

WC8: Warwick Road / Windsor Road passageway £1,000

 

WC9 King Street weight limit                                                £500

 

WC10: Newnham Road footway                               £500

 

WC11: Portugal Street                                                          £500

 

WC12: North Newnham and Castle areas               £3000

 

*WC13 Newnham Croft                                              £4359

 

To approve recommendation (vi) of the Officer’s report.

 

To note the recommendation (vii) of the Officer’s report. </AI11><AI12>

14/1/WCAC              West Area Corridor Funding (Corridor Area Transport Plan).