Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

Hobson’s Brook Corridor is an important green infrastructure corridor extending between the natural spring at Nine Wells on Cambridge’s southern fringe and running northwards in to the city centre.

 

Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision (covering the period 2018 – 2028) describes the nature and character of the corridor, defines various pressures faced and outlines management and maintenance priorities over the next 10 years; based upon an assessment of historical records and more recent data gathered.

 

It is intended to guide activities which focus on water quality improvements, ecological enhancements, maintenance and restoration work along with community engagement activities within the corridor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

       i.          Endorsed the Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision as an evidence base to inform planning policy and decisions, and to influence management and maintenance priorities.

     ii.          Supported the establishment of a delivery action plan setting out future investment priorities in order to assist obtaining funded as needed.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Sustainable Drainage Engineer.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          There was a disappointing response rate to the Hobson Conduit public consultation.

     ii.          Queried if land owners near the Conduit, particularly the University of Cambridge, were disengaged. If so, would this cause difficulties regarding consent and funding for future work?

   iii.          Councillor O’Connell offered to help engage the University of Cambridge in the Hobson Conduit public consultation process in her capacity as Ward Councillor.

   iv.          Historically the Market Square fountain was an important feature as the end of the Conduit and a source of drinking water. Requested this be brought back into the Vision document, possibly as a way to reduce the number of plastic drinking bottles in the city.

    v.          Raised concern about the number of pollutants and chemicals that could affect the Conduit and local water supplies through surface run off from agricultural and industrial areas in/around/bordering the city.

 

The Sustainable Drainage Engineer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The University of Cambridge were directly engaged through stakeholder consultation. Further engagement work would continue in future.

     ii.          It was unclear if future problems would arise from stakeholder disengagement.

   iii.          The Vision document was not a contentious document, which may explain the low consultation response rate. The Conduit was seen as an asset to the city.

   iv.          The majority (70%) of consultees were involved in earlier stakeholder engagement work ie landowners along the Conduit corridor such as the University of Cambridge.

    v.          There was greater public interest in the visible parts of the Conduit (eg the open brook) than underground sections. Both were equally important but the open sections had a higher profile as a public amenity. Funding would be easier to target for the open sections.

   vi.          Various water quality tests were undertaken over time to ensure there were no adverse impacts from local farms or (new) developments. There were no issues to report at present eg floating pennywort or pesticide pollution. Part of the checks were to measure and collate what was occurring with the brook ie what was in/on it and whether this was good or bad.

 vii.          Officers engaged with Pemberton Farms who were major land owners on the south of the city. Land use and ownership around the brook was changing over time.

viii.          Local wildlife charities were engaged in the consultation rather than national ones as they were seen as more appropriate.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

Councillors Abbott and Barnett did not vote due to their declarations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. She undertook to raise the suggestion of reconnecting the Market Square fountain to Hobson’s Conduit (as a potential drinking fountain) with the Planning Department and Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.