Issue - meetings

Members of the public asked several questions, as set out below.

 

Question 1

 

Friends of St Albans Road Rec raised the following points:

      i.         Expressed concern at the loss of green open space concerning the Council’s plans to build three blocks of flats and a new community centre on the recreation ground.

    ii.         Referred to the Cambridge Local Plan (CLP) 2018 and Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011 which noted how the green open spaces were to residents, particularly to those in the north of the city.

   iii.         Quoted that in 2009 Arbury had a population of 9280 (taken from the Open Space and Recreation Strategy), with a total 7.55 hectares of protected space and that this was the lowest in the city.  The population had since grown.

  iv.         By comparison, Abbey Ward with a population of 9360 (taken in 2009), had 116.39 hectare of protected open space.

    v.         Queried why an area with such limited open space had been chosen for development.

  vi.         Policy 67 of the CLP stated that open spaces were protected; open spaces should be looked after and protected regardless of ownership.

 vii.         A petition was currently circulating with residents to keep the open space which had over 1400 signatures to date and 549 members in the friends’ group, demonstrating a strength of support.

viii.         If protected open space was being removed from residential areas, the space had to be enhanced. However, the proposed development did not enrich the area in any way.

  ix.         Private amenities for the proposed flats and shared amenity areas were not being provided.

    x.         The play area was being downgraded.

  xi.         Asked if the Council could explain how the proposed scheme would enhance the area.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded:

      i.         The Council acknowledged and were aware of the concerns raised. Changes to the proposed scheme had been made in response to public comments.

    ii.         As the proposed scheme was an active planning application which would be put forward to the Planning Committee for consideration no further comment could be made.

 

The following supplementary points were put forward:

      i.         Reiterated that the development would be built on protected space.

    ii.         The protected space had been agreed by Cambridge City Council when adopting the CLP.

   iii.         Questioned why there was a need for the CLP if the strategies in the Plan were ignored. 

  iv.         Changes to the proposed scheme meant the flats were now higher.

    v.         Acknowledged less protected space was being built on but the green open space being taken away was classed as a ‘needy’ space.

  vi.         The planning consultation response acknowledged there was a requirement to address the potential negative impact of having many small single households with potentially high levels of need.

 vii.         The area did not require any additional housing.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded with the following:

 

      i.         The Council could not predetermine the planning application so no further comment would be made. 

    ii.         Would encourage members of the public to make their written representations to the planning department.

   iii.         The proposed scheme would bring much needed affordable housing to city.

 

Question 2

 

The Pubs Officer for Cambridge & District CAMRA raised the following points regarding the Hopbine public house.

      i.         In February 2019 the Hopbine public house on Fair Street closed, even though the landlord and landlady had run the pub for seven and a half years and were keen to continue running it.

    ii.         Since the pub had closed there has been at least one attempt to break into the building.

   iii.         A private individual bought the Admiral Taverns in 2011, they had no interest in running it as a public house themselves and instead leased it to the licensees of the Portland Arms on a rolling six-month lease.

  iv.         The Hopbine was turned into a successful, thriving pub with a fine reputation for its food as well as its beer and won various awards. In 2012 it won CAMRA Most Improved City Pub Award, in 2016 and 2018 CAMRA City Local Ale Award for selling well kept, locally brewed beers. In 2018 it was also the Cambridge University Real Ale Society Pub of the Year.

    v.         The landlord and landlady also took on the Alexandra Arms on Gwydir Street and have made a success too as they have been able to make significant investment in both the Portland Arms and the Alexandra Arms.

  vi.         The landlord and landlady spoke with the owner of the Hopbine to ask for a reasonable length lease so they could investment money into the pub if this was not possible then they would have to close the pub. The request was refused so the pub closed.

 vii.         Stated it was a ridiculous situation with a much-loved pub in a busy part of Cambridge sitting empty but not because it wasn’t viable, or that no one was willing to run it or invest in it but because the owner was only willing to offer six-month leases.

viii.         Asked what the Council could do to resolve this situation?

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces said the following:

      i.         The Hopbine was a safeguarded public house; therefore, had some level of protection, the building and the function and amenity it provided was important to residents.

    ii.         Believed that protected public houses were an asset to the community when there was a landlord/ landlady who wanted to invest in the public house over a longer lease.

   iii.         There was evidence that the Hopbine was viable despite the fact it had been shut down.

  iv.         The planning policy position protected the use of the building but could not require its occupation. If a planning application was put forward for a change of use it would have to be considered against planning policy and would have to show that it had not been viable as a public house.

    v.         The Council did not have the power to instruct the owner to bring the pub back into use.

  vi.         If the building fell into a bad condition which impacted the local area officers could serve a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Planning Act. This would be used for occupation, insistence to open the public house or for the building to be resold.

 vii.         Advised would be willing to meet the Ward Councillors on site to investigate the exterior.

viii.         Supported the campaign to keep the building as a protected public house and to get the Holbine reopened.

 

The following supplementary points were raised:

 

      i.         Asked again if the Council representatives or the Executive Councillor could talk to the owner to resolve this issue.

    ii.         Water ingress had been an issue for a number of years with no pump to clear the cellar out of water; therefore, the interior was probably deteriorating as the building had been left for a year.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces responded:

 

      i.         The Council did not have the means for their officers to speak with the owner; but suggested this could be done by a Ward Councillor with the support of the Executive Councillor.

    ii.         As the building was privately owned the Council could not interfere with how that individual chose to lease the building.

   iii.         If the building was being damaged and causing loss of amenity, then this could be looked into.

  iv.         Offered to meet with the public speaker on site.

 

Question 3

 

The following points were raised on private rented housing in the City:

      i.         Suggested that the Council offers financial support to those landlords who could not afford to bring their property up to the required Council standard.

    ii.         Believed he had experienced abuse of procedure from council staff when inspections had taken place and he no longer rented out his property to private individuals.

   iii.         The Cambridge Evening News (03/02/20) reported that 271 city council houses had category one hazards (immediate risk to personal health and safety); who was prosecuting the Council on this matter?

  iv.         As a landlord, he had kept the rent low for public sector workers who worked at Addenbrookes hospital and not exploited the system.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded with the following: 

 

      i.         Thanked the public speaker for his time and the issues put forward.

    ii.         He could not comment with regards to council staff as there was a pending court case with the public speaker and the Council and did not wish to prejudice the proceedings at a future hearing.

   iii.         The Cambridge Evening News article was incorrect with the categorisation in terms of decent homes and those in category one.

  iv.         The City Council appreciated those landlords who provided good quality homes in the private sector; there were many ways the Council engaged with private landlords such as the landlord forum and events throughout the year.

 

The following supplementary points were made:

      i.         Asked if it was likely that the Council would consider financial support to those landlords who provided low rents to those working in the public sector.

    ii.         Stated that the individual who had rented out the public speaker’s property was now paying double the rent having had to move out.

   iii.         The Council were creating unattainable high standards.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following:

 

      i.         Agreed it was fact there were some private rentals which were unattainable to people in Cambridge.

    ii.         The City Council were planning on building 500 Council homes with 1500 people on the Council waiting list.

   iii.         Acknowledged there were some people who were not eligible for Council housing due to their net income but could not afford to get on the housing ladder. The City Council were working on this issue with a city housing company which had several properties for affordable rent.

  iv.         Demand exceeded supply and there was a variety of rental options throughout the city. 

 

Question 4

 

The following points were made regarding the Castle Mound and the grassed forecourt area between Shire Hall and Castle Mound to be made a town and village green.

      i.         Noted that Suffolk County Council, had been delegated the decision by Cambridgeshire County Council as to whether Castle Mound should be designated as a town and village green. They had advised that they would be advertising the application and calling for submissions or objections this week (second week of February). 

    ii.         The mound was integral to the history of Cambridge; was of scientific, botanical and archaeological significance.

   iii.         The space should be kept as a public space for residents and visitors to the area.

  iv.         Asked if the City Council would be making a submission to Suffolk County Council in support of the town and village green application?

    v.         Enquired if the area was declared a town green, and if at some point Cambridgeshire County Council sought to make an arrangement with Cambridge City Council for it to maintain and upkeep the town green, whether the City Council would be prepared to enter into discussions with the County Council in this regard?

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces responded with the following:

 

      i.         The City Council had no objection to the application and would be willing to make this representation to the Suffolk County Council when invited to do so.

    ii.         Confirmed the Council was prepared to enter into discussions with the County Council regarding the maintenance of the area on a non-prejudicial basis if asked to do so.

 

The following supplementary points were made:

      i.         Asked if the Council would include a request that a public meeting or hearing take place in Cambridge before any decision was made.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces responded with the following:

      i.         The City Council would not be able to follow up with the supplementary request.

    ii.         The registration authority was required to follow a legal process which included formally advertising the application and notifying interested parties.

   iii.         The Council would support Suffolk County Council and assist with local communication around Cambridge. 

 

Question 5

 

A representative from Extinction Rebellion put forward the following points:

      i.         Stated there were issues in the City and the wider area which needed to be addressed concerning the climate emergency.

    ii.         While the City Council had met with Extinction Rebellion representatives on previous occasions the work agreed had not been undertaken; there had been offers of public engagement, but these should have been voluntary.

   iii.         Stated the Council had not given the public enough of a voice; and had not excluded those who had a vested interest in the destruction of the environment or the oppression of workers.

  iv.         The Council needed to hold a citizen’s assembly on climate change that was representative and was able to use devolved powers to make changes as time had run out. 

    v.         People were dying now due to the impact of the climate emergency which had not been addressed; time had run out.

  vi.         Climate justice was needed not just for the city but across the world.

 vii.         Stated the Council had shown they were not capable of decision making as they did not have the power required to make the changes needed.

 

Due to the continued disruption by some members of the public that followed the Mayor declared the meeting was adjourned at 7.45pm.

 

Members of the Council met at another location within the Guildhall at 8.20pm. the membership concluded that the meeting would not formally re-convene, and the Mayor reaffirmed the adjournment to a future date which would be confirmed in due course.

 

This meeting reconvened on the 25 February 2020, please follow this link to minutes for the rest of the meeting.

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=3896&Ver=4