Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Hipkin	13/1493/FUL: 9 Oxford Road	Personal and prejudicial: Lives in close proximity to the area.   Withdrew from discussion and did not vote.
Councillor Cantrill	General Enforcement Notice: 10 Millington Road	Personal and prejudicial: Lives in close proximity to the area.   Withdrew from discussion and did not vote
Councillor Reid	General Enforcement Notice: 10 Millington Road	Personal and prejudicial: Lives in close proximity to the area.   Withdrew from discussion and did not vote

 

The Committee received a retrospective application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought retrospective permission for a part two storey part single storey side and rear extension to the dwelling. Although the description covered extensions, they had already been built but the window at first floor and doors at ground floor rear elevation and side window at ground floor were not constructed in accordance with the approved plans under planning reference 13/0064/FUL, and therefore the application had been submitted to regularise this.

 

The Committee received representation in objection to the application from Ms Christine Clarke whose property is adjacent to 33 Woodlark Road.

 

The representation covered the following issue:

 

    i.          The large upstairs window has a negative impact on the privacy of the next door property.

Mr Michaels (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the application for retrospective planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for reasons set out in the Officer report and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer.

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the creation of erection of 1 No, 1 Bed, two storey dwelling on land adjacent No 9 Oxford Road, along with associated access and landscaping.

 

The Committee received representation in objection to the application from Ms Wytzes who lives in the neighbouring property.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

     i.        The proposed building would have a significant adverse effect on the living environment of the neighbouring property.

   ii.        The proposed building would create a sense of enclosure to the neighbouring property.

 iii.        The primary entrance and a number of windows are on the side of the   property (southern side) which means that the proposed building       opposite would bring a loss of light into the property.

 iv.        During the winter months natural light would be absent into the side of   the property.

  v.        The view from the windows of the southern side of the property would be        a brick wall of the proposed building.

 vi.        The proposed building would create an increase in light and noise          pollution.

vii.        The site would be overdeveloped.

viii.        There would be an increase in parking.

 ix.        Questioned why with thousands of new build homes nearby, if a one      bedroom property was really worth building.

 

The Committee:

 

The Principal Planning Officer proposed the following additional conditions:

 

·                 Prior to the commencement of development, a landscaping scheme for the north side of the dwelling facing no. 13 Oxford Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

 

Reason: In order to soften the visual impact of the gable facing no. 13 Oxford Road (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12).

 

·                 Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the approved north elevation of the dwelling, a revised plan showing an improved design and detailing for the north side facing no. 13 Oxford Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

Reason: In order to provide greater visual interest and articulation to the gable in order to improve the visual impact of it facing no. 13 Oxford Road (Cambridge Local Plan policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12).

 

Resolved (unanimously) to agree the additional conditions.

 

Resolved (7 votes to 0, with 1 abstention) to grant the application for full planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for reasons set out in the Officer report and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer.

 

The Committee received a General Enforcement report for breach of planning control at 10 Millington Road.

 

The report provided details of unauthorised development of a 2.5m high wall and with trellis attached up to a total height of 3.2m and a sloping timber structure.

 

The Committee were asked to consider permitting authority to ceasing any further activity in relation to the outstanding enforcement matter. The case involved minor development which technically required planning permission. The Council believed the development that had been undertaken required planning permission while the property owner believed it did not. There was an outstanding complaint in relation to the development that had been undertaken.

 

The Committee received representation in objection to the application from Mrs Kate Gaseltine, a neighbour to the property of 10 Millington Road.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

i.    The wall and trellis was both over scale in height and length and was causing harm to the living environment of Mrs Gaseltine and her family.

ii.    Reported that the total height of the wall and trellis at 3.2m in the Officer report was incorrect and was in fact 3.7m

iii.    The wall and trellis was in close proximity to the kitchen and dining room which had a negative impact on light and amenity to these rooms.  The windows were only 4 metres away from the wall and trellis.

iv.    There were no windows on the other side of the property for natural light to come into the property.

v.    Stated that the family have been left with a sense of enclosure.

vi.    The wall and trellis have created a loss of outlook in the kitchen, dining room and bedroom.

vii.    Informed the Committee that there must be a solution that would suit both parties.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (4 votes to 1) to grant the Head of Planning Services authorisation to close the investigation into unauthorised operational development at 10 Millington Road on the grounds that it is not expedient to pursue the matter further.

 

No declarations were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2013

The minutes of the 14 November 2013 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment (new text underlined):

 

• Item 13/1122/FUL: Councillor Nethsingha addressed the Committee on this application on behalf of Councillor Cearns:

 

8.20pm

An updated Action Sheet from the meeting held on 14 November was circulated.

 

Councillor Reiner confirmed that she had spoken with the former Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services regarding the closing time of the public conveniences on Jesus Green. The Committee were advised that the Jesus Green public conveniences closed an hour earlier than those at Midsummer Common and Chesterton Road, which shut at 8:00 pm. This is because these toilets are automated locking units unlike the ones on Jesus Green which take more time to close up.

 

Regarding the refurbishment of the pavilion on Jesus Green, Councillor Reiner informed the Committee that she had highlighted a member of the public’s statement that the toilets should be open later than 7.00pm upon completion.  

 

Councillor Cantrill reported that further progress had been made on why the University Sports Centre had been opened without an approved management plan. The Committee noted that the University team had submitted additional information in response to the areas of concern highlighted by City Council Officers following on from a meeting that took place on 14 November 2013. Discussions were on-going in relation to further clarification of the concessionary rates proposals.

 

The Committee were told that it was the intention of the University to implement the revised management arrangements, including pay and play access to the gym facilities and concessionary rates proposals. This should be agreed formally by the end of January, to coincide with the post-Christmas/January fitness campaign.

 

Councillor Kightley reminded the Committee that at the previous meeting a member of the public had spoken of the cycleway / footpath between Warwick Road and Windsor Road. This item had been taken up by the Project Delivery & Environment Manager and would come back to the Committee in the future.  

   </AI8>9>

 

 

  

Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking 

8.25pm

1) Tim Brown

What is being done to persuade cyclists that there are one-way streets in the city centre?                         

 

2) Bev Nicolson

Could the Committee provide an update on the subject of improving signage to advise cyclist of the correct direction of travel, as discussed a while ago?

 

In response to both queries Councillor Smith advised that approximately two years ago she had spent time working with County Council Officers discussing areas where signs on the ground could be painted to highlight the direction of travel for cyclists. There were still areas in the city which cyclist seemed to be unsure of the direction of travel such as the areas of Market Square, Trinity Street and Sydney Street.

 

Councillor Smith questioned if Councillor Cearns could discuss the issue further with County Council Officers but acknowledged that there was an issue with funding such a scheme. 

 

Councillor Rosenstiel advised that both City and County Councillors had in the past pressed for white arrows to be painted on the ground to show the direction of travel. This would reinforce the signs that were on display, yet seemed to be missed, such as the signs on Market Street at the junction of Sydney Street.

 

Councillor Cearns informed the Committee that he had recently completed a ‘Cycle About’ with County Council Officers to identify areas of improvements, which had included a conversation about painting white arrows on the ground to show the direction of travel. It was likely that a consultation would have to be carried out on this matter but Councillor Cearns advised that he would be happy to try and move the matter forward. 

 

Councillor Cearns stated that he had seen the Police stopping cyclists in and around Market Hill to advise them of the correct direction of travel. Councillor Cearns suggested that the matter could be taken up later in the meeting when considering Police priorities.

 

Mrs Susan Stubbs, a member of the public, stated that the signs advising cyclists of the direction of travel needed to be more visible as cyclists were ill-informed of where they could and could not cycle in the City.

 

3) Anthony Bowen

An Officer spoke (about two meetings ago) of putting up notices to bar cycling on the footpaths across Christ’s Pieces and New Square. Has he classified the legal validity of such actives (he had expressed some doubt)?

 

Councillor Rosenstiel advised that he believed that this issue of signage was on on-going and asked that this was checked with the Officer (ACTION).

 

4) Susan Stubbs

Do we know yet when the work on the entrance of the Midsummer Common Community Orchard is due to start?

 

Councillor Reiner advised that this was on track for this spring.

 

5) Hugh Kellett

Many of the roads in central Cambridge are in a sorry state, full of potholes, subsidence damage, sunken manhole covers and rough surfaces. These are dangerous, unsightly and add to all sorts of environmental problems, let alone cost given that I understand that something short of half a million pounds was paid out in damages to motorists last year. This is particularly the case in the historic centre where bus or HGV traffic is heavy, on roads that were designed for much lighter traffic. I appreciate that this is a County Council responsibility the but does the existence of the new Central Government funds via the City Deal mean that the City Council can get more involved in lobbing for basic infrastructure repairs to that part of Cambridge that makes it so attractive to companies, shoppers and investors, namely the old city itself? And if so under what time frame?

 

Councillor Hipkin stated that as the City Deal would be allocated to strategic infrastructure in the City it would be unlikely that monies would be allocated to existing highway issues such as the issue of potholes. The Committee was reminded that Cambridgeshire County Council was facing large budget cuts which would impact on the repair programme in the City. It was suggested that the potholes should not be patched up but more thoroughly addressed and that the County should readdress their repair programme.

 

Councillor Rosenstiel advised that he shared the concerns regarding the state of the roads in the City; some of the worse roads were supposedly being addressed, such as Short Street.  Road closures had to be applied for to undertake the work properly which added to the time pressure.

 

Councillor Rosenstiel stated that if new funds were generated from the City Deal to assist with new infrastructure, this could leave funds available for existing infrastructure leaving monies available to repair potholes.

 

Councillor Bick specified that the purpose of the City Deal was to improve the economic vitality of the area which could raise income to local authorities such as an increase in business rates. The result of which could be spent on local services.

 

Councillor Bick acknowledged the poor conditions of some of the roads in the City but reiterated the funding cuts that Cambridgeshire County Council were experiencing and spoke of the difficult decisions that had to be made on services.

 

Councillor Cearns acknowledged that there was a problem with the conditions of the highways which had been experienced by all those present. There was less money available to spend due to Government cuts in funding and so welcomed the opportunity the City Deal would bring as funding would continue to be cut and Councils had been prevented from increasing revenue from Council tax by a significant amount.

 

Councillor Cearns informed the Committee that there were some streets that had been identified for either resurface or to be patched up. As Cambridgeshire County Council reverted back to a committee system this should strength support for City issues such as the fixing of the highways.  

 

Councillor Cantrill informed the Committee that it was his understanding that Cambridgeshire County Councillor Bourke when leader of the Liberal Democrats on the County, forced the County to acknowledge that no money had been spent on road repairs in the City. The rolling repairs that had been under taken was a result of that, but acknowledged that although some progress had been made it was not sufficient.

 

Councillor Nethsingha advised that it is difficult to predict in advance which roads would require maintenance and where the pot holes were going to appear. Each year brought different issues. It was important that all highway issues were reported and brought to the Committee’s attention the website www.fixmystreet.com where members of the public could report highway issues.

 

6) A member of the public

Following the accident on Midsummer Common where a small child was hit by a cyclist what can be done to make individuals aware of their responsibilities when using the paths.

 

Councillor Cearns confirmed that it was planned to bid for Section 106 money to improve the paths and there would be a consultation but this would take time. It was recognised that there was an issue which had been highlighted by the unfortunate accident. The issue should address how to provide good access across green open spaces without taking away the amenity.

 

Councillor Kightley advised that care was needed by all parties when using the footpaths.

 

To note decisions taken by the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokesperson since the last meeting of the West Area Committee.

 

                                                                                                8.55pm

The decision was noted and the following comments made:

 

     i.        The title of decision stated ‘Decision of Executive Councillor’ but the decision had been taken by the Chair of West / Central Area Committee.

    ii.        The report indicated that the ward affected had been Arbury but is both Arbury and Castle.

   iii.        For future procurement recommendations permission will possibly be sought from either the Director of Business Transformation or the Head of Finance, but not the Director of Finance, to proceed if the quotation or tender sums exceeds the estimated contract.

  iv.        Future reports should make reference back to the date of the Committee when approval was permitted.

 

 

                                                                                                9.00pm

The Committee received a report from Inspector Poppit regarding policing and safer neighbourhood trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the West Central Area Committee of the 5 September 2013. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details).

 

Community Fire Safety Officer Meikle reported the number of blue bags had been reduced and it was business as usual.

 

Members’ Comments:

 

Councillor Reiner queried whether the Police could initiate as part of their priorities a project for road safety specifically for school age children during the busy school run period.

 

Councillor Cantrill stated that there was a broader set of issues concerning road safety, suggesting road users needed to think about other road users and the impact that their actions had. He then suggested including motorists being ticketed for straying into cycle stop boxes at junctions as part of the wider road safety priority.

 

Councillor Kightley suggested that motorists should also be ticketed for entering on to the hatch areas on the road when their exits were not clear. 

 

Councillor Nethsingha passed on her thanks to the enforcement team whose work had made a difference to the parking outside schools for the school drop off.

 

Councillor Nethsingha brought to the Committee’s attention the lack of secondary school children who wear helmets when cycling. With the Tour de France coming to the City this could be the perfect opportunity to help change the culture. 

 

Councillor Cantrill stated that Cambridgeshire County grants were available of up to £500 to local groups to support activities or events linked to cycling or the Tour de France which could be linked to safety.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services acknowledged that the Tour de France was an opportunity to link the promotion of wearing safety helmets and would reference the discussion to the Tour de France working party.

 

Councillor Rosenstiel queried the safety implications of helmets   and then went on to specify that cycle theft and crime prevention needed to be strengthened. The City Council were increasing the cycle parking provision but the Police needed to  advise those residents who had their bikes stolen that their cycles needed to be locked to something.

 

The Committee were reminded of the surgeries held by the PCO’s where residents were advised on how to look after their cycles.

 

The Chair then invited members of the public to address the Police:

 

1) Mr Richard Taylor

The Police report referred to electronic alerts as way of communication with local neighbourhoods could you please explain how this works.

 

With the Police exploring the possibility of how they utilise the Cambridge ShapeYourPlace website, will there still be a forum to allow people to make suggestions in the public space?

 

Inspector Poppit advised that the Neighbourhood Alert has replaced e-cops which allow a broader subject matter in of crime and crime prevention.  Anyone who is registered will receive an alert. The system provides an enhanced service to Neighbourhood Watch coordinators.  With regards to ShapeYourPlace he would like to see the website used as an engagement tool for the City.

 

2) Mr Richard Taylor

At the last West / Central Area Committee meeting I asked if the Police could include in their report how, when and where Tasers were being used in Cambridge.

 

Could the Police comment on the recruitment of a Cambridge University student to spy on those students who were members of the Student Union. Who is the current Police University Liaison Officer as they really need to understand how the University is run and the role of the Student Union.

 

Inspector Poppit advised that no Police representatives at the meeting had a Taser. It would be wrong to give out any operational details on the use of Tasers. Officers who use Tasers would have undertaken the relevant training and were assessed on a regular basis. The Professional Standard Department review what the police do and deal with any complaints.

 

Inspector Poppit stated that he would be the Senior Officer who manages the University Liaison Officer; PC Simon Railer, who had held the post of University Liaison Officer (for both Cambridge University and Anglian Ruskin) for approximately three years and had built good working relationship and understanding with both Universities

 

3) Mrs Hardcastle & Mr Russell

Item 3 of the Police and Neighbourhood profile report refers to City Councillor’s ASB Officers who had been contacted by residents of Radcliffe Court in Market Ward regarding youths gaining access to the private terraces within the complex. Working in partnership with the police and the property company, the issue had now been resolved. We wish to inform the Committee that we dispute this statement and the issue was still on going.

 

        Mr Russell then spoke at length at the problems that he had encountered on a continuous basis and the affect that this had.

 

        The Safer Communities Section Manager advised Mr Russell that as the problem had stopped being reported, it had been anticipated the issue was resolved. It was agreed to talk to Mrs Hardcastle and Mr Russell outside of the meeting with the Police to discuss how the situation could be moved forward.  

 

Councillor Rosenstiel explained that support was required from the neighbouring business in ensuring that roof access was secure.

 

        Councillor Nethsingha requested a follow up to actions that had been undertaken following the discussion with Mrs Hardcastle and Mr Russell.

 

        Councillor Smith asked if there was a general problem of roof running or was this in a specific area as discussed tonight. The Safer Communities Manager advised that this issue should be treated separately to that of the police priorities.

 

        4) Mr John Lawton

        I would like to remind Members of the statement that was made at the previous meeting of the West / Central Area Committee. Would the Committee consider in advance of the next West / Central Area meeting when Police priorities will be set, adding enforcement of the 20mph speed limit specifically in Maids Causeway, Newmarket Road, but also, not limited to adjoining streets such as Jesus Lane and Emmanuel Road?

 

Inspector Poppit replied that it was very much an operation that the Police supported and could be incorporated into the wider area of road safety and would be based on risk. There were now speed awareness courses for those drivers who were caught breaking the speed limit in a 20 mph zone.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to prioritise the following:

 

1. Wider road safety priority ensuring better road safety for all road users focusing on the following:

 

     i.        Children’s road safety, particularly targeting areas around the Schools during peak times.

    ii.        Cycling in the City.  

   iii.        Ticketing all road users when stationary that encroached on designated no waiting areas, motorists straying into cycle stop boxes at junctions and cross hatchings. 

  iv.        Focusing on speed enforcement in risk areas, including the 20 mph zones in the City.

   v.        Over ranking of the taxis.

 

2. To continue to tackle ASB in the city.

 

 

9.30pm

The Committee received a report from the Director of Customer & Community Services regarding the consultation on Draft Community Safety Partnership Priorities for 2014 -2017.

 

The Committee were advised that the strategic approach of those priorities was to understand the impact of mental health, alcohol and drug misuse on violent crime and anti-social behaviour, by tactically addressing the following:

 

·        Personal acquisitive crime – emerging trends

·        Alcohol related violent crime – pub clusters

·        Anti-social Behaviour – new ways of working.

 

The Director of Customer & Community Services explained that the Community Safety Partnership would continue to track and support County led work on domestic abuse (with local work around awareness and training and re-offending.

 

Members’ Comments:

 

Councillor Reid welcomed the strategic priorities, particularly on mental health and asked what links the Partnership had with mental health charities. The funding on mental health services in Cambridgeshire and the how this could impact the service was also queried.

 

The Director of Customer & Community Services acknowledged that there was a gap with mental health representation. She was unable to comment on the overall financial situation of funding. However the Partnership was aware that budgets were decreasing with demand on the service increasing. Resources available were being looked at, identifying duplication, recognising gaps in the service to enhance the service and promote improved dialogue between agencies with the funds available.

 

Councillor Cearns again welcomed the strategic priorities and spoke of his work with the County Council to identify best practice to reduce re-offending, particularly focusing on training and employment.

 

Councillor Cearns asked if the Partnership would consider shoplifting as one of the priorities. The Director of Customer & Community Services stated that Partnership supported outside agencies which recognised shoplifting as a high volume crime and was constantly addressed.

 

County Councillor Cearns suggested that the priorities should include the term ‘reducing’ in front of word re-offending in the report to bring to the issue to people’s attention. 

 

Councillor Nethsingha stated that she too welcomed the strategic priorities and acknowledged there were cuts in funding for mental health services and stressed the importance of all agencies working together to safeguard the delivery of service.  

 

Councillor Reiner brought to the Committee’s attention page 26 of Cambridge Community Safety Partnership’s report, entitled ‘Issues raised at neighbourhood meetings’ and identified the need to foster good discussions and have good minutes.