Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Nethsingha.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

 

No declarations were made.

The Committee received an application for a change of use.

 

The application sought approval for a change of use of the ground floor of the building from a sandwich bar (Use Class A1) to a restaurant (Use Class A3).

 

The application was retrospective in that the proposed use had already commenced, but under recent flexible Use Class changes, the current use was deemed to be Permitted Development for a period of up to two years. This application was to make the change permanent.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the application for change of use in accordance with Officer recommendations, for the reasons set in the Officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer.

 

Pre-Committee Amendments to Recommendation:

 

Condition 3 amended:

 

Before the consent is implemented or no later than the expiry of the existing temporary use of the premises on 1 October 2015, if the A3 use is intended to continue beyond this date, details of equipment for the purpose of extraction and/or filtration of fumes and or odours, including its design and location and any noise abatement for the plant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved extraction/filtration scheme shall be installed before the implementation of the consent or no later than the expiry of the existing temporary use of the premises on 1 October 2015 if the A3 is to continue on a permanent basis.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13).

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval to sub-divide the existing garden to the south east to accommodate a three bedroom bungalow.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant for full planning permission in accordance with Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer report, subject to the satisfactory completion of the of S106 by 10 March 2014 and subject to the conditions recommended by the Officer.

 

No declarations were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2014 (Minutes attached separately).

Minutes of the 9 January 2014 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment (new text underlined):

 

·                    14/3WCACb                 9 Oxford Road

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

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

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

 

7.45pm

An updated action sheeting from the meeting held on 9 January 2014 was circulated.

 

14/7/WCAC

Regarding the installation of notices to bar cycling on the footpaths across Christ’s Prices and New Square, the Environmental Projects Manager had confirmed that a legal byelaw relating to both mentioned areas allowed the City Council to prohibit cycling wherever the Council decided on the land. Existing signs already prohibit cycling on the designated public footpaths, by their designation should only be used as footpaths, unless the City Council (as landowner) permitted otherwise. A proposal to improve the signage had been issued to Market Ward Councillors for approval as part of the West/Central Environmental Improvement Programme.

 

13/70/WCAC

An outstanding action to write to the Police Commissioner, Sir Graham Bright, enquiring what action was being taken against those drivers who break the 20mph speed limit in the City, had been superseded by the Committee’s agreement to the Police Priorities set at the previous meeting. As part of the priorities it was agreed as part of the wider road safety priority the Police would focus on speed enforcement in risk areas, including the 20mph zones in the City (CLOSE).

 

13/58/WCAC

Councillor Cantrill reported that discussions were still on-going between the Council’s Arts and Recreation team and the University Sports Centre project team regarding concessionary rates, pay and play access to the gym facilities and the possibility of securing concessionary rates for room hire. If no solution had been reached within a month or so the matter would be escalated to Senior Officers and the matter reported back to Committee.

 

Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking                                                                                      7.50pm

Bev Nicolson

Accepting that road maintenance is a County responsibility; can anyone obtain some insight from them as to why they seem so reluctant to resurface the stretch of road opposite John Lewis? They have, for reasons best known to themselves, done this recently with a road that didn't need it (Newnham Road.) Meanwhile St Andrew's Street has been reported twice and all it gets is a patch fix which will inevitably deteriorate over time. I recall Councillors brought this up at the last meeting.

 

Councillor Cantrill explained that he had reported the problem with St Andrew’s Street to the website www.fixmystreet.com, after the issue had first been highlighted with the Committee in January.  A fix had been carried out but the road surface was deteriorating again. The issue had now been reported direct to County Council Officers and a permanent repair requested comparable to Newnham Road.

 

Councillor Hipkin stated that he had learnt from the County’s Highways department that a SCRIM test was undertaken to determine whether the road surface should be re-patched or repaired. As Newnham Road had failed the SCRIM test, a repair had been necessary which may not have been the case with St Andrew’s Street.

 

Councillor Reid acknowledged that there were lessons to be learnt to improve the flow of communication on what work was being undertaken and why. This could then be followed up if there were any outstanding issues.

 

Councillor Smith informed the Committee that she shared the concerns of Ms Nicolson and questioned how the work of the contract was overseen by the County Council.

 

Councillor Cearns expressed frustration at the low rate of road repairs in Cambridge compared to repairs taking place outside of the City.

 

Councillor Hipkin reiterated a point made at the previous meeting that Cambridgeshire County Council was facing large budget cuts which would impact on the repair programme in the City and that any repairs would have to wait until the new financial year.

 

Bev Nicolson

Can I ask what progress has been made with regard to applying road markings to the roads in the City Centre? Would officers consider white sets in the shape of cycles instead of paint as being more aesthetically pleasing?

 

Councillor Rosenstiel advised that the white sets would have to stand the weight of a bus being driven over them which would not have a long life span, therefore it would be better recommendation to have white arrows to show the direction of travel painted onto the tarmac.

 

Susan Stobbs

The state of Midsummer Common near to the public house, The Fort of St George is in a terrible after the wet winter. With the half marathon on the Common on Sunday (9 March 2014), verges will be destroyed. What preparations are in place to renovate the common to make it fit for purpose?

 

Councillor Reiner proposed that improvements to the verges could be considered as part as the Environmental Improvement Programme and welcomed a suggestion that paths could be widened temporarily to protect the grass when events on the Common were taking place.

 

Anthony Bowen

Can Balfour Beatty’s plan for replacing the City’s lamps be discovered and made know?

 

Councillor Cearns informed the Committee that while the County Council planned to replace the City’s street lights for more energy efficient lighting, he had spent the last few months working with the County Council and Balfour Beatty to discuss what could be done to save some of the heritage street lighting, as there were concerns from residents regarding the potential loss of these lights. Discussions were still on-going and a member-lead review had been requested as local members had not been involved in the decision making process. It was hoped a resolution would be reached or the matter could be brought back to a future area committee meeting.

 

Councillor Rosentiel stated that there were examples in the City of where historic street lamps had successfully been refurbished such as those on Millington Road and questioned why it could not be done elsewhere in the City.

 

Jean Simpson

Eden Street is a narrow street closed by bollards preventing traffic entering Fitzroy Street. The road widens at the bollard end to allow vehicles to turn. Large, long lorries frequently turn at this point, but in order to do so completely straddle the road mounting the pavement and gardens and are often within inches of resident's front doors. I, along with other residents, have corresponded over many months with both City and County councillors but nothing has happened.

The problems are-.

·        The sign at the entrance to the road saying NO TURNING FOR LONG VEHICLES has been removed. This was requested by one resident only in order to have information sited where vehicles entering both from Prospect Row and Elm street could see it. It has not been replaced in well over a year.

·        Sat-nav systems do not recognise Eden Street as a cul de sac and given no notice at the entrance to the road, delivery lorries get to the end of the road and then have to make this difficult and dangerous turn.

·        A proposal for an additional parking space sited at the turning end of the road has been made. This would make it impossible for long vehicles to turn. Many residents have raised objections but we have had no acknowledgement of our concerns. Already many cars with blue badges park here while people shop in the Grafton centre, sometimes making it impossible even for residents' cars to turn easily.

 

I would be grateful if the Committee could address these issues without any further delay.

 

Councillor Rosenstiel replied that the County Council had agreed to a local traffic budget for work to be undertaken on Eden Street, although the scheme was currently in the outline stages. The information supplied by Sat-Nav systems which showed Eden Street as an access road was incorrect, but neither the County Council nor the City Council did not have the designated power to ensure that Sat Navs displayed the correct information. 

 

 

 

Andrew Petrie

I feel that as you turn into Newmarket Road (either left or right) from Auckland Road, there is not enough visibility from the right. I have nearly collided with vehicles approaching as it is very difficult to see them coming until the very last moment. This danger is compounded by the Pedestrian crossing, and also vehicles sometimes leaving Napier St at the same time. If anything could be done to improve visibility, I think this would be a good idea as I believe this is an accident black spot in waiting.

 

Councillor Bick recommended that the matter should be looked at in greater detail and the findings referred back to Mr Petrie (ACTION).

 

Tania Oram

Dogs on Midsummer Common should be on lead, but they are not. I find some of them very frightening. Should there be more control and enforcement? Also some of the dogs are cow-size, should we restrict certain breeds and sizes?

 

Councillor Kightley responded that it must be the responsibility of the owners to ensure that their dogs were well-behaved when off the lead but the commons must be seen as places where dogs can be allowed to run free.

 

It was suggested extra signage on the gates to the Common could be used to remind dog owners of their responsibility.

 

Susan Stobbs, a member of the public, remarked that Midsummer Common was a wonderful space for dogs but they should be kept on leads when on the paths due to the amount of pedestrians and cyclists.

 

Councillor Reiner would respond direct to Dr Oram on this issue (ACTION).

 

 

Jo Hefford

Should time/circumstances permit, Christchurch St Residents are wondering about our lamp posts (you emailed recently about those in Maids Causeway). We believe some tests were carried out on the columns. You no doubt read in the local paper about similar concerns in Blinco Grove where residents were asked if they would contribute to extra cost of "heritage" (Disneyish in my view) columns. I believe the contract with Balfour Beatty should have included any extra costs of adapting cast iron columns in order to meet the City Council's design guidance where these columns are in Conservation Areas. I understand that there are difficulties about the costing of the whole contract so I wonder if the cast iron columns could be varied out of the contract. If the electrical supply/ luminaires need attention this could then be addressed separately.

 

Councillor Kightley advised that the issue of street lighting had been discussed earlier in the forum and asked the Committee to note the comments. 

 

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

 

8.20pm

The Committee noted the decision.

 

A member of the public, Mr Bowen asked why the bench on Jesus Green had not been comprised in the Seating Improvement Project as he believed that this had originally been included.

 

Councillor Kightley asked the Committee Manager to contact the relevant Officer to make the necessary enquire (ACTION).

 

8.25pm

The Committee received a report from the Community Engagement Officer.

 

The report referred to approval required for the project appraisal for the capital grant of up to £150,000 to St. Mark’s Church towards the cost of improvements to the community centre. Provisional funding for the capital grant had been agreed by the Committee on 14 November 2013.

 

The Committee were informed that the improvements to the community facilities would comprise:

 

• An extension to provide enlarged kitchen.

• A new lobby area.

• Canopy to provide cover.

 

Councillor Kightley invited Mr Jones and Mr Wagner, representatives of St Mark’s Church to address the Committee.

 

Both Mr Jones and Mr Wagner spoke of the improvements that would be made as a result of the funding and thanked the Committee for their continued support.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) subject to relevant planning approval and completion of the Council’s Capital Grant Agreement to approve the capital grant of up to £150,000 to St. Mark’s Church towards the cost of improvements to the community centre. 

 

8.45pm

The Committee received a report from the Community Engagement Officer.

 

The report referred to approval required for the project appraisal for the capital grant of up to £100,000 to St. Agustine’s Church towards the cost of improvements to the community facilities. Provisional funding for the capital grant had been agreed by the Committee on 14 November 2013.

 

Councillor Kightley invited Mr Footit, a representative of St Augustine’s Church to address the Committee.

 

Mr Footit, spoke of the improvements that would be made to the community facilities and went on to express his thanks to the Committee for their support. The Committee were advised that additional funding had been secured for works at the rear of the building, the refurbishment of the existing toilet block and improvements to a small kitchenette, all of which would improve the amenities for all the community.

 

Councillor Hipkin stated that he would like to pay tribute to Mr Footit and his team for their hard work in ensuring that St Augustine remained a vibrant hub in the community.

 

Councillor Cantrill stated that both projects were the ideal templates for developing contributions. Both facilities were used by numerous community groups and the improvements would enhance the user’s experience.

 

Councillor Bick suggested that a register of community amenities which had received public funding should be published which would assist with promotion of the facilities.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) subject to relevant planning approval and completion of the Council’s Capital Grant Agreement, to approve the capital grant of up to £100,000 to St. Augustine’s Church towards the cost of improvements to the community facilities.

 

9.05pm

The Committee received a presentation from the Project Officer, Cycling Projects Team, Cambridgeshire County Council.

 

The presentation referred to the County Council’s proposals for the traffic and road safety improvements on the City bound side of Huntingdon Road between Girton Road and Oxford Road. The proposals aimed to improve conditions for pedestrians, bus users and cyclists. Public consultation for the scheme had started on 4 March until 7 April 2014.

 

The Committee were shown three separate design options developed for the public consultation showing:

 

     i.        Fully segregated cycleway.

    ii.        Raised kerb (hybrid) segregated cycleway.

   iii.        Combination of  hard  kerb  and  raised  kerb  segregated cycleway.

 

The benefits of the above schemes were as follows:

 

     i.        Cyclists would travel on a quick, direct, continuous route, without the need to negotiate obstacles or parked vehicles.

    ii.        Reduction in stress levels for motorists.

   iii.        Cyclists who currently cycled on the pavement would feel safer on the new cycle lane. 

  iv.        Pedestrians would benefit from reduced cycling on the footway and from the buffer that the new cycleway offered from the main traffic lane.

 

Extra width required by the new cycleway would be achieved by reducing the central hatching on the road and some of verge and footway.

 

The Committee were informed that new ‘floating bus stops’ would be introduced with the cycle lane will go behind the bus stop. Bus passengers would wait on the footway and cross the cycle lane to the ‘bus boarder’ to board the buses. This would negate the need for cyclists to have to go round stationary buses at stops or negotiate buses pulling in and out of stops. The cycle lane would narrow through the bus stop area to slow cyclists down.

 

Martin Lucas-Smith, Chairman of Cambridge Cycling Campaign informed the Committee that he welcomed the proposals which he believed would encourage new cyclists on to the roads  which would help to prevent gridlock as the size of Cambridge increased.

 

Members Comments:

 

     i.        Welcomed the proposals.

    ii.        Questioned if there would there be a risk to pedestrians with disabilities crossing?

   iii.        Queried if there had been any reported accidents to pedestrians on the Brighton Scheme as shown in the presentation.

  iv.        Asked who would get priority on a dual style crossing?

   v.        What would happen when the cyclists reached the end of the scheme, as confidence could be lost when cyclists came off a dedicated cycle route.

  vi.        Would cyclists turn just turn right on cycle zebra crossing?

 vii.        Would Cars have to queue behind stationary buses if they had to wait in carriage way of floating bus stops?

viii.        Some cyclists could encounter aggressive motorists particularly when straying out of the designated cycle lane. Therefore the raised kerb hybrid) segregated cycleway would be the preferred option.

 

The Chair thanked the Project Officer for her presentation and advised of the importance of engaging public opinion of the scheme. Any of three options would be welcomed would help to change the nature of cycling in Cambridge and increase confidence of cyclists. Finally it was concluded that it would be beneficial if the scheme could be extended in future.

 

The Committee is asked to agree the following meeting dates: 

 

Tuesday    17 June 2014

Thursday   21 August 2014

Thursday   9 October 2014

Thursday   11 December 2014

Thursday   5 February 2015

Thursday   2 April 2015

 

Members are asked to contact the Committee Manager in advance of the meeting with any comments regarding the above dates.

 

 

 

 

The Committee received from the Committee Manager two sets of West / Central Area Committee Meeting dates for the municipal year 2014/15.

 

After a brief discussion it was agreed that neither set of meeting dates were suitable and that some meetings may have to be moved from Thursday’s to accommodate the diary for six meetings in the year.

 

The Committee:

 

Agreed that a third set of meeting dates should be sent direct to the Committee for consideration and approval.