Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Hipkin

 

Councillors Richards and Payne sent apologies for late arrival due to work commitments.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Martinelli	19/7/WAC	Personal interest. Member of Christ’ Pieces Residents’ Association. Left the room for the consideration of this item and took no part in the discussion or vote.

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 29^th November 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Action sheet was noted and an updated copy can be viewed at the following link under ‘Committee Action Sheet’.

 

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=117&MId=3531&Ver=4

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

 

1.   A member of the public asked what the consultation process was for the hotel development at the Grafton Centre. Buses would be displaced onto East Road and this would add to congestion in the area.

 

Councillor Bick stated that he shared the concerns. The free flow of public transport needed to be protected. Moving buses to East Road would reduce the road to a single lane. Wider traffic concerns had not yet been resolved.

 

Councillor Gillespie stated that the area needed to be upgraded. He suggested that the buses currently using the area were too big for an urban location.

 

Councillor Nethsingha stated that Planning Committee had recently voiced concerns regarding the traffic consultations received from the County Council.

 

Councillor Bick stated that more details were needed from the County Council regarding their discussion with Greater Cambridge Partnership regarding long term traffic proposals.

Councillor Bick undertook to encourage better co-ordination between the Greater Cambridge Partnership and County Council about transport input provided to the planning system.

Action: Councillor Bick

 

Councillor Harrison stated that the County Council had reduced the numbers of staff available to review planning applications. Similar issues had arisen regarding other planning applications.

Councillor Harrison undertook to seek more information from the County Council.

Action: Councillor Harrison

 

2.   A member of the public raised concerns regarding future access to King’s Parade following security concerns.

 

A member of the public reported that this had been discussed at a recent CJAC meeting. The wider principle had been agreed and consultation would follow.

 

Councillor Nethsingha undertook to investigate this further and to request a briefing note.

Action: Councillor Nethsingha

 

3.   A. member of the public stated that the Neighbourhood Watch group in the McManus estate area felt that they get little support from the Police. When concerns are reported they get no feedback and rarely see any PCSO’s. The matter had been raised with Sergeant Misik.

 

Councillors suggested that all concerns be reported using the 101 number or the online form so that there was a complete record of any problems.

Councillor Scutt undertook to investigate the matter further.

Action: Councillor Scutt

 

4.   A member of the public raised concerns regarding the future of public access to the Cambridge Castle Motte (known locally as the Mound).

 

Councillor Nethsingha stated that the County Council had expressed a desire to keep the Mound open to the public and would be discussing it further at future meetings.

 

Councillor Scutt confirmed that a Friends of Castle Mound group had been established and an online petition had been opened.

 

Councillor Cantrill suggested that the Chair of West Central could write to the Leader of the City Councillor proposing that the City Council purchased the Mound to keep it in public ownership in perpetuity.

 

Councillor Nethsingha suggested that this option be deferred until more information was available on the County Council’s deliberations.

 

5.   Histon Road Area Residents' Association (HRARA) questioned the delays in delivering EIP projects and want to know when their suggestions for a bench and other improvement to the area around Mayfield School would be considered.

 

Councillor Nethsingha shared their frustration at the delays in getting EIP projects completed.

The Committee agreed that many project were stalled and expressed concerns future budget pressures could result in them not being delivered.

Councillor requested an update on outstanding EIP projects.

Action: EIP Projects Manager

 

6.   Councillor Gehring stated that he had received a number of emails from concerned citizens regarding a ‘Cow Trail’. The suggestions of plastic cows placed in iconic locations, as public art, was alarming to many people. West Central Committee need to know what consultation had, or would be, undertaken and who had agreed the project.

 

The Chair undertook to investigate this matter.

Action: Councillor Nethsingha / Committee Manager

 

The Committee also suggested that a briefing note or future agenda item on public art would be helpful.

 

7.   The Committee raised questions regarding consultations on Spaces and Movement SPD. Had the promised workshops been agreed?

 

Councillor Bick stated that the process had been delayed due to on-going discussions with the consultant regarding the scope and shape of the consultation.

 

The Committee requested an update on the SPD.

Action: Senior Planning Policy Officer

Located at Cambridgeshire County Council

Working on behalf of the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP)

 

Paul Rawlinson, Project Manager for the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership provided an oral update on Madingley Road Cycle and Walking Improvements as follows:

 

     i.        The Madingley Road Project was approved in December 2018 by GCP Executive

    ii.        The project scope was to provide a high quality, priority, cycle and walking route on both sides of the road from the Eddington Junction P&R access to but not including the roundabout at Northampton Street. This was envisaged to be a fully segregated route.

   iii.        The road was within a conservation area and information provided within the Cambridge City approaches document would be taken into account.

  iv.        There was a very strong lobby for improved cycle routes along the road, there were signs all along the road asking for this. Local and early engagement took place with residents, Members, Colleges and the Cycle Campaign on 20th February this was very well received.

   v.        A workshop would take place on 25 March where seeking a wide variety of views over what was expected from the development.

  vi.        This would be followed later with a workshop to discuss the emerging options.

 vii.        The intention was to go to public consultation in late summer early autumn and, if successful, with a report and recommendation going to GCP executive board in winter 2020.

viii.        If approved then the design would be completed by late 2020. This would be a technically complex piece of work and would require significant collaborative working with developers along the route.

  ix.        It is feasible work could start in 2021. With work taking 14 to 16 months, (largely due to restricted working hours).

   x.        There were a number of large schemes being developed in the City, such as Milton Road, Histon Road and there may be delays the start of work to prevent these all happening at once. More details will be provided when known.

  xi.        The cost of the scheme is currently being evaluated. The road had a number of complex technical issues, including significant level differences near the Eddington area and a great number of services all along the road.  An early estimate is between £4m and £6m.

 

The Project Manager responded to questions as follows:

 

1.   Councillor Gehring

What is the sequence of decisions regarding routes into the City? There are concerns that a cycle scheme could limit options for a future bus route.

 

There were currently no proposals beyond the West Cambridge site.

 

2.   Councillor Cantrill

Madingley Road was an important access route. Some years ago an access route document was produced as an initial guidance note. This might need to be updated.

 

The approaches document was a city document and discussions with the city were on-going.

 

3.   Councillor Payne

What approaches would be taken to junctions?

 

Treatment of junctions and interfaces would be a key feature of the project.

 

4.   Councillor Gillespie

Concerned that the work could be several years away and cycle use on the route was increasing.

 

Shared concerns regarding possible delays but stated that a holistic approach was needed. The Edington junction was particularly problematic and further scoping work would be needed.

 

5.   Councillor Harrison

Expressed disappointment that the project could be subjected to long delays. Suggested that a comprehensive strategy for the access route projects and delivery timetables should be drawn up and available to the public.

 

The Committee thanked the Project Manager and suggested he return to this Committee when more details were available.

The Committee received a report from the Senior Grants Officer regarding West Central Community Grants.

 

Members considered applications for grants as set out in the Officer’s report. The Senior Grants Officer responded to Member’s questions about individual projects and what funding aimed to achieve.

 

The amount available for each area is as follows:

 

Committee	Community Grants %	Total Available £
North	34.62	24,235
East	30.42	21,295
South	25.15	17,605
West Central	9.81	6,865
Total	100	70,000

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Grants Officer said the following:

     i.        There was a rolling program of funding that bids could be made for.

    ii.        Undertook to share with the formula for agreeing how the Area Committee Grants were shared across the four Committees as some members suggested that the current allocations were unfair.

   iii.        The application from ‘A Toy’s Life and Beyond’, had been refused as it did not meet the grant criteria, had not provided robust accounts and had been assessed as poor value for money.

  iv.        Confirmed that grants officers would assist any group that found the application process difficult. Stated that as the Committee was allocating public funds and needed to be accountable and transparent.

 

A member of the Public stated that the report lacked details and suggested that members should be provided with more information on the projects requested grants.

 

Members considered the grant applications received, officer comments and proposed awards, detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, in line with the Area Committee Community Grants criteria.

 

Some members suggested that the ‘A Toy’s Life and Beyond’ appeared to be a good project in principle. Members proposed a conditional offer of £400, subject to the group satisfying the grants criteria and the Sustainable City Grant team agreeing that their application was robust and grant funding them.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to agree the proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report and summarised in the table below and an additional, conditional offer as above.

 

Ref	Organisation	Purpose	Award
WC1	A Toy’s Life and Beyond CIC	Toy swop and recycling project	£0 £400 subject to the group satisfying the grants criteria and the Sustainable City Grant team agreeing that their application was robust and grant funding them
WC2	Christ's Pieces Residents’ Association	Talk for local residents	£200
WC3	Empty Common Community Garden	Opening event, landscaping, insurance	£300
WC4	Friends of Histon Road Cemetery	Information and activities	£750
WC5	Histon Road Area Residents’ Association	“A Community Remembers “ community project	£1,000
WC6	Friends of Midsummer Common	Community activities and maintenance of community orchard	£700
WC7	Mayfield Seniors Group	Transport for three trips	£500
WC8	New Life Church, Cambridge	"Eddies" - weekly community café at Storey's Field Centre	£750
WC9	Oblique Arts	Six creative workshops with exhibition for elderly people	£1,500
TOTAL			£5,700 £6,100

 

 

Dave.Sargent@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

The Committee received an oral presentation from Dave Sargent of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board. Details of the presentation can be found at:

 

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s45682/County%20Lines%20in%20Cambridgeshire%20area%20committee%20presentation.pdf

 

Dave Sargent responded to questions as follows:

 

1.   Councillor Harrison

Why is ‘County Lines’ distinctive as a phenomenon?

 

Dealers from London seeking to expand their territory looked towards affluent regional area where they hoped policing might be less robust. A key feature was the use of children who would not be charged with an offence if caught.

 

2.   Member of the Public (Friends of Midsummer Common)

Services for young people have been cut and there were no youth centres in the central area. The City Council could fund more services.

 

3.   Councillor Scutt

How can we protect vulnerable people from being exploited and having their properties used by dealers and how can we address the use of children?

 

There were very few interventions that were successful. Vulnerable children were attracted by gifts and money. The public should report it if they suspect a property has been taken over. This can be done anonymously and details can be found in the presentations (link above).

 

The Committee received a report from the Enforcement Team Leader. He outlined a change to the report format which would no longer contain specific recommendation. In future a holistic approach to issues arising across the West Central area would be taken.

 

The report provided an overview of the Council’s Streets and Open Spaces, Environmental Health and Shared Waste service activity in the Area Committee area over the past six months. 

 

The report provided open data on service performance, so that City and County Councillors and their constituents are informed of what service activity is happening in their area; and has the opportunity to engage in and help to shape this activity, including identifying specific local service requests / issues.

 

The Enforcement Team Leader responded to questions as follows:

 

1.   Councillor Bick

How often does the Market Ward working group meet and who is the contact person / Chair of the meeting?

 

The Enforcement Team Leader undertook to supply the investigation.

Action: Enforcement Team Leader

 

2.   Councillor Bick

Needle finds in the Kite area are on the increase and the locations appear to be known to Police. Can more prevention work be undertaken? If the areas are known why can’t safe disposal option be installed?

 

The public are invited to pass on information to the police. Work was on-going to educate user regarding safe disposal.

Installing disposal units might encourage more users to the area.

 

3.   Councillor Cantrill

Fly tipping is shown as an issue in Newham. However, this could be more of an issue to do with the recycling bins not being emptied often enough. The public then leave recycling next to the overflowing recycling bins.

 

The Enforcement Team Leader undertook to discuss this with the collections team.

Action: Enforcement Team Leader

 

4.   Councillor Gillespie

A strategy was needed to allow CCTV to be used in known drug hotspots.

 

Short term use of the mobile CCTV units might be an option.

The Enforcement officer undertook to investigate this further.

 

5.   Recent warms days saw the waste bins in the central area overflowing. How often are they emptied?

 

Parks were visited daily and any issues addressed.

 

6.   If residents or Councillors want to arrange community skips days to prevent fly tipping, what is the best point of contact?

 

The Enforcement Team Leader undertook investigate the best point of contact.

Action: Enforcement Team Leader

         

 

Suggested Dates for the Municipal Year 2019-2020

 

 20 June 19

 

12 September 19

 

5 December 19

 

5 March 20

 

20^th June 2019

12^th September 2019.

5^th December 2019 (See below)

5^th March 2020.

 

WCAC agreed dates for 2019/20 subject to review of 5 December 2019 as not all councillors would be able to attend.

 

5 December 2019 would remain the meeting date if an alternative could not be found.

 

Action Point: Committee Manager to clarify if WCAC wish to meet on an alternative date to 5 December 2019.