Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Ratcliffe.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 30 September & 3 December 2015.

The minutes of 30 September 2015 and 3 December 2015 were approved and signed by the Chair.

The following actions were closed:

 

15/105/WCAC: Heavy goods vehicles on Huntingdon Road: To write to Cambridgeshire Constabulary supporting the need for action, highlighting the distress this issue has caused to residents and stressing the need of enforcement.

 

15/115/WCAC: Parking on Midsummer Common: To arrange a meeting with residents, Councillor Bick, Alistair Wilson and Jane Connell (Principal Solicitor) to discuss this matter further.

 

15/115/WCAC: Beth Shalom Reform Community Centre: To arrange an onsite meeting with residents and the Head of Property Services to discuss the matter further.

 

15/127/WCAC: Pedestrian crossing with audible signals across St Andrews Street: To speak with Officers regarding the installation of a pedestrian crossing with audible signals across St Andrews Street.

 

The following action would be brought to Committee at the next West Central Area Committee on 20 April 2016.

 

15/127/WCAC Trinity College: Temporary Car Park at the top of Queens Road Site, the ‘Backs’ at entrance to Trinity College:  To investigate how long Trinity have permission

 

 

 

Name	Item	Reason
Councillor Reid	16/6//WCAC	Personal: Trustee for the proposed Ice Skating Rink on Newmarket Road.

 

Jane Rossitor-Smith:  Is the agreement between the City of Cambridge and the North Pole in the public domain, what are the financial benefits to the City?

 

The Green Open Space Manager advised that the financial benefits were set out in the schedule of agreement with a profit share of up to £25,000. The profit share was 50/50 on net profit. The City Council should find out their profit share on 28 February 2016 which may be made public.

 

Councillor Bick:  Does the City Council charge rent for the use of the space occupied by the North Pole Experience on Midsummer Common?

 

The Green Open Space Manager advised that the schedule of agreement set out the fees payable on the rent. 

 

Member of the Public:  The area occupied by the North Pole Experience has been left unusable for a period of time and is there a charge for the loss of amenity value.

 

The Green Open Space Manager acknowledged that there was a recreational loss due to the extreme wet weather conditions over the Christmas period but the space had been used by 80,000 people over the Christmas period. 

 

Penny Heath:  Could S106 money be used for the small footbridge by Cobbetts, the corner off Grange Road into Burrells Walk?

 

Councillor Cantrill advised that there was specific funding still available and explained that Cambridge University had been measuring the volume of cyclists that used the bridge from the West Cambridge side before moving forward on this project,

 

Councillor Reid informed those present that the University of Cambridge had formed a consultation group specifically for the development of West Cambridge. The group were in the process of organising two meetings, one of which would consider transport when this issue would be raised again.

 

 

 

Colin Rosenstiel: Could both Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire County Council look to improve the junction at St Andrew Street and Downing Street. There is a problem for cyclists turning right into Downing Street; there can be conflict with pedestrians due to the large volume who cross there as both the pavement and cycle lanes are very narrow.

 

Councillor Cearns explained that this area had been looked at by the County Council Signal Team who had advised that the current arrangement was the best arrangement.

 

A bid for funding under the Local Highways Improvement Scheme for the junction at Emmanuel and St Andrews Street where similar issues were experienced had recently been rejected. Comments would be taken back to Officers but it was unlikely that anything could be done.

 

John Lawton:  At a recent meeting of the City Council’s Planning Committee, the application for an eight story block of apartments on East Road had been granted planning permission. I would question if the planning system was in melt down in the City.

 

Councillor Bick agreed the decision had been disappointing. There was also an unsatisfactory lack of social housing on the application. It was clear that the City Council would struggle to meet its social housing targets.

 

Councillor Hipkin stated that the Planning Committee was in a state of nervousness regarding the cost of refusing an application and reminded those present of the cost of Wilton Terrace where the decision of refusal had been overturned on appeal.

 

Expressing frustration at how the City was being developed, Councillor Hipkin advised there were no planning requirements in terms of the height; any planning documents or agreement which limited the height of a building, but that it was down to judgement. Officers had given a valid response to refuse the East Road application due to the reason of height but not all of the Committee had agreed.

 

 

 

Councillor Gillespie expressed disappointment at the unwillingness to challenge the planning application and specified if documentation from the Eastern Gate Development Plan had been taken into consideration this would have made the application very weak.

 

Colin Rosenstiel identified that transport issues on the East Road application had been ignored; if cyclists followed the traffic management plan they would be able to enter the development but would have difficulty exiting.

 

Martin Lucas Smith informed the Committee that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign had produced a fourteen page document on why the application should be rejected on the grounds of transport issues. This had been ignored by both City Council and County Council Officers and the Planning Committee. The Eastern Gate Development Document did not include good transport connections and a proper plan was required.

 

Richard Taylor: The Jesus Green notice board is still out of date. Could the Council take over the administration of the notice board?

 

Councillor Cantrill advised that the administrators for the Jesus Green notice board had been contacted previously and the matter would be looked into further.

To welcome Alistair Wilson, Green Space Manager, Cambridge City Council and Richard Elmer, Managing Director, The Ice Box, for a Question & Answer Session on the Ice Rink on Parker's Piece over the Christmas period.

Councillor Cantrill welcomed Alistair Wilson, Green Open Space Manager, Cambridge City Council and Richard Elmer, Managing Director, The Ice Box.

 

The Green Open Space Manager thanked the Committee for the opportunity to discuss feedback on the event which had taken place during the wettest December on record. This had created a number of problems, some of which were still being dealt with as a consequence of the bad weather.

 

The types of Issues that had been raised by the public concerned noise levels from the event, the outer hoarding around the North Pole Experience, light pollution, the increase in the number of fairground rides and the length of time that the event had been held on Parker’s Piece.

 

The Green Open Space Manager concluded that Cambridge City Council had agreed a five year contract, the event would be in its fourth year in 2016; the contract did allow an opportunity for change and provided an income to the City Council

 

Mr Elmer began by explaining that the goal for 2015 had been to provide entertainment for local residents, national and internal visitors of all ages in a safe environment, which could compete, with Cities across the Country.

 

The North Pole Experience had attracted a high footfall for the City and it had been reported in The Times newspaper as ‘the number one thing to do on a Sunday’, the following marketing figures were then quoted:

 

•        Total press coverage (online/print/TV & radio) – 120 pieces

•        Total coverage reach – 20,533,951

•        Total coverage value – £154,999

•        Total PR value – £464,998

 

Visitors’ attractions were as follows:

 

•        Over 30,000 ice skaters

•        Over 40,000 tickets to rides and games

•        Over 15,000 people served at the food and drink outlets

•        Over 1,300 children visited Santa’s Grotto

•        Over 82,000 unique visitors through the gates at The North     Pole 2015.

•        35.05% only visited Cambridge City Centre because of The    North Pole.

•        Out of the 35.05%, 53.63% spent money in Cambridge outside of The North Pole

 

Mr Elmer concluded that the outer safety hoarding would be reviewed and would provide additional hard standing surfaces. For all the planning that had taken place to organise the event, the wettest winter on record could not have been predicated, which had an adverse impact on the Piece.

 

Comments from the public:

 

i.    Had previously welcomed the North Pole Experience which had been an asset to the City until 2015. Now there were issues with the size of the event, the overall look, the increase in noise and light pollution and the length of time the event had been on for. All of which had an adverse effect on the surroundings and local residents.

ii.   Enquired if Parker’s Piece was the most appropriate location for the event if it continued in its current form.

iii.  Appreciated that there needed to be vehicle movement on the Piece but asked if there was anything that could be done to reduce the damage for future use.

iv.  For City Council Officers to advise that the Piece would be good enough to use in the summer months was not a suitable response.

v.   Enquired what the statistics of visitors to the North Pole Experience had stayed in the City overnight.

vi.  Expressed concern at the length of time that the part of the Piece which had been used by the North Pole Experience was out of action to other leisure users.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

    i.       Originally the proposal had been brought to the City Council’s Planning Committee as an ice rink on the centre of Parker’s Piece. It had become a fun fair with an ice rink surrounded by fencing that was different to the original vision which had been approved.

  ii.       Requested to know how many people had visited the North Pole Experience for the ice rink only in December 2015.

 iii.       Asked when there had been no fun fair as in previous years if a profit had been made. In the first year it was reported to have lost £55,000, so was it financially viable to hold the event.

iv.       Believed that the reputation of the City had been damaged and reiterated this was not the vision that had first been presented to the City Council five years ago.

  v.       Questioned why the hoarding surrounding the North Pole Experience was deemed acceptable.

vi.       Questioned if Environment Health Officers had visited the site to test the noise.

vii.       Recommend an open debriefing meeting for open to all members of the public on this matter as had previously been held for Strawberry Fair while in its infancy. 

viii.       Suggested that City Council Officers and representatives from The Ice Box should attend the West Central Area Committee in September meeting so that pre scrutiny of the planned 2016 could be undertaken. Cambridge City Councillors and County Councillors elected to the newly formed tourism service ‘Visit Cambridge and Beyond’ should also be invited.

 

The Green Open Space Manager and Mr Elmer made the following statements:

 

    i.       Could not provide the information on the number of visitors to the North Pole Experience who had stayed overnight in the City.

  ii.       Noise and lighting levels had been signed off by the Planning Conditions which had been adhered to but this could be revisited.

 iii.       Two thirds of visitors had attended for the sole use of the ice rink. However the fun fair was an integral part of the experience without there would be no financial profit.

iv.       The hoarding was a safety requirement that could not be taken away, however for 2016/2017 the hoarding would be painted to make it more attractive to the surroundings.

  v.       Confirmed that Environmental Health Officers did attend to monitor the noise levels during December.

vi.       Agreed to come back to the West Central Area Committee meeting in September to scrutinise the plans for 2016/17.

vii.       Advised that the fairground attractions had not sunk in the mud but the ground had been dug up by the telehandler brought in to clear the site.

viii.       Confirmed that the plans for 2016/17 would be the experience more intimate reducing the number of fairground attractions.

 

Councillor Cantrill asked Officers to investigate the possibility of a public meeting to discuss the matter of the North Pole Experience in more detail and thanked both Mr Wilson and Mr Elmer for their presentation. 

The Committee received a report from Inspector Misik regarding Policing and Safer neighbourhood trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the West Central Area Committee of the 30 September 2015 on the priorities that had been set. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted. A copy of the report can be viewed at the following link: http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=117&MId=2894&Ver=4

 

Comments from members of the public:

 

       i.        Asked if the breakdown of the type/ level of injury from violent crime in the City Centre could be detailed in future reports and suggested that this should be made a priority.

      ii.        Stated that there was no traffic speed measurements found on the police website and asked if this information could be supplied as it used to be available.

     iii.        Past experience as a Speed Watch volunteer was that there had been no follow up from the Police on those motorists who had been speeding.

         

Comments from the Committee:

 

     i.        Surprised to read in the report that 58% of the licensed premises which were visited were not compliant with their licensing conditions and asked when these visits had been undertaken and what actions had been carried out.

    ii.        Enquired if it was correct that Speed Watch volunteers worked during day light hours only. The majority of speeding, particularly on Huntingdon Road took place after dark when there was less traffic on the roads.

   iii.        Asked if the Police could provide information to cyclists (particularly young people) as to where they were permitted to cycle and areas which was restricted in and around the City.

  iv.        Enquired if there was a strategy for cycle theft in the City. Students had been told that this was an organised crime and therefore should be made a priority.

   v.        Enquired if additional information could be supplied on Hate Crimes in the City at future meetings.

  vi.        Suggested an amendment to the City Council’s budget to promote the Speed Watch scheme.

 vii.        Noted there seemed to be a lack of enforcement for ‘dodgy driving’ offences, such as ignoring signage, taking short cuts, such as when the raising bollards were not working, for example those on Adam and Eve Street.

viii.        Congratulated the Police on ‘Operation Manzano’ which had been referenced in the report.

  ix.        Encouraged to hear the Police highlighting Hate Crime.

 

The Safer Communities Manager and Sergeant Misik made the following statements:

 

     i.        Statistics to show the breakdown between violent crime with injury and without injuries were supplied by Addenbrookes hospital and the ambulance service.

    ii.        These figures were published quarterly on the City Council website which could be included in the West Central Area Committee Police priority report. It would not be possible to break these figures down to ward level.

   iii.        Could not confirm if Addenbrookes would supply data to show actual injuries.

  iv.        Advised that serious injuries were decreasing and those without injuries (low level assaults) were on the increase.

   v.        Could not provide specific detail of the licenced premises infringement as was not part of the team. Further work would be undertaken with Cambridge City Council’s Licensing department.

  vi.        Speed Watch sent information to the Police who would then send a letter to individual drivers to warn them of their driving. PSCO’s could also request Police speed checks if they had witnessed a number of vehicles speeding on a particular road. 

 vii.        Universities needed to educate their students regarding cycling around the City.

viii.        Each year representatives from the Police and Cambridge City Council’s Safer Communities team spoke to new students about road safety, cycling in the City and how to prevent their cycles from being stolen.

  ix.        Had not witnessed organised crime with regards to bike theft, this was usually carried out by individuals. 

 

 

 

 

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to set the following priorities:

 

1a          Continue with Licensed Premises Enforcement Visits. 

1b          Violent Crime in the City Centre.

2            Traffic Junction Enforcement (all road users).

3            Cycle theft.

To receive an update on the City Deal programme, including the A428 consultation.

 

The Committee welcomed the Greater City Deal Programme Director to the meeting, who provided a general update on the City Deal.

 

The Greater City Deal Programme Director explained that the City Deal would help Greater Cambridge to maintain its status as a prosperous economic area, working to Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Local Plan to ensure securing business investment, innovation and economic growth, shared prosperity, housing and affordable homes and to tackle congestion and transport, improve public transport, cycling and walking routes in and around the City.

 

The City Deal would:

     i.        Create an infrastructure investment fund.

    ii.        Accelerate the delivery of 33,000 planned homes by 2031, with an estimated increase in population of up to 25% to 345,000.

   iii.        Enable delivery of 1,000 extra new homes on rural exception sites

  iv.        Deliver over 400 new apprenticeships for young people

   v.        Provide £1bn of local and national public sector investment, enabling an estimated £4bn of private sector investment in the Greater Cambridge area

  vi.        Create 40,000 extra jobs by 2031 and increase research jobs from 53,000 to 80,000.

 vii.        Create a governance arrangement for joint decision making between local councils.

 

The City Deal Funding Overview:

     i.        Up to £500m for transport infrastructure, payable in 3 tranches.

    ii.        Tranche 1: £100m 2015-20

   iii.        Tranche 2: Potentially up to £200m 2020-25

  iv.        Tranche 3: Potentially up to £200m 2025+

   v.        Tranches 2 and 3 depend on independent economic    assessments.

  vi.        Aligns with other local capital investment from development and Councils.

 

 

The Greater City Deal had carried out two public consultations on the A428 and the Chisholm Trail, both of which generated a high level of response from the public.

 

The Histon and Milton Road public consultation was still open and the Greater City Deal Programme Director encouraged people to take part and provide their opinion. Plans for the Western Orbital were also in the public domain.

 

For further details on these schemes could be found in the minutes of a meeting of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board who would met on 3 March 2016, at the  following link:

http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=1074

 

Further information could be found on the Greater City Deal Website at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/

 

Comments from members of the public:

 

     i.        Would like to see more proactive communication concerning the City Deal.

    ii.        Enquired if there was any evidence concerning the A428 consultation of tactical voting.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

     i.        Questioned if the various schemes mentioned would be delivered on time as agreed with Central Government and if the projected economic growth would be generated.

    ii.        Enquired how the consultation results influenced the outcome of the decisions undertaken.

   iii.        Residents had expressed concern that there did not seem to be the necessary information to show the plans for the western orbital, for example the graphic showed three lines on and along the M11 which did not provide any detail or explanation of how and when the park and ride buses would run.

  iv.        Asked where would a bus road to the East or West of the M11 be positioned and advised that further information on the park and ride was required.

   v.        Noted the online questionnaire regarding the Western Orbital did not allow for multiple options.

  vi.        Enquired how data from the Hack Cambridge event would be used by the City Deal, if at all, as the January event or future events 

 vii.        It was noted that ‘Hack Cambridge’ in January or future events had not been very well published.

viii.        Suggested that a similar event the Cycle Hack Event planned for June 2016 could be used by Officers to look at data to improve cyclist routes in and around the City. Was there or could there be some form of joint working?

  ix.        Enquired how the City Deal Board could be sure that they could deliver what had been promised.

 

In response the Programme Director made the following statements:

 

     i.        The City Deal Board was officially set up in early January 2015 and had agreed their priorities.

    ii.        Agreed that the targets for delivery of schemes were a challenge but these targets had been approved with Central Government and needed to be delivered. The delivery would result in economic growth investment in the local area.

   iii.        Welcomed suggestions on how communication could be improved which could be e- mailed to the Greater City Deal Team.  City.Deal@cambridgeshire.gov.uk

  iv.        Consultation results were important factors when making decisions; in terms of the A428 consultation the report would go to the Executive Board for the March meeting which would provide an update on the scheme and ask the Board to further consider the three options at the September meeting.

   v.        The Western Orbital consultation provided a number of options for the public to consider.

  vi.        Reiterated earlier comments for the Committee and the public to take part in all public consultation to have their say.

 vii.        Acknowledged the success of Hack Cambridge and would pass on the comments regarding this event and Cycle Hack Cambridge to relevant Officers.

 

 

 

 

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) regarding environmental data which provided an overview of City Council Refuse and Environment and Streets and Open Spaces service activity relating to the geographical area served by the West/Central Area Committee.

 

Comments from members of the public:

 

i.        Suggested that litter picks on Burleigh Street and Fitzroy Street should be carried out later in the day as there seemed to be a large amount of rubbish on these streets.

ii.       Noted graffiti on the flats overlooking the Market Square in the City Centre and asked if and when it could be removed.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

i.        Questioned what could be done regarding the land that the Co-op on Histon Road stood on, the landlord had neglected the surrounding environment and needed to be made aware.

ii.       Large yellow signs had put up by the Council around Lamas Land which cluttered the area. Enquired if the impact that the signs had on the surrounding area had been considered and what evidence was there that these signs were required.

iii.      Enquired what could be done for streets in Newham where parked vehicles obstructed the mechanical sweeper which was deployed to sweep the carriageways.

iv.      Stated that leaves left in wet weather on the carriageways caused a danger to cyclists if not swept up and a better solution was required.

v.      Queried if on street parking areas could be closed off and if vehicles could park for free elsewhere in order for cleaning with mechanical sweeper to be undertaken.

vi.      Suggested if vehicles could not be moved to make the way for the mechanical sweepers, alternatives should be investigated such as machines that could sweep underneath the vehicles.

vii.     Agreed that there was an increase in litter on Burleigh Street and Fitzroy Street.

viii.    Suggested that the side roads to and from Burleigh Street and Fitzroy Street should also been cleansed and swept with as much regularity as the two main streets.

ix.      The report showed that recycling rates were stagnating or decreasing in the City and asked if it was possible to produce a breakdown between wards. Asked what could be done to increase the recycling rates.

x.      Advised that the ground between the railings on Drummer Street and Christ Piece’s had become a dumping ground for rubbish and requested that this could be looked at. Also the railings required repainting.

 

Councillor Cantrill reiterated the Committee’s thanks to the Operations Managers and her team for the ‘walk abouts’ that had taken place in West/ Central area and the efficient and effective work that Officers undertook.

 

In response the Operations Manager made the following statements:

 

i.        As the land and the car park on Co-op was privately owned it was a matter for the landlord. Agreed to speak with Enforcement Officers to investigate what action could be taken.

ii.       Would arrange for the removal of the yellow signs on Lamas Land. The signs had been previously used at Strawberry Fair to discourage camping.

iii.      Removal of the graffiti on the flats would not be an immediate fix as access was required. This needed to be arranged with the landlord of the properties and was being investigated.

iv.      Agreed to speak with the Senior Operations Manager regarding the litter picking on Fitzroy, Burleigh Street and the surrounding streets and would report back to the Committee at a future meeting.

v.      Litter picking around parked vehicles could be done easily as this was a manual task and litter. However it was not possible to move parked vehicles for the mechanical sweepers which did require clearance.

vi.      When a stretch of road that was usually congested was clear of parked vehicles this would be swept with a mechanical sweeper as part of the cleaning process. This was done in small stages was not a simple one, therefore it did not produce an instant result.

vii.     Had been advised from the Waste team that recycling rates were not available at ward level.

viii.    Agreed to speak to speak with the Recycling Team to ask what actions would and could be taken to increase recycling in the City. This would be included in the next report to Committee.

ix.      Noted the comments regarding the railings on Drummer Street.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to agree the following priorities:

 

1       Enforcement and City Ranger patrols in the City Centre to address issues of illegally deposited trade waste and littering.

         

         Justification: Littering and illegal deposited waste if left un-investigated can cause ongoing issues and encourage antisocial behaviour. This priority has been included as a continuation to balance the high standard of trade waste management and litter patrols already existing in the West/Central area and to continue to build upon this work further.

 

2       Early morning, daytime and weekend dog warden patrols for dog fouling on Grantchester Street, Lammas Land and surrounding areas.

         

         Justification: Dog fouling continues to be identified by the Dog Warden and members of the public who have recorded problems in the areas. A number of individuals spoken to have not been aware of dog control orders; this recommendation remains in order to balance education and enforcement. Further reports have been received that has identified an increase of dog fouling on the routes to and from the local school.

 

3       Proactive small scale graffiti and flyposting removal by City Rangers across the West/Central area.

         

         Justification: Work already conducted by the City Rangers has been positive and enhanced the areas where cleared. This recommendation is to continue this work as a priority for all the rangers covering the West/Central areas.

 

4       Ownership and cleansing of Garrett Hostel Lane ditches.

         

          Justification: Work to identify the ownership of Garrett Hostel Lane ditches is ongoing.

          Work on maintaining the cleanliness of the ditches is ongoing and remains a focus for the Operations team. No further updates have become available on land owners; however Operations staff continues to undertake regular cleansing.

 

5       Jesus Green ditch cleansing – looking at frequency of    activity.

         

          Justification: Work has already been undertaken in this area since July / August 2015 time, however in order to measure the success of this activity it is necessary to examine the effectiveness of weekly cleansing over a lengthy period of time and carrying this priority over into the summer months would allow for that.

 

6       Joint working patrols to address the issues of fly tipping at public recycling points.

        

         Justification: Fly tipping at Lammas Land, Adam and Eve Street and Castle Park recycling centre account for an increase in the fly tipping figures across the West area. Enforcement and ranger work to focus on these areas will balance education and enforcement to deter this problem.

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager exploring options for improving outdoor sports facilities in the West/Central Area using devolved S106 funding.

 

Discussions with local City and County Councillors since the Area Committee’s meeting in December 2015 had helped to gauge views on a range of possible proposals. This also highlighted scope to:

 

a.      choose from a couple of local project proposals deliverable in          the shorter-term, which would help to make timely use of a       S106 contribution with an ‘expiry date’ in late 2017; and

b.      keep some devolved outdoor sports S106 funding available until     later (ie, not allocating it all  now), in order to give time for other           possible, longer-term options to become clearer/more available.

 

As a separate issue, since the prioritisation of a local play area project in December, an alternative use of time-limited S106 play contributions from Castle ward had been suggested.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

i.      There was a case for keeping some of the devolved S106 funding in reserve as S106 funding was tapering off and running down.

ii.     Would favour a more modest scheme on Histon Road Recreation Ground, an area which was used by children from Castle ward and Arbury ward, rather than further improvements to the Shelly Row play area.

iii.    If S106 money was not spent, it would need to be given back to the developer and this risk should be avoided. Funding which had a time limit to be spent should be prioritised.

iv.    Agreed there was a need to take forward both the recommended outdoor sports proposals.

v.     Asked the Officer to clarify if there was scope on Histon Road Recreation Ground for a large piece of play equipment which would not be negated by accepting the recommendation in the report.

vi.    Enquired if it was possible to undertake a smaller project of works on the Christ’s Pieces tennis courts.

vii.   Queried if it was possible to undertake work on the Lamas Land paddling pool to stop vandalism.

The Urban Growth Project Manager made the following statements:

 

i.          The two outdoor sports projects recommended in the report was for the use of the time-limited, devolved outdoor sports S106 funding (due to expire in November 2017).  This was a separate issue from the time-limited, devolved play area S106 funding from Castle ward which had a May 2017 expiry date.

ii.         Reiterated that it would be possible to take forward both recommendations to upgrade the football area at Histon Road Recreation Ground and the tennis courts at Christ’s Pieces. However there would be very little devolved outdoor sports S106 funding left for the future.

iii.        Officers proposed still to consult on the proposed improvement to Shelly Row play area (which the Area Committee last December had agreed as one of its S106 priorities), but in the light of feedback from local ward councillors, were also minded to consult at the same time on the possibility of improving the play area at Histon Road Recreation Ground as well or instead.

iv.        Had investigated the option to undertake a smaller project of works on the Christ’s Pieces tennis courts but concluded that only upgrading two of the four courts would appear odd.

v.        It was questionable whether improvements to Lammas Land padding pool would be an eligible use of outdoor sports S106 funding. Firstly, it was not clear that this was the appropriate contribution type for a play area facility. Secondly, the main purpose of S106 funding was to mitigate the impact of local development: it cannot be used for repairs and maintenance.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to

 

A)      Prioritise both of the following proposals for the use of devolved outdoor sports S106 contributions, subject to project appraisal and further local consultation

i.        Up to £25,000 for an improved and more hard-wearing   football area at Histon Road Recreation Ground.

ii.       Up to £90,000 for upgrading the existing tennis courts at Christ’s Pieces, including a non-slip surface and improved court access.

B)      To widen the consultation on the prioritised Shelly Row play    area improvement project to include options for improving           Histon Road Recreation Ground play area as well or instead.

The Committee is asked to agree the following meeting dates:

 

Wednesday 3 July 2016

Thursday    29 September 2016

Wednesday 7 December 2016

Thursday    9 March 2017

 

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

 

The following meeting dates were agreed:

 

·        Tuesday 12 July 2016 (moved from Wednesday 13 July 2016).

·        Thursday 29 September 2016

·        Wednesday 7 December 2016

·        Thursday 9 March 2017

 

 

 

 

          i.             26 members of the public

         ii.             11 Councillors

       iii.             7 City Officers

       iv.             1 representative from Cambridge Constabulary