Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Reid who was away with on business with the Local Government Association.

Apologies were received from Councillors Gehring, Reid and Hipkin.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment to 16/5/WCAC Open Forum on agenda P8:

 

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 Officers and the Planning Committee. The Eastern Gate Development Document did not include good transport connections and a proper plan was required.

 

Councillor Cearns referred to the discussion of 16/6/WCAC North Pole Experience: Parker's Piece (P9 of the agenda). He felt the discussion had been cut short. Councillor Cantrill said this was because of the pre-election period. The Executive Councillor was not present at February’s West/Central Area Committee meeting, Councillor Cantrill had hoped the Executive Councillor would come and advise how decisions would be made for this year’s ice rink. The intention was to invite the Executive Councillor to a West/Central Area Committee meeting before summer to understand what changes are proposed for this year’s ice rink on Parkers Piece.

ACTION	LEAD OFFICER/MEMBER	TIMESCALE/ PROGRESS
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 to use that area as a temporary car park.	Councillor Nethsingha	20.12.15:  Councillor Nethsingha contacted the County to investigate the rights of way and advised that the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition in accordance with a scheme of works submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, on or before 31st January 2016. 11.02.16: Applicant is still using the space as a car park. To be discussed on the next WCAC meeting on 20/04/16. 20.04.16 Councillor Cantrill contacted the Enforcement Team who contacted the College who then submitted a retrospective planning application. Councillor Cantrill is minded to call this in for discussion by the City Council Planning Committee.

 

No declarations of interest were made.

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

 

1.       A member of the public raised the following issues:

                i.          Expressed concern regarding parking in Orchard Street.

              ii.          Said that parking was controlled Monday to Saturday, but not on Sunday. This led to issues with commuters and parking on the pavement.

           iii.          Queried how parking could be enforced without being a drain on police resources.

            iv.          Queried how to balance traffic control whilst protecting residents.

 

Councillor Bick said there had been misapprehension between single and double yellow lines in the consultation 4 years ago. Parking issues arose from this misapprehension which continued to date. Councillor Bick suggested reviewing the situation to see if residents wanted to opt for different ways to control traffic.

 

Councillor Cearns said he would raise Orchard Street Parking issues with highways authority officers.

 

Action Point: Councillor Bick to work with residents to review parking options for Orchard Street.

 

2.       A member of the public said that shoppers caused parking issues in the city centre.

 

Councillor Cearns said the County Council were embarking on a full scale review of on-street parking across the city. Options would be shaped by residents’ comments.

 

Councillor Gillespie said the Department of Transport were reviewing the right to park on pavements.

 

3.       A member of the public said parking spaces in Brandon Court were being used by commuters, which prevented legitimate users such as resident’s carers.

 

Councillor Cantrill said Brandon Court was private property so they should be able to take enforcement action.

 

4.       A member of the public expressed concern that parked taxis caused traffic congestion and safety issues in Emmanuel Road. This had been reported to the Police but no action had been taken.

 

Councillor Holland said that cross-cutting action was required across the city, as taxis were parking in residential areas, particular in Station Road. This could be a possible police priority for West/Central Area Committee (WCAC).

 

Councillor Cearns said the County Council were not invited to the Taxi Forum although it was responsible for the Highways Authority. The Forum would be a way to address issues with taxis. There was an intention to identify additional taxi ranks across the city as taxis were ranking up on roads and causing traffic flow issues. Emmanuel Road had not been a taxi rank for 2 years.

 

Action Point: Councillor Cearns to raise residents’ concerns regarding parked taxis causing traffic congestion in Emmanuel Road and Station Road. Situation exacerbated by taxis not parking in designated ranks.

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement.

 

The report outlined 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.  The report identified the reactive and proactive service actions undertaken in the previous quarter, including the requested priority targets, and reported back on the recommended issues and associated actions. It also included key officer contacts for the reporting of waste and refuse and public realm issues.

 

The following were suggestions for Members on what action could be considered for priority within the West Area for the period of March to May 2016.

 

Continuing priorities[1]

 

Number	Priority details
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 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 and Operations Team 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 and to expand it to all of the Operations officers within Streets and Open Spaces.
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.
5	Joint working patrols to address the issues of fly tipping at public recycling points.   Justification: Fly tipping at Lammas Land, Adam and Eve Street, Park 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.
6	Enforcement work to tackle the environmental crime issue of littering and trade waste at Histon Road shops, particularly outside the Co-op.   Justification: Trade waste and litter is problematic in this area and patrols have already identified a large volume of cigarette ends discarded on the floor. Patrols will identify litter and trade waste issues and take appropriate action to remedy the situation.

 

Members of the public raised the following issues:

       i.          Fly tipping near Milton Walk.

     ii.          Local walk abouts were a good way to highlight issues that needed to be quickly addressed.

   iii.          Rough sleepers across the city.

 

The Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement said her team were able to take action against people sleeping in tents on commons and council owned green spaces, but not rough sleepers, who were dealt with by the Police.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

       i.          Dog fouling in the Lammas Field area. Requested the Dog Warden patrol cover this area.

     ii.          Graffiti at Radcliffe Court.

   iii.          Adam & Eve Recycling Centre:

·       Fly tipping as bins were overflowing.

·       Bin lids were too heavy for some people to lift.

 

Action Point: The Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement to contact Waste Team regarding supplying appropriate bins at the Adam & Eve Recycling Centre eg the lids were too heavy for people to access current ones.

 

   iv.          Kings Parade litter bins overflowing.

    v.          Fly tipping and overflowing bins:

·       Park Street.

·       New Square (summer litter).

·       Jesus Green – overflowing cigarette bin.

   vi.          Damaged bins by the Fort St George (Pub) on Midsummer Common.

 vii.          Skips in Hardwick Street and Derby Street. Building Control Officers had been asked to monitor cleanliness issues.

 

Action Point: Wendy Young to liaise with Highways Authority Officers to refer issues caused by untidy skips in Hardwick Street and Derby Street.

 

viii.          A deep clean of the The Croft, particularly around the Co-op.

   ix.          Enforcement work to tackle the environmental crime issue of littering and trade waste at Histon Road shops and car parks.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to approve priorities for action as listed in the table above.

The Committee received a report from the Senior Engineer regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The report requested the Committee determined:

       i.          Whether to proceed with an EIP proposal to restrict the movement of traffic through Canterbury Street.

     ii.          Which of the proposed new EIP schemes were allocated funding as part of the 2016-17 Environmental Improvement Programme, as listed in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

 

Existing Schemes: Progress

The Senior Engineer referred to progress on approved schemes as set out in his report.

 

New Schemes That Require Decisions

Members considered a number of 2016/17 schemes put forward for approval.

 

Councillors introduced projects listed in Appendix A of the Officer’s report, then spoke in support, with contributions from members of the public.

 

Action Point: Senior Engineer to investigate funding available for Appendix C project 19 Warwick Road / Windsor Road passageway: Implementing a demarcation line on the pavement to separate cyclists and pedestrians.

 

Following discussion the Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

       i.                    Resolved (unanimously) to defer until 12 July 2016 WCAC the decision to determine whether to proceed with an EIP proposal to restrict the movement of traffic through Canterbury Street, or reallocate the funding agreed (circa £12,250) to other potential projects. This would give residents an opportunity to undertake a consultation which would feed into WCAC’s deliberation in July.

     ii.                    Resolved (unanimously) to allocate the £36,380 additional EIP budget for 2016-17 to the list of proposed projects in Appendix A of the Officer’s report (except WC4 Jesus Green netball/basket ball hoop pilot [resolved by 5 votes to 1]) subject to:

a.    Action Point: Head of Property Services to investigate funding available to remove redundant phone boxes from Fitzroy/Burleigh Street (WC5). The intention is for WCAC to matchfund the Grafton Centre site owner to undertake work (£5,000 contribution from each party).

b.    Action Point: Senior Engineer to investigate funding available to repair/replace the bench/planter in Jesus Lane (WC6). Also a bin to be sourced from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement.

   iii.                    Resolved (unanimously) to approve those projects for implementation, subject to the schemes being deliverable, obtaining consents necessary, positive consultation where required and final approval by Ward Councillors.

   iv.                    Resolved (unanimously) to note the progress of existing schemes listed in Appendix C of this report.

    v.                    Resolved (unanimously) to consider a second EIP application invitation round during 2016-17 to utilise any funding uncommitted from the present round plus any savings arising from the delivery of previously committed schemes.

 

Councillors asked the Senior Engineer to specify in a future report how much funding would be available to allocate in a second round of EIP projects.

 

Suggested second round projects:

       i.          Councillor Holland: Double yellow lines in Halifax Road near Sydenham Terrace.

     ii.          Councillor Holland: Identify who was responsible for the maintenance of red pillar boxes eg in Newnham.

   iii.          Councillor Gillespie: Benches on New Square.

 

Action Point: Senior Engineer to investigate if s106 funding was more appropriate for benches on New Square.

 

   iv.          Councillor Nethsinga: City centre drop kerb in the Market Square.

    v.          Projects identified to Ward Councillors from members of the public.

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding & Development Manager regarding applications received to date for 2016-17 funding for projects in the West Central Area. The Officer’s report made recommendations for awards and provides information on the eligibility and funding criteria.

 

Members considered applications for grants as set out in the Officer’s report, and table below. The Community Funding & Development Manager responded to Member’s questions about individual projects and what funding aimed to achieve.

 

West Central Area Committee Councillors were recommended:

 

2.1          To consider 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 detailed in paragraph 3.6.

 

2.2          To agree the proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 and summarised in the table below:

 

Ref	Organisation	Purpose	Award £
WC1	Christ's Piece Residents' Association	Cost of 1 talk	290
WC2	Friends of Histon Road Cemetery	Running costs	500
WC3	Friends of Midsummer Common	Maintenance of Community Orchard	445
WC4	Sustrans	Fortnightly social walks	1,500

 

Budget available	£8,520
Total awards	£2,735
Budget remaining	£5,785

 

A member of the public made a number of comments, as set out below.

 

1.       The complicated application form and submission process deterred people from applying for funding.

 

The Community Funding & Development Manager said:

                 i.          Officers offered workshops to guide groups through the forms and process and were happy to meet people to discuss funding applications and offer support to complete forms on an individual basis. The CCVS also offered support. The form for area committees had been simplified and collected the minimum criteria to enable consistent assessments to be made. Policy requirements is also proportionate to the project funding is requested for.

               ii.          Once an application was received, it was checked against funding eligibility criteria, then Officers made recommendations to Councillors to fund projects or not. Officers did not refuse to consider applications.

             iii.          The City Council offered a number of sources of funding, projects could apply for more than one if they met the criteria.

             iv.          The Council were obliged to collect project data for audit purposes, this was why application forms required detailed information. Projects needed to evidence they met funding criteria. Application forms had been simplified over time, they had been reviewed by the community forum to ensure they were user friendly.

              v.          Officers only asked for proportional information when first contacted for funding. People often thought that more was required than was actually the case.

 

Councillor Cantrill said that 37 funding applications had been made in the north area, which was higher than the west area. This suggested that west area could apply for more funding and that eligible projects should be encouraged to come forward.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (unanimously) to approve projects as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report and summarised in the table above.

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding & Development Manager.

 

The report gave an update on the work of the review to date and proposals for the next steps of the information gathering exercise.

 

The Committee were also provided with a list of community facilities identified to date across the city that were invited to complete a survey and a map of those that had responded to the facility audit.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          The County Council had launched a Resilience Strategy that could tie into community engagement work.

     ii.          Suggested community facility information could be disseminated via an app so people could find information easily.

 

In response to Members’ comments the Community Funding & Development Manager said City and County Council Officers were in contact regarding various strategies, community hubs, libraries etc. The intention was to provide joint member briefings and to join up approaches.

 

In response to Members’ comments the Community Funding & Development Manager was aware of County strategies and said the City and County Council Officers were in contact regarding various strategies, community hubs, libraries etc. The intention was to provide joint member briefings and to join up approaches wherever possible.

 

A member of the public made a number of comments, as set out below.

 

1.       A member of the public raised the following points about the map of community facilities:

                i.          There was a demand for this information.

              ii.          Would it be available on line?

 

The Community Funding & Development Manager said:

                 i.          Some community facility details included personal information. The intention was to put a list of facilities on-line once permission to publish people’s contact details had been obtained. (Contact details were obtained during the community facility mapping process). Further details would be set out in the report going to Community Services Scrutiny Committee 30 June 2016.

               ii.          Various ways of publishing the information would be considered, on-line apps can be included.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to:

       i.          Note the work of the review and initial findings of the city-wide community facilities audit.

     ii.          Promote the ‘call for evidence’ stage of the review and encourage stakeholders to feed in their experience and evidence as detailed in sections 5 and 6 of the Officer’s report.

Action Point: Committee Manager to circulate email to WCAC from Councillor Smith and Jacqueline Billing (Parkside Federation) inviting East and West Area Councillors to come into both Parkside and Coleridge in the summer term to talk to students in June.

 

Progress: Sarah Steed to co-ordinate emails to East and West Area Councillors.

 

       i.          15 members of the public

     ii.          8 Councillors

   iii.          5 City Officers