Agenda and minutes

The Committee Manager took the Chair whilst the West/Central Area Committee elected a Chair.

 

Councillor Bick proposed, and Councillor Holt seconded, the nomination of Councillor Cantrill as Chair.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) that Councillor Cantrill be Chair for the ensuing year.

 

Councillor Cantrill assumed the Chair from the Committee Manager at this point.

 

Councillor Nethsingha proposed, and Councillor Bick seconded, the nomination of Councillor Holt as Vice Chair.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 0) that Councillor Holt be Vice Chair for the ensuing year.

Apologies were received from Councillor Hipkin.

Members of the committee are asked to declare any interests in the items on the agenda. In the case of any doubt, the advice of the Head of Legal should be sought before the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 April 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Committee Action Sheet from last meeting attached.

Committee	West/Central Area Committee
Date	20/04/16
Circulated on	21/04/16
Updated on	08/07/16

 

 

ACTION	LEAD OFFICER/MEMBER	TIMESCALE	PROGRESS
Open Forum   Councillor Bick to work with residents to review parking options for Orchard Street.	Councillor Bick	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16	Councillor Bick had difficulty locating the correct resident to liaise with. Having done so recently he would follow up to see if there was a concensus amongst residents regarding charges. Councillor Bick had liaised with Councillor Cearns and the County Council regarding parking options.
Open Forum   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.	Councillor Cearns	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16	Councillor Cearns has been monitoring and liaising with both Councils on the ongoing problems and would be attending the next Taxi Forum on 29 July 2016.   Councillor Cearns was liaising with the Police and taxi drivers regarding issues affecting Warwick Road and Windsor Road.
Environmental Report   Wendy Young to contact Waste Manager regarding supplying appropriate bins at the Adam & Eve Recycling Centre eg the lids are too heavy for people to access current ones.	Wendy Young (Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement, Environment)	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16	A referral was made to the Recycling Officer who advised that if residents had issues with large bins, smaller bins could be used to facilitate recycling. This has been actioned at both Adam and Eve Street and Park Street in the past as well.
Environmental Report   Wendy Young to liaise with Highways Authority Officers to investigate issues caused by untidy skips in Hardwick Street and Derby street.	Wendy Young	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16	Referrals were made to the County Council team that deal with skip permitting and management following the last area committee, and asked that action be taken to look into the issue.
Environmental Improvement Programme   Dave Prinsep 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.	Dave Prinsep (Head of Property Services)	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16
Environmental Improvement Programme   John Richards to investigate funding available to repair/replace the bench/planter in Jesus Lane (WC6).	John Richards (Senior Engineer)	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16	Officers are quantifying the practicability and likely costs of undertaking minor repairs to the existing timber bench and planter adjacent to the Friends Meeting House, for further consideration.  It would not currently be possible to fund a replacement/upgrade for the existing unit through s106 monies.
Environmental Improvement Programme   John Richards 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.	John Richards	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16	Officers are investigating with County Council colleagues the practicability of adding advisory markings as suggested.  If the suggestions prove practicable, and are supported locally, the costs could most likely be met from existing project budgets.
Environmental Improvement Programme   John Richards to investigate if s106 funding more appropriate for funding benches on New Square instead of EIP.	John Richards	Feedback at next WCAC 12/07/16	A small number of additional benches might potentially be funded from existing s106 monies subject to the normal priority setting, and technical development, processes.
Any Other Business   Committee Manager to circulate email to WCAC from Cllr 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.	Sarah Steed (Committee Manager)		Sarah Steed to co-ordinate emails to East and West Area Councillors. Awaiting details from Cllr Smith.

 

Committee	West/Central Area Committee
Date	12/07/16
Circulated on	18/07/16
Updated on

 

ACTION	LEAD OFFICER/MEMBER	TIMESCALE	PROGRESS
Matters Arising   Councillor Holland asked for follow up on her query (P13): Identify who was responsible for the maintenance of red pillar boxes eg in Newnham.	Councillor Holland   Head of Property Services (as WCAC Lead Officer)   Senior Engineer (in case EIP relevant)	Feedback at next WCAC 29/09/16	The red pillar boxes are the responsibility of the Royal Mail. One in question is on Storey’s Way.  There are others across the city that are badly in need of paint.
Matters Arising   Councillor Holland asked for follow up on her query (P19): Warwick Road / Windsor Road passageway. Now seeking drawings to pursue pavement issue.	Councillor Holland		Issue goes back over 18 months.   Councillor Holland was informed a demarcation line could not be implemented on the pavement to separate cyclists and pedestrians.

 

The decision was noted.

 

The Committee received an update (via written statement) from the Sport & Recreation Manager. The work was now complete since approval was given. The four tennis courts, nets, lines and new netball court markings were all open for free general public use as of Wednesday 6 July 2016.

 

There are still six new cycle racks to be installed by the courts, and four new benches and a bin to go inside the courts over the next couple of weeks.

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.

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

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

 

1.       Ms Heath raised the following issues:

                i.          Queried who was accountable for the unsatisfactory replacement of street lights in Burrells’s Walk. Pleasant functional lights had been removed and replaced with unattractive ones.

              ii.          Expressed concern with the process and lack of consultation. Queried if councillors had any input into the scheme.

 

Councillor Cantrill said the process was on-going. A site meeting was expected 13 July to be attended by him, Councillor Herbert and officers. Councillor Herbert had undertaken to look at the site to see if the scheme was fit for purpose.

 

Councillor Nethsingha said an investigation should be undertaken as the wrong councillors were consulted before the street lights were removed. Replacement street lights were not fit for purpose and corrective action should be undertaken as they were not like for like replacements.

 

West/Central Area Committee (WCAC) expressed concern regarding the Balfour Beatty contract and how City Council funding to supplement County Council funding had not led to improved lighting.

 

Councillor Cantrill said he had undertaken a Newnham Ward walk around with a Balfour Beatty representative, who had subsequently left, so the experience had been lost. This was symptomatic of the poor service from Balfour Beatty. As was poor work, such as installing a lamp in the middle of someone’s driveway, which took three months to remove.

 

Action Point: Councillor Cantrill to invite Balfour Beatty representatives to next WCAC to raise issues and concerns regarding lighting.

 

2.       A member of the public asked how long the Balfour Beatty contract would last.

 

Councillor Nethsingha said the contract would last twenty years.

 

3.       Mr Danish raised the following issues:

                i.          Supported traffic calming in Canterbury Street.

              ii.          Suggested a filtering system like in Gwydir Street, as opposed to implementing a width restriction.

 

Councillor Holt referred to comments made about cycle safety in the April WCAC meeting. Students who visited Cambridge did not always cycle safely.

 

Councillor Gillespie said that officers were looking into funding to turn one way streets (for vehicles) into contraflows for cyclists.

 

Members of the public said that a lack of signage made it hard for people to tell if roads were one way or not, and where pavements were dual use for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

4.       Ms Heath said the streetscape in general needed heritage champions to join up work.

 

Action Point: Councillor Cantrill to invite representatives to next WCAC to discuss streetscape:

·       (City Council) Leader, Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport, Head of Planning.

·       County Council representatives.

·       Officers: Green space, heritage.

·       Chair of Cambridge Past, Present & Future.

·       Cambridge BID.

Oral report to explain about the Local Liaison Forum:

·       Why it was established.

·       Governance structure.

·       Decisions made to date and when it will meet again.

·       How the LLF interacts with the City Deal.

·       Work such as:

o   A428 bus corridor.

o   Western corridor orbital route.

The Committee received a verbal presentation from the Chair of the Local Liaison Forum (LLF) regarding the aims, governance, membership and actions of the LLF to date.

 

The presentation outlined:

       i.          Referred to details on the Greater Cambridge City Deal website (http://www4.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/).

     ii.          The first LLF meeting was 14 June 2016. It was established as a public engagement forum. Ten key issues were debated and resolutions adopted. These would be reported to the City Deal Executive Board 13 July. The Chair of the Local Liaison Forum would attend the Board meeting to ask City Deal Members how the LLF could better input into Executive Board decision making.

   iii.          The next LLF meeting was timetabled for W/C 13 September. An update on progress would be sent to West Central Area Committee.

 

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

       i.          Residents were just beginning to appreciate the impact of the City Deal on their communities. LLFs were a way to feed into City Deal deliberations.

     ii.          Officers servicing the City Deal should respond to LLF resolutions (there was a perception they did not).

 

The Chair of the Local Liaison Forum said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          This was the first LLF to engage with the City Deal Joint Assembly, others had not. Transparency and scrutiny of decision making was sought.

     ii.          Members of the public could attend City Deal meetings, but only elected representatives could vote. Public questions could be sent to the LLF by email to be raised at City Deal meetings if members of the public were unable to attend in person.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Project Manager said that officers responded to LLF resolutions then made recommendations to the City Deal Project Board for discussion and voting on.

 

Ms Heath, speaking as a member of the public, made the following points:

       i.          She had attended a number of City Deal Executive Board meetings but was still unclear on how the process worked.

     ii.          It was hard for people to attend City Deal meetings as details were hard to find.

Information note to follow from Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager

The Committee received an information note from the Asset Manager (S&OS).

 

The report outlined a public meeting to discuss issues surrounding the North Pole ice rink on Parker’s Piece is to be held on Thursday 21 July from 6pm in the Council Chamber at the Guildhall.

 

Councillor Cantrill invited WCAC Members to raise any issues/concerns at the 21 July meeting.

The Committee received a report from Sergeant Wood regarding the policing and safer neighbourhoods trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the Committee on 11 February 2016. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details). Previous priorities and engagement activity noted in the report were:

       i.          Continuation with licensed premises enforcement visits.

     ii.          Violent crime in the city centre.

   iii.          Traffic junction enforcement and general road safety (all road users).

   iv.          Cycle theft.

 

Sergeant Wood made the following points:

       i.          (In reference to an Open Forum point): An Induction Officer visited overseas college students to make them aware of the Highway Code.

     ii.          Referred to cycle proficiency training offered by Outspoken.

   iii.          Regulations set out where signs could be placed on the highway. Police did enforce the Highway Code.

 

The Committee discussed the following policing issues:

       i.          The number of rough sleepers in Cambridge and how this could be addressed by the Police and partner agencies.

     ii.          Inconsistent enforcement of the Highway Code at junctions. For example when pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles jumped the lights.

   iii.          Bollards in Burleigh Street, Mill Road and East Road being lowered when they should stop traffic coming through.

   iv.          Rat running by taxis in Silver Street.

    v.          Anti-social behaviour towards cyclists:

a.    By vehicles on the road.

b.    Through comments on social media.

   vi.          Better use of social media to inform members of the public about police activity in their area.

 vii.          The increase in aggressive begging.

viii.          The increase in racism/race hate crime since the Brexit decision.

   ix.          The increase in levels of anti-social behaviour such as fights between young people.

    x.          Drugs and needles in Petty Cury.

   xi.          Drug dealing in Castle Ward.

 xii.          Drug dealers rather than users should be targeted in future.

xiii.          The police 101 number was not a satisfactory way to report crime.

 

Sergeant Wood said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Dedicated street life officers offered support to rough sleepers.

·       The Senior Anti-Social Behaviour Officer said a lot of support was available, and enforcement action taken when necessary against anti-social behaviour. People had been helped to move off the street but others had moved in.

     ii.          An audit of key holders for bollards in Burleigh Street, Mill Road and East Road could be undertaken to see if they were being misused.

·       Councillor Cearns suggested that a joint letter could be sent by the City Council, County Council and Police to key holders reminding them of their responsibilities. Bollards could be raised by anyone if traffic flow was an issue, but only lowered by key holders.

   iii.          Referred to Operation Daybreak which tackled known drug dealing sites what were closely linked to rough sleepers.

 

Councillor Cantrill requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Cantrill formally proposed to add the following priorities:

·       Tackling rough sleeping in the city centre.

·       Tackling drug dealing in the city centre, Arbury and Castle Wards.

·       Theft from vehicles (Newnham).

 

The priorities were unanimously agreed.

 

The following priorities were unanimously agreed:

       i.          Continuation with licensed premises enforcement visits.

     ii.          Violent crime in the city centre.

   iii.          Traffic junction enforcement and general road safety (all road users).

   iv.          Cycle theft.

    v.          Tackling rough sleeping in the city centre.

   vi.          Tackling drug dealing in the city centre, Arbury and Castle Wards.

 vii.          Theft from vehicles (Newnham).

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager – Cleansing.

 

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/Central Area for the quarter of June to August 2016:

 

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	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 and Operations Team 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.
3	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.
4	Joint working patrols to address the issues of fly tipping at public recycling points Justification: Fly tipping at Lammas Land and Adam and Eve Street recycling centres 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 and members of the public raised the following points:

       i.          Reporting issues to City Rangers got a fast response.

     ii.          The Street Cleaning Team responded quickly to issues raised via social media.

   iii.          Overflowing bins in Sussex Street.

   iv.          Possible ward walk abouts in the autumn. Details to be confirmed with Operations Manager – Community Engagement & Enforcement.

 

Action Point: Operations Manager – Community Engagement & Enforcement / Cleansing to clarify timescale for painting Christ Pieces railings.

 

The Operations Manager – Cleansing said the following in response to questions from the Committee and members of the public:

       i.          Extra staff had been taken on to work in open spaces over the summer.

     ii.          Provision of bins in green spaces would be reviewed. Temporary bins that were no longer required (eg Park Street/Jesus Green) would be removed.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved nem con to approve priorities for action as set out above.

The Committee received a report from the Senior Engineer requesting that the Committee:

       i.          Determine whether to proceed with the EIP proposal to restrict the movement of traffic through Canterbury Street, or re-allocate the funding agreed (circa £12,250) to other potential projects.

     ii.          Determine whether to re-allocate the EIP funding agreed for Lammas Land Pavilion to Lammas Land Kiosk.

 

Mr Beresford (Chair of the Benson Area Residents Association) made a verbal presentation to WCAC:

       i.          A survey of residents in the Benson Street/Canterbury Street area had been undertaken.

     ii.          Circa £20,000 of damage to residents’ vehicles had been recorded.

   iii.          There was strong support for some form of intervention to calm traffic. A majority of residents were in favour of the proposals to create pinch points.

   iv.          Traffic volume was expected to increase in future.

 

Members of WCAC made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.                    Referred to points raised in the Open Forum and residents survey. Some residents were in favour of creating pinch points (ie reducing the road width), others preferred to close the road to traffic.

     ii.                    There were safety concerns in the area due to:

·       Speeding traffic.

·       Narrow pavements that were often mounted by vehicles.

·       Poor visibility.

 

Members of the public made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.                    A majority of residents would prefer pinch points rather than close roads to traffic. This would affect access (permeability) to the area in general, not just Benson Street/Canterbury Street.

     ii.                    The Cambridge Cycling Campaign had grave concerns regarding reducing the width of the road due to the potential impact on safety ie lack of space for contraflow of traffic.

 

Members requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Cantrill formally proposed the following amendments (additional wording underlined, deleted text struck through):

 

The West Central Area Committee is recommended:

 

2.1          To determine whether to:

·     Proceed with the EIP proposal Option 1 (see appendix 1) to restrict traffic movement.

·     The proposal should have reference to the City Deal consultation on Histon Road.

·     Close the project and re-allocate the EIP funding available to new scheme applications within West Central area.

·     Re-consult on the existing two options, or any other potential solutions that might come forward (see appendix 1).

·     Alternatively defer the decision to give residents further opportunity to undertake consultation which would feed into WCAC’s deliberation for September 29^th’s committee.

 

2.2          To consider the re-allocation of EIP funding from Lammas Land Pavilion to Lammas Land Kiosk.

 

These amendments were agreed (unanimously).

 

Following discussion, Members resolved:

       i.                    Agreed (by 7 votes to 0):

·       To proceed with the EIP proposal Option 1 (see appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) to restrict traffic movement.

·       The proposal should have reference to the City Deal consultation on Histon Road.

     ii.                    Agreed (unanimously) to the re-allocation of EIP funding from Lammas Land Pavilion to Lammas Land Kiosk.

12 members of the public

1 County Councillor

8 City Councillors