Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Cearns, Gehring and Holt.

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 Monitoring Officer should be sought before the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016

The minutes of the meeting held on 07 December 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

Councillor Holland said that funding was required for the painting of red pillar boxes in the West/Central area.

16/54/WAC Open Forum

Councillor Nethsingha said she and other councillors were aware of residents’ concerns. It had been assumed the containers would be sited at the back of the site, but they were put in the front. They were not aware of the proposal to locate the containers at the front of the site.

Committee Action Sheet from last meeting attached.

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

Open Forum

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

1.       Mary Wheater raised the following issues:

                          i.          Expressed concern over the large sections of streets that had no lighting.

                        ii.          The paving on Hoadly Road and Windsor Road was in very bad condition which exacerbated the lack of light safety issue as people would not be able to see uneven paving etc.

Councillor Holland said that Balfour Beatty had reduced street lighting to cover just road endings and junctions because that was all they were required to do. Extensive consultation was undertaken before the decision to move the lighting went ahead so there is nothing that the Council can do to overturn the decision. Other attempts at moving streetlights in areas such as Windsor Road and Hoadly Road had been generally unsuccessful. The only street light that had been successfully moved was in Nursery Walk. Councillor Holland affirmed that the Council could repair paving so the publc should report damaged sections.

2.       A member of the public queried the County Council’s street lighting policy, specifically in respect to levels of dimming. 

Councillors Hipkin and Nesthingha commented on levels of illumination across the city. At present the lights were on 100% in the early evening when it was most needed, but dimmed later on. This was not due to be changed at present.

3.       Penny Heath requested an independent safety appraisal for Burrell’s Walk lighting scheme. She expressed concern about the replacement lights saying they were not fit for purpose and asked where funding for replacements could be obtained from.

Councillor Nesthingha said the safety appraisal would cost approximately £10,000 and it was unlikely the County Council would authorise replacement lighting. Councillor Nesthingha agreed that the danger created by the lack of light was compounded by large roots sticking out of the pavement.

Councillor Cantrill commented that this topic had previously been of interest to the Leader.

Councillor Nesthingha had liased with Andy Bahram the County Council’s Highways Officer. The Highways Officer confirmed that he would raise the issue with the Tree Officer to see if the roots could be removed without damaging the tree. Alternatively, the path could be re-profiled to make it safer. 

Action Point: Councillor Nesthingha to seek an update from the County Council’s Highways Officer and Tree Officer regarding pavements in Burrell’s Walk. 

4.       A member of the public raised a concern about the new waste collection service failing to collect waste from properties with a communal bin area, eg blocks of flats.

Councillor Cantrill was aware this was an issue across the city; he also confirmed that at present the online tool to tell the council that bins had been missed did not work for residents who lived in flats. The Head of Service had reassured Councillor Cantrill that this tool would be available in future. In the interim he had advised that residents who lived in flats could report missed bins to their ward councillor who would report it to officers and ensure collections were made.

5.    Jean Glasberg raised the following points on street scene:

                i.          Commented on the appearance of the Silver Street bridge area of and the difference in opinion between various parties on where bins could be located to make the public realm attractive.

              ii.          Requested a full review of the street scene and public realm in the city centre.

Councillor Cantrill suggested Cambridge’s street scene within the historic core could be discussed at the next WAC meeting in July 2017. The Silver Street bridge situation could be addressed by other parties before July.

Action Point: Review of street scene in historic city centre to be agenda item at July meeting.

6.    Councillor Nethsingha raised a concern that the temporary summer bins were still on Lammas Land.

Action Point: Councillor Nethsingha to ask Wendy Young if the Lammas Land bins are temporary; and if so, when would they be removed? Or, if they are permanent, will they be fixed properly into the ground?

Oral Report from Jason Ablewhite, the Police and Crime Commissioner.

The Committee received a verbal report from the Police and Crime Commissioner.

The verbal report outlined:

         i.          The 4 statutory functions of a Police and Crime Commissioner:

·       Hiring (and supporting) the Chief Constable.

·       Tax precepts.

·       Setting the Police and Crime Plan.

·       Firing the Chief Constable If required).

       ii.          The challenges and constraints for the Police:

·       Domestic violence.

·       Child abuse.

·       Drug related crime.

·       75% of calls to the Police were non-crime related eg people in mental crisis.

·       Cyber crime.

·       One off incidents eg responding to emergencies such as Storm Doris.

      iii.          Four key themes of the Police and Crime Plan:

·       Victims

·       Offenders

·       Communities

·       Transformation and working with strategic partners.

The Police and Crime Commissioner said the following in response to Members’ and public questions:

       i.          Restorative justice was crucial to prevent prison becoming a breeding ground for crime. Although a prison sentence is the correct method of punishment for some crimes, for many (often young people committing their first minor offence) external intervention was more effective at reducing reoffending. 

     ii.          Police were spending an increasing amount of time in hospitals with members of the public who threatened to harm themselves or others. Although this sounded more like a role for a social worker, ensuring people receive the correct help before the Police leave them was more effective than leaving them and discovering that they committed a crime or hurt themselves after the event.

   iii.          The Police monitor motorists’ speed when possible. Due to due to pressures of policing, greater priority is given to threat, risk and harm so it was not possible to have as many mobile speed guns/cameras as they would like. Police Community Support Officers run speed watch schemes in schools to try to educate and raise awareness of the dangers of speeding. New technology enabled the Police to create educational apps which were based on local streets so that students were able to relate to the situation they were watching.

   iv.          Ensuring that Police Officers in general were aware of the community based restorative justice scheme should be part of their training. Unfortunately for older members of the police it has been a challenge to shift the culture of thinking to one where community initiatives should play a larger role. This was a key priority for the PCC going forward; issues could be raised with him directly.

    v.          Officers changed roles and areas they worked in (West/Central etc) largely due to promotions. The average length of a career in the police was 30 years. If Officers wanted to rise through the ranks they had to change role every 2 years to broaden their experience. The consequence of this could be that communities could not build a relationship with their local officer.

Ian Sandison, Chair Cambridge BID, to make a presentation

The Committee received a report from the Chair of Cambridge BID (as set out in the agenda pack).

The Chair of Cambridge BID said the following in response to Members’ and public questions:

       i.          Cambridge BID has made its members aware of the current consultation on A-boards. Their role is not to take sides but to facilitate a responsible consultation where all relevant parties were made aware of the issues and can make a valid contribution.

     ii.          The Cambridge Gift Card had not yet been launched but it would take the form of a debit card. All businesses that accept debit cards will be able to accept the Gift Cad. Some market traders do take cards and some this is increasing. A cash alternative would not be available.

   iii.          Cambridge BID comprised of 16 board members; 2 councillors and 14 from businesses. The board met every 2 months. Councillors were there to represent the views of the public.

   iv.          The BID had no statutory powers regarding fly posting but does undertake additional street cleaning of 50 streets (in addition to City Council responsibilities) and their ambassadors would report on punt touts, ASB, begging and environmental matters  such as pot holes and damaged pavements.

Planning Officers will be available to give information on the progress of the University’s application on the West Cambridge site.

Contact for further information:

John Evans, Principal Planner, Cambridge City Council |

john.evans@cambridge.gov.uk| 01223 457289

cambridge.gov.uk | facebook.com/camcitco | twitter.com/camcitco

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner (City Council) and Transport Officer (County Council) regarding the West Cambridge Development Site (16/1134/OUT).

The presentation outlined key issues following the consultation period and provided a general update on the proposals and ways to engage.

       i.          Original application submission was in June 2016.

     ii.          Documents considered – included 5 parameter plans, Design and Access Statement, Design Guide, Environment Statement and various supporting technical studies.

   iii.          Key officer concerns – were set out to the developer team following the consultation period.  The key Issues are:

   iv.          Transport - the transport assessment as submitted was not a complete assessment.  Principles of phased approach explained and the latest update on modelling work which is being carried out.

    v.          Landscape and visual impact – potential visual impact of the proposals, particularly from key views from the south and west.  Indicative revised images were introduced showing reduced height in key areas.

   vi.          Trees – full consideration and survey of existing trees and development buffers has been necessary.  The relationship of this work with the Design Guide and consideration of reserved matters was explained.

 vii.          Drainage – surface water drainage strategy revisions.

viii.          Environmental Health Issues – in particular noise, air quality and potential impact from artificial lighting.

   ix.          Sustainability – wider strategic issues with grid capacity and revised hierarchical approach to energy on the site.

    x.          Amenities delivery – Shared facilities hub, phasing and strategies to improve sense of place on the campus.

The Principal Planner and Transport Officer said the following in response to Members’ and public questions:

       i.          The continued development of sites around Madingley Road meant that pressure on transport, cycle and pedestrian access would grow. Measures to mitigate the West Cambridge development were being discussed with the university.

     ii.          Assessing the transport impact was complex due to uncertainties with the timing of other developments in the wider area and potential transport mitigation measures that may accompany those. The University were taking an ‘adoptive phased approach’. This was a pragmatic approach to assess the transport impact of the proposal through a number of key phases.  This involved assessing smaller phases of the overall scheme within agreed parameters and an overall Transport Cap for mitigation measures.

   iii.          A Cycle Strategy was under review in order to create a new cycle route to alleviate the pressure from Garrett Hostel Bridge.  This would also consider longer term connectivity between West Cambridge and North West Cambridge.

   iv.          The proposed new masterplan was an outline planning application. Details about the design and style of the buildings would follow in reserved matters applications in the future.  The proposed new building for Civil Engineering (16/1811/FUL) was submitted and determined in advance of the outline because of funding deadlines.  This scheme was assessed on its own merits based on the current situation.

    v.          A further briefings/forum could be set up in future to update residents/Members.   Details could also be brought back to WCAC.

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

The report outlined 4 S106 funded project proposals, their context and set them against the specific selection criteria.

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

       i.          Councillor Hipkin thanked the Urban Growth Project Manager and John Parrott, the Project Officer, for their help during the S106 proposal process. He asked for his comments to be recorded in the minutes.

     ii.          A member of the public asked the Committee to consider future S106 proposals which targeted teenagers. Youth leaders would like to be consulted by the council through the Youth Forum; previous examples of this had been successful, e.g. securing funding for the skate park.

   iii.          A member of the public referred to Shelly Row play area improvement project and asked whether grass damaged during the refurbishment works would be made good.

   iv.          Councillor Cantrill suggested postponing a decision on the Jesus Green ditch improvement proposal until the Urban Growth Project Manager could ascertain whether sufficient local S106 funding was available.

Action Point: The Urban Growth Project Manager to find out whether grass damaged during the Shelly Row play area refurbishment works would be made good as part of the S106-funded project (or advise a suitable alternative officer).

Members unanimously resolved to prioritise the following local project proposals for the use of devolved S106 contributions from the Area, subject to business case approvals (as appropriate):

       i.          The construction of a footway, landscaping & play safety surface refurbishment within the play area at Histon Road Rec Ground.

     ii.          The creation of a sustainable open space within St Clement’s churchyard, Bridge Street.

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

The report formed part of a strategic review of community provision; it provided an overview of the recommendations in the draft strategy and the consultation plan.

The Community Funding & Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The mapping process focused on dedicated community venues in the most deprived areas of the city.

     ii.          107 facilities had been mapped. The map excluded buildings which had multiple functions ie a church which hosted evening community groups; and facilities not owned by the City Council. Officers were aware of facilities that fell into these categories.

   iii.          Promoting city wide facility accessibility alongside the Community Development Strategy was a key future priority. 

   iv.          At present, there has not been much research into why one centre was more successful than another because the variables were very difficult to quantify.

The Committee noted the report.

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

The report detailed the applications received for 2017-18 funding for projects in the West Central Area. The report made recommendations for awards and provided information on the eligibility and funding criteria.

2.1          Members resolved (by 6 votes to 0 - unanimously) to agree the proposed awards summarised in the table below:

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

The report outlined the work carried out on the priorities previously set. In light of the evidence found over the last three months it was recommended that the WCAC priorities stayed the same to allow further work to be undertaken for the upcoming period.

The Committee discussed the following issues:

           i.          The very large number of needles mentioned in the report. In a previous meeting the needle figures were incorrect so there was some discussion regarding whether the same mistake had happened again. Councillor Bick confirmed that these figures were accurate.

          ii.          The need for a better way to report incidents involving needles. A police incident report to investigate the situation was required, not just a clean up by City Officers.

        iii.          Decided to refer additional questions to the next meeting when the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement, would be present to answer them. WCAC to reflect if they would prefer 2 Environmental reports per year, or 4 (quarterly) with twice yearly accompanying verbal report from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement.

Members resolved (unanimously by 6 votes to 0) to endorse the suggestions for priorities outlined below:

Continuing priorities[1]

The Committee is asked to agree the WCAC dates for 2017/18:

·       18 July 2017

·       28 September 2017

·       6 December 2017

·       8 March 2018

The following dates were agreed:

·       18 July 2017

·       28 September 2017

·       6 December 2017

·       8 March 2018