Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Ratcliffe and Scutt.

 

No declarations of interest were made.

 

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2017 were approved as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

 

17/27/WAC Managing Tourism in the City Centre

xvii Suggested the installation of a box junction and CCTV to prevent the dangerous parking.

 

The box junction scheme related to London not Cambridge.

 

The Action Sheet was noted.

 

Ward Councillors had asked officers to investigate nuisance issue reported by residents of Richmond Road regarding property used by Airbnb. A briefing note was circulated 9 March 2017 in response to this.

 

A planning enforcement decision was passed at the 6 December 2017 City Council Planning Committee that would set a precedent on how the Council would take action in future. West/Central Area Committee (WCAC) noted various enforcement cases were pending.

 

ACTION:

      i.          Updates on previous Action Sheet entries required at next WCAC 8 March 2018:

·       Location of containers at Canoe Club.

·       Lammas Land bins.

·       Grass damaged during the Shelly Row play area refurbishment.

    ii.          Agenda topic: Mental health issues regarding homelessness and drug use in the city.

The decision was noted.

 

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

 

The report outlined actions taken since the last reporting period. 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.          Street-based anti-social behaviour.

     ii.          Youth-related anti-social behaviour.

   iii.          Alcohol-related violence and disorder.

 

The Committee discussed the following policing issues:

       i.          Issues regarding cycling in Madingley Road had been addressed for now.

     ii.          An individual was persistently begging outside Aldi.

   iii.          Drug dealing in Brunswick, Maid’s Causeway and Mid Summer Common.

   iv.          High numbers of cycle thefts.

    v.          Increasing levels of shoplifting.

   vi.          Cycling down Burleigh Street, Fitzroy Street, Trinity Street and Sydney Street during the day time when cycling prohibited.

 

Sergeant Mišík said in response to questions from WCAC:

       i.                    The Police undertook work to address rough sleeping in partnership with other agencies. Concerns about rough sleepers or anti-social behaviour such as begging could be reported to the Police either phone phoning 101 or through the Police website (https://www.cambs.police.uk/Home.aspx) which had a web chat facility.

     ii.                    There were currently 27 rough sleepers in Cambridge, compared to 41 this time last year. Help had been offered by the Council Outreach Team, but this had been refused by the rough sleepers. The City Council had a programme to help inappropriately housed people, particularly in cold weather.

   iii.                    Any non-urgent crime could be reported through the Cambridgeshire Constabulary website.

   iv.                    It was not possible to give a breakdown in quarterly Area Committee reports of the statistics for anti-social behaviour or road traffic collisions (ie more details of type/cause). There were too many variables. The information was held by the City Council and available via the Cambridgeshire Insight website.

    v.                    Levels of reported crime were increasing and reported anti-social behaviour decreasing as issues that were previously reported as anti-social behaviour were now being classed as crime.

   vi.                    Cambridgeshire Constabulary would undergo a fundamental review next year. Some details regarding the number of Police Officers had been reported in the Cambridge News. Further details would have to be sourced from the Police & Crime Commissioner.

 vii.                    The Police had a policy on when to review (or not) CCTV to tackle crime. This would be done by a Police Officer or designated person.

 

Members of the public made the following points:

 

1.       Mr Taylor asked for details regarding the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme:

·       Scheme details.

·       Consultees and consultation process.

·       Who has/would be given powers and how could they be identified eg uniform?

 

WCAC were unclear if any police powers had been given to civilians, or the consultation process required to do this. A report was suggested for the next WCAC meeting.

 

Sergeant Mišík suggested the City Council Licensing Department may have some information.

 

2.       Ms Nicholson suggested better signage may stop people cycling down Burleigh Street, Fitzroy Street, Trinity Street and Sydney Street during the day time when cycling was prohibited.

 

ACTION: WCAC Chair to request a report from the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC), plus officer in attendance at next WCAC if possible, regarding:

      i.          The impact of the review on numbers of Police Officers in Cambridgeshire, with particular regard to the City of Cambridge.

    ii.          Request more information from the PCC and the City Council regarding the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme:

·       Scheme details.

·       Consultees and consultation process.

·       Who has/will be given powers and how they could be identified eg uniform?

 

Councillors requested changes to the recommendations (as shown in bold).

·       Councillor Bick formally proposed amending priority 3: Brunswick, Maid’s Causeway and Mid Summer Common drug issues.

·       Councillors Gillespie and Harrison formally proposed amending priority 5: Road safety such as:

§  Cycling down Burleigh Street, Fitzroy Street, Trinity Street and Sydney Street during day time when cycling was prohibited.

§  Anti-social driving.

·       Councillor Bick formally proposed amending priority 6: Other acquisitive crime including cycle theft.

 

The amendments were agreed nem con.

 

The following priorities were unanimously agreed:

       i.          Brunswick, Maid’s Causeway and Mid Summer Common drug issues.

     ii.          Road safety such as:

·       Cycling down Burleigh Street, Fitzroy Street, Trinity Street and Sydney Street during day time when cycling was prohibited.

·       Anti-social driving.

   iii.          Other acquisitive crime including cycle theft.

The Committee received a report from the Senior Engineer regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The report outlined progress of existing schemes and decisions needed around future spending priorities.

 

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 2017/18 schemes put forward for approval.

 

WCAC and members of the public made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.                    Expressed concern about the time taken to deliver EIP projects.

     ii.                    Took issue with details in para 5.3 of the Officer’s report: “It has become clear that, moving forward, environmental improvements might be better focused towards achieving broader corporate and service objectives”. WCAC felt EIP should be bottom up not top down in its approach.

   iii.                    Supported the abandonment of the Newnham parking consultation and Elm Street / Prospect Row access restriction projects.

   iv.                    Supported continuing with the project to introduce further traffic calming in Grantchester Road, since traffic speeds remained a concern to residents.

    v.                    Supported the investigation alongside the County Council of alternative options to lessen the impact of traffic using King Street.

   vi.                    Supported the intention of projects marked red/amber. Requested further information regarding their viability at the 8 March 2018 WCAC to ascertain if they could go ahead to use unallocated funding.

 vii.                    Supported in particular projects that provided drinking water in public places.

·       Councillor Gillespie signposted a mobile phone app called ‘Refill’ that gave a map of where free water refills could be accessed from drink fountains, shops etc.

 

Members requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Nethsingha formally proposed deleting the original recommendations and replacing them as listed below:

 

The West Central Area Committee is recommended to:

          1.       Note progress, and delays where experienced, in delivering the identified programme of projects since 2011-12

2.       Determine whether to continue to pursue those projects that have proven problematic (as listed in paragraph 5.2)

3.       Consider the allocation of EIP funding available in 2017-18 to further project applications

4.       Approve those projects selected for implementation, subject to them being viable, obtaining consents as necessary, positive consultation and final approval by Capital Programme Board and Ward Councillors where required

5.       Support a further project application invitation round early in 2018.

 

1.    Note progress, and delays where experienced, in delivering the identified programme of projects since 2011-12.

2.    Resolve to continue to pursue 2 projects as listed in paragraph 5.4 of the Officer’s report:

·       (2) – Grantchester Road traffic calming (second phase - £7,000).

·       (38) - King Street weight limit (£500 plus LHI £4,500) – further investigation of alternatives to lessen the impact of traffic.

3.    Resolve not to pursue 2 projects as listed in paragraph 5.4 of the Officer’s report:

·       (32) - Newnham parking consultation (£2,000) - no longer needed in light of developing County residents parking proposals.

·       (36) - Elm Street / Prospect Row access restriction (£300 plus LHI £2,700) – no longer needed given low level of local public support.

4.    Approve projects selected for implementation (report P43), subject to them being viable, obtaining consents as necessary, positive consultation and final approval by Capital Programme Board and Ward Councillors where required:

·       City Centre open spaces enhanced biodiversity.

·       City Road tree and tree pit.

·       Gough Way to Cranmer Road path way-finding.

·       Merton Street / Derby Street corner bollard.

5.    Support a further project application invitation round early in 2018.

6.    Require a further report to a future WCAC meeting (ideally 08/03/18) regarding:

·       Remit of EIP.

·       Further details on feasibility of projects marked red/amber in 06/12/17 EIP report.

 

The amendments were agreed (unanimously).

 

Members resolved (unanimously) to agree the amended recommendations as set out above.

 

ACTION: Senior Engineer to report to 8 March 2017 WCAC, with Executive Councillor in attendance if possible, regarding:

      i.          Remit of EIP.

    ii.          Further details on feasibility of projects marked red/amber in 06/12/17 EIP report.

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

 

1.       Mr Taylor referred to minute item 17/24/WAC regarding Mayfield School Local Highway Improvement (LHI) bid for double yellow lines on Carisbrooke Road.

                 i.          Queried if this was the responsibility of North Area Committee or West/Central.

               ii.          Suggested the LHI application had been made by the City Council, not a particular Area Committee.

 

Councillor Nethsingha said:

                 i.          Carisbrooke Road was the responsibility of North Area Committee.

               ii.          The County Council had changed its policy on how LHI priorities were considered. Councillors on the LHI Panel could be influenced by Area Committee support for projects.

 

ACTION: Ref: 17/24/WAC Minutes Local Highway Improvement (LHI) bid. Councillor Nethsingha to contact other Area Committee Chairs to see if they wished to support bids and so raise them as priorities for consideration by LHI Panel.

 

2.       Mr Taylor raised the issue of graffiti on Cutter Ferry Bridge. It re-appeared each time the City Council repainted the bridge.

 

3.       Mr Taylor asked what were the speaking rights for enforcement items at City Council Planning Committee meetings.

 

Councillor Cantrill said enforcement items followed planning application speaking rules.

 

4.       Ms Nicholson and Mr Rosenstiel asked who was responsible for real time bus information and whom faults could be reported to.

 

The Interim Transport Director (Greater Cambridge Partnership) offered to forward on details to the County Council if Ms Nicholson contacted him.

 

Post Meeting Note: Councillor Nethsingha has liaised with Ms Nicholson.

The Committee received a verbal presentation from the Interim Transport Director for the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP):

·       Key transport schemes coming forward: A10, A1307, A428 and Milton and Histon Road.

·       Significant new housing is expected on the west side of the city (eg Bourne, Northstowe etc), which had to be factored into transport growth and infrastructure needs.

·       GCP were discussing mass rapid transport options with the Combined Authority Mayor. These would be reported to the Combined Authority and GCP Board in January 2018 and published mid-January 2018.

·       A significant modal shift was needed to encourage people to use public transport instead of cars. GCP had set a target of reducing traffic volumes in the city by 10-15% of 2011 figures by 2031.

o   Public transport needed to be more reliable to get people out of their cars.

o   More Park&Ride sites were proposed.

o   Existing Park&Ride site facilities would be improved.

o   A signal review to prioritise buses, pedestrians and bikes.

·       Air quality was an issue to address in Cambridge. Possible measures to mitigate it were:

o   An Air Quality Zone.

o   Electric buses/taxis.

o   A freight consolidation centre to reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles.

·       GCP were working with the City and County Council regarding on and off road parking to:

o   Manage/reduce demand by residents, businesses and commuters.

o   Provide revenue for public transport.

·       GCP were looking at physical and fiscal ways to manage/reduce parking demand in the city eg work place parking levy and intelligent charging. There was no preferred option at present.

·       A site had been proposed for the Cambridge South Rail station and a study agreed with government partly funded by GCP.

 

The Transport Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The GCP Chief Executive had apologised for the A428 consultation process errors at the December 2017 Local Liaison Forum. Work had been undertaken to correct these errors. The consultation was at an early stage, closing date 29 January 2018. People were asked to respond so GCP could consider these in its options appraisal. The Director re-iterated no decision had been made on a final option.

     ii.          GCP were looking at options to reduce car usage and mitigate environmental impact:

·       Autonomous vehicles that could be booked.

·       Car clubs.

·       Car sharing.

·       Green energy generated from solar panels on Park&Ride sites.

·       Technology could help to improve traffic efficiency. Options that reduced the number of cars on the road would be supported.

   iii.          GCP had funded the 26 zones being considered for parking schemes. As such they would be inputting into these, specifically the Newnham residents’ parking scheme, through Sonia Hansen (Traffic Manager, Cambridgeshire County Council). Residents’ views were currently being sought.

   iv.          GCP had not looked at electric car charging points in great detail, but may do so in future. Charging points were available at Park&Ride sites, but not on residential streets.

    v.          There was a need to balance all transport needs through demand management. Reducing the number of cars on the road would allow greater access for public transport. However, there was still a need/demand for private transport eg from people who commuted from out of the city. The price of housing in Cambridge resulted in people relocating out of the city but travelling back into work. The needs of residents also needed to be borne in mind. Those located on city arterial routes suffer more pollution than other residents.

 

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

 

1.       Ms Blythe made the following points:

       i.          Suggested rebranding the A1307 transport corridor as a place shaping project to create a more positive image for it.

     ii.          Stated the fencing on Ditton Meadows was not in the original GCP proposal and that residents had concerns about its impact on greenways.

 

The Transport Director undertook to take the issues re Ditton Meadows away and get back to Ms Blythe

 

2.       Mr Rosenstiel queried if the GCP air quality zone would be effective as the County Council already had an Air Quality Management Zone that was not enforced.

 

The Transport Director said the GCP air quality zone would be enforced through cameras.

 

3.       A member of the public expressed concern that the proposed congestion charge would penalise disabled drivers. Public transport was not always a viable option.

 

The Transport Director said there was no definite plan to impose an intelligent charge. Exemptions would be considered such as people with mobility issues.

 

The Transport Director undertook to feedback wheelchair bus user issues (eg access) to Stagecoach.

 

4.       Ms Nicholson asked if ward consultations on parking zones would be joined up.

 

The Transport Director said GCP would have an overview of feedback/issues once all twenty six consultations had occurred, but each consultation would have to go ahead on an individual basis.

 

Councillor Nethsingha said the issue had been discussed at the Cambridge Joint Area Committee, who looked at cross-city issues. Councillors thought that residents in each area should be given control, so various consultations would take place instead of a cross-city one. GCP would retain an overview.

 

5.       Mr Rosenstiel queried what happened when commuters used parking spaces residents appeared not to want/use.

 

Councillor Nethsingha said there would be consultations in different residential areas on how to address issues. Some areas would be prioritised for action faster than others based on the impact on their amenities being the greatest.