Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Sweeney and County Councillor Gae.

The notes of the meeting held on 28 September 2022 were noted. 

The Committee noted the updated Action Sheet which could be found at the following link:

Choose agenda document pack - West Central Area Committee 24 November 2022 - Cambridge Council

Representatives from the local police team and Council’s community safety team will present the latest report and answer questions.

The Committee received a report 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 local areas of concern and engagement activity noted in the report were:

·            Anti-social behaviour on green spaces, e.g. Jesus Green.

§    Road safety focussing on delivery mopeds and scooters, particularly in the City Centre and central open spaces.

·            Street begging.

·            Supporting the new (police campaign) expected on drugs with focus on frequent users and the night-time economy.

The Senior Anti-Social Behaviour Officer informed the Committee the City Council had recruited a Street Support Officer who would take a more assertive outreach approach with street life people, building relationships with individuals, gathering evidence while working with multi agencies to deter certain behaviours.

Members welcomed and supported the work of the Police and Anti-Social Behaviour Team.  Members expressed concerns regarding:

·      Drug dealing and associated anti-social behaviour on green spaces highlighting Jesus Green and Grantchester Meadows.

·      County line drug dealing and safeguarding of young people.

·      Night-time economy and drug dealing and drug taking.

·      E-scooters illegally used on public highways.

·      Lack of lights on cycles.

·      Street begging.

Sergeant Stevenson recommended that the focus on open spaces regarding drug dealing and associated behaviour be removed; the cold weather would have an impact on the behaviour, but Police would still patrol these areas as standard.

The following suggestions were put forward for the Police to consider as local areas of concern.

·      Drug dealing and associated anti-social behaviour, including threating behaviour and safeguarding of young people.

·      Road safety focussing on delivery mopeds and electric scooters illegally used on public highways, particularly those vehicles at night without lights.

·      Street begging.

Supporting the new (police campaign) expected on drugs with focus on frequent users and the night-time economy.

Representatives from the GCP will inform councillors of the current consultation which runs until 23 December 2022. www.greatercambridge.org.uk/mc-2022

The Committee received a presentation from the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Transport Director on the Making Connections consultation which runs until 23 December 2022 GCP Making Connections 2022 | Consult Cambridgeshire (engagementhq.com).

In response to comments made by the Committee, the GCP Transport Director said the following:

      i.         11,000 responses had been received to date, halfway through the consultation period.

    ii.         The consultation had been publicised through various social media platforms including tv and face to face meetings to avoid digital exclusion.

   iii.         Questions had been put forward to encourage proposals and recommendations.

  iv.         Aware that a balance was required particularly for residents who needed to use the car for different purposes in the City; consideration needed to be given regarding when charges would not apply. 

    v.         There would be a programme of vehicle buses being phased out and electric vehicles phased in which would deliver significant air quality benefits.

  vi.         A series of detailed proposals would follow to include the use of car clubs, cargo bikes, possible free bus travel day etc.

 vii.         People should respond whatever their viewpoint was . It was vital that as many people responded as possible. These views would be analysed when making the final decisions and what the next steps would be.

viii.         There were several checks in place to try to stop the system from being abused.

  ix.         3% of the responses had been received from 16years to 24-year-olds.  A series of conversations were being held with universities, schools, and youth groups to increase the level of engagement.

    x.         The detail of how to deal with buses travelling into the City Centre would be investigated later; more electric buses, different size buses and alternative route networks would be explored.

  xi.         The consultation was not just about a congestion charge but was about a carbon and air quality challenge which would get worse if left.

In response to a question asked by a member about the revenue expected to be received for the Sustainable Travel Zone, how much (in % terms) would be specifically (and only) for walking and cycling, the following response was given:

      i.         This would be a decision for Cambridgeshire County Council as the charging authority.

    ii.         As part of the proposals £50 to £60 million could be generated as part of overall package.

The Chair thanked the GCP Transport Manager for their presentation.

A members of the public asked the following question as set out below.

1.                  Last June, the Windsor Road cycle and walking lane was given planning permission.  There had been so many delays all over the Darwin Green project and now the possibility to open community contacts on both sides of the boundary appeared.  Unfortunately, Barrett’s and David Wilson are planning to start construction on the opposite side and leaving this infrastructure part to start 2026 or even later. At the Community Forum recently, Histon Road Area Residents’ Association (HRARA) asked the question below and are raising with the Committee as well now. Local councillors, officers and residents are all positive about having a temporary cycle and walking path to go ahead as soon as possible, to meet the needs of residents now not in several years’ time.

Residents along the fenced in Darwin Green area have waited for many years to have the planning permission approved for the walking and cycle lane by the Windsor Road connection to the Darwin Green area. Previously access to Darwin Green has only been available from the north near to the Kings Hedges Junction via a temporary fenced in cycle and walking lane.  There have been no accidents in this lane.

Community rooms, Library, Health Clinic, Superstore, Park and a large Pond in the centre as well as public transport has been promised in the various plans, but nothing has been completed as of today.

On the other hand, just 5-10 minutes away lies a flourishing shopping centre with Aldi-Iceland-COOP, Oriental store, Iqbro greengrocer, Post Office, Pharmacy, Coffee Tree cafe, Ballet School, 2 Community Centres, Church Hall, Mayfield School and St Luke’s School, plus crucially the Guided Bus A with a direct connection to the Station and Addenbrooke’s. 

HRARA is therefore requesting that the West Central Area Committee (WCAC) consider this proposal and take steps to implement it through discussions with developers etc.

Councillor Payne said the following:

      i.         Supported the proposal.

    ii.         Suggested that WCAC write to the developers requesting the cycle and walking lane be installed immediately.

   iii.         The planning application would be put forward to the Joint Development Control Committee (JDCC) for their consideration; asked if WCAC could write to JDCC to make their feelings know on the matter of the cycle and walking lane.

Councillor S Smith said the following:

      i.         With regards to the community rooms the City Council had been negotiating with the developers for the last twelve months; understood there were multiple problems with the building, but negotiation was nearing completion.

    ii.         Section 106 agreements were in place for Eddington and Darwin Green which included provision for a health centre which included contributions towards rental costs.

   iii.         Expressions of interest had been invited in operating the health centre.

  iv.         The developers were in negotiation with a supermarket operator.

    v.         The Council’s Planning Service had advised that the route on the orbital cycle route had been approved under the reserved matters consent. The detail of the lighting scheme was secured under a condition under the outline consent but the condition and the S106 agreement did not include an installation trigger point.

  vi.         One part of Windsor Road would be considered under a reserved planning matters application at a JDCC meeting in 2023.

The Chair of the HRARA then spoke of the noise conditions on the community rooms and library which was hindering the opening of these community buildings. Now that a supermarket had opened in Eddington believed there were no proposals to open one in Darwin Green. Had been waiting several years for services to be installed and had heard the same excuses time and time again.

Councillor Smith highlighted that the developers were a private sector company who made their own business decisions. Construction had started on BD2 and 5 and 6, following a phasing plan.

ACTION: That the relevant ward councillors who do not sit on JDDC write to the developers to recommend that the cycle and walking path is opened immediately. Councillor Payne

Councillors will review the projects received noting that the decisions will be taken by the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces in January 2023.

 The Committee received a report from the Project Leader regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The report outlined the newly submitted schemes for 2022/23.

Members were reminded that following requests and queries from members across various areas, a spreadsheet had been sent in advance of the meeting to assist in prioritising local area Environmental Improvement Programme project requests.

After publication of the EIP paper, Officers had an opportunity to consider these projects in more detail with input from a broader officer group, with the outcome that some of the ratings had altered slightly from those published which could be viewed at the link below:

EIP Committee Priorities

It was noted that the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development would ultimately make the decision on which environmental improvement projects would be taken forward.

In response to Members’ questions the Programme Leader (John Richards) said the following:

      i.         It was important to focus on alternative funding streams which might strengthen certain programme of works; EIP funding could then be moved to other projects.

    ii.         There had been requests for play equipment which was not eligible for EIP funding and might be more appropriately funded through S106 funding.

   iii.         The street tree canopy project funded through the EU was nearing conclusion though it was intended that other sources of funding might be available in the future and therefore tree related projects within the EIP bids might be more appropriately funded through the any continued tree canopy programme.

  iv.         There is a capital budget for street trees spread over four years. The first year has been delivered and officers have been working with the Council’s Arboricultural Team to identify areas / streets in the city which would be benefit from additional tree planting.

    v.         The majority of the projects placed for the Committee’s consideration were deliverable but not all in one year.

  vi.         Noted members strong support for the tree protection project at the end of the Skaters Meadow; replacing the use of old telegraphs poles with deadwood of tree trunks and branches to improve biodiversity. Project rated lower as external stakeholders would have to give their agreement regarding works because of the uncertainties in land ownership. 

 vii.         Programme Leader had not been aware of the preliminary work that had been undertaken with officers, businesses, and an architect regarding the bins on Christ Pieces and that match funding also applied to this project.

viii.         A suitable/agreeable position for the notice boards in each ward would have to be found and then permission sought to install, it was unclear who would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of information in the boards, and this was essential to establish before any implementation.

  ix.         For the Midsummer Common path scheme, it was felt that signage would be beneficial to remind the public that the pathways were shared between pedestrians and cyclists. This project is considered a pilot scheme.

    x.         Would question whether the issue of parking on the Woodlark Estate was caused by residents or commuters from outside the area, however the local councillor confirmed that they were largely service vehicles for deliveries, tradesmen etc.

  xi.         . The views of residents is split, some believe that the verges should be only be restored to grass and others are supportive of wildflower planting to deter parking. 

 xii.         Noted the comment that the priority for Newham Ward should be Skaters Meadows over Lammas Land and the Community Notice Boards which had been suggested by residents.

xiii.         Noted the statement that the Midsummer Common paths had been suggested by residents.

xiv.         Noted the comment that the Norwich Street could be referred to as a strategic EIP  project.

xv.         Noted the suggestion that (WC14) Lammas Land is incorporated in the Lammas Land Management Plan.

xvi.         Noted that all greens rated projects should be considered and the noticeboards (WC9) funded, if possible, through reserve or strategic EIP funding.  That the green/amber projects WC2 Biodiversity in Woodlark area, WC13 bins on Gough Way and WC16 Christ’s Pieces provision for bin improvements are also considered priority projects for funding.     

The Project Officer stated that the comments made by the Committee regarding the order of projects would be considered and re-proposed to committee members for final comment before reporting to the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development for their final decision.  Approved Projects would be taken forward when resources allow, likely during 2023, subject to delivery resource available and local consultation.