Agenda and minutes

Councillor Kightley proposed and Councillor Smith seconded the nomination of Councillor Reiner as Chair. 

 

Councillor Smith proposed and Councillor Reiner seconded the nomination of Councillor Kightley as Vice Chair. 

 

Resolved (unanimously) that Councillor Reiner be Chair and Councillor Kightley be Vice Chair of West/Central Area Committee for the ensuing year. 

Apologies were received from Councillors Hipkin, Reid and Tucker 

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.

 

There were no declarations of interest. 

This item was withdrawn. 

The committee received an application for the erection of a dwelling house on land adjacent to 36 Barton Road.

 

Dr Shailendra Vyakarnam, Chair of Barton close Residents’ Association addressed the committee on behalf of himself and the residents of neighbouring properties. He made the following points in objection to the application:

              i.      The site has been the subject of a number of applications which had been rejected.

            ii.      There would be a significant adverse impact on neighbours.

          iii.      Loss of a trees and a mature hedge.

         iv.      Loss of light.

           v.      Out of keeping with the conservation area.

         vi.      Insufficient parking.

       vii.      Plot to build ratio was unacceptably large.

 

The applicant’s agent, Steve Connell addressed the committee in support of the application.

 

RESOLVED (on the chairs casting vote) to reject the officer recommendation of approval.

 

RESOLVED (Unanimiusly) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

 

The proposed development would, by virtue of its siting in the garden of 36 Barton Road, erode the spacious landscaped garden environment of this part of Barton Road and Barton Close to the detriment of the character and appearance of the West Cambridge Conservation Area contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/11.

 

The proposed development would, by virtue of the fragmentation of the existing garden of 36 Barton Road, result in a tightly constrained and inadequate rear garden area for the occupants of 36 Barton Road which would, for a substantial detached property in this part of the Conservation Area, be at odds with and detract from the prevailing spacious character of the rear garden environments prevalent in this part of Barton Road and Barton Close, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/10 (criteria b and c). 

The committee received an application for the installation of new walkway structures and seating areas within external courtyards and other miscellaneous works..

 

Kay Hardcastle addressed the committee and made the following points in objection to the application:

              i.      The plan was inaccurate and omitted certain features.

            ii.      The existing layout has pathways

          iii.      Residents currently respect each others space and avoid each others windows.

         iv.      Proposed walkways would be unsafe; a trip hazard and a risk to wheelchair users.

           v.      Current central location of benches keeps noise to a minimum.

         vi.      Footfall on the new paths would increase noise levels.

       vii.      Proposed numeral are too large.

 

The applicant’s agent, Mark Lucas addressed the committee in support of the application.

 

RESOLVED (by 4 votes to 1) to reject the officer recommendation of approval.

 

RESOLVED (Unanimously) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reasons:

 

The proposed walkway structure, by virtue of its combined alignment and raised height would present an obstacle for residents of Radcliffe Court in their day-to-day use of and circulation through the courts and as such would fail to achieve a comprehensive design approach which achieves good interrelations and integrations between buildings, routes and spaces, a space which is safe and which is designed for ease of use by all users. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 3/7 (criteria a and f) and policy 3/11 (criteria c).

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Smith	12/41/WAC	Personal: Member of love Cambridge
County Councillor Brooks- Gordon	12/41/WAC	Personal: Registered Disabled

 

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th April 2012

The minutes of the meeting of the 26^th April 2012 were approved and signed as a correct record subject to a minor correction. Open Forum Q 7 answer attributed to Councillor Bick corrected to read Councillor Ward.

12/29/WAC Q4

Mr Chatterton had been provided with information on the Newmarket Road traffic survey outside the meeting. 

12/30/WAC

Councillor Cantrill to investigate Christ’s Piece improved signage request. Carried forward.

Action

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

(Q1) Michael Wiseman

Has due consideration been given to cyclist entering the service road colliding speeding cyclists travelling along the service road if dropped kerbs were installed in Christchurch Street ?

 

Councillor Rosenstiel responded. This had been a long standing suggestion. The bollard was removed some time ago without problems. Any potential conflicts would be addressed in the detailed design process.

 

(Q2) Jeremy Waller

What is the City Council’s position regarding the CB bid? Is it correct that the Council can vote regarding its own units within the bid area? Is the proposal necessary and affordable?

 

Councillor Smith responded. The proposal is linked to Love Cambridge and would be discussed at the Strategy and Resources Committee on the 9^th July 2012. At this stage it is a preliminary discussion to gauge the level of support for the bid. A member of the Bid Taskforce, Mr Wiseman, was present and stated that the consultation process is on going. Local businesses were encouraged to engage in the consultation process. If agreed the process should lead to improvements for residents and would enhance the area. Existing provision would not be reduced.

Mr Waller requested that the Council vote no to the proposals.

 

(Q3) Richard Taylor

Could ground level lighting, such as that used at the Cambridge Leisure Park, be considered for Parker’s Piece and Jesus Green?

 

Councillor Cantrill responded. Parker’s Piece was a sensitive area with strong opinions both for and against. A range of options would be considered.

There is no current bid for lighting on Jesus Green. However, the Tennis Courts had been improved.

 

(Q4) Michael Wiseman

Why has the replacement of two trees in the Fitzroy / Burleigh Stree area taken six months? Will late planting compromise the establishment of the new trees? Will repairs to the paving take place at the same time?

 

Councillor Bick responded. He shared residents’ frustrations over delays. However, the timing is less crucial as the new trees would be mature trees. It was expected that the work would be completed over the summer and the paving would be done at the same time.

The committee received a report from the Project Delivery and Environment Manager regarding Environmental Improvement Programme. The Officer gave an update on the progress of projects. The Officer outlined alternative sources of funding that may be available to assist in delivering as many of the projects as possible.

 

Mr and Mrs Eisner presented a model of sculpted oak bench designed for Grantchester Meadows. This had been the result of community project involving 20 to 20 local residents. Members welcomed this project.

 

Q1) Mr Lawton would like to be involved in the design of the Maids Causeway & Newmarket Rd 20mph signage improvements and suggested early consultation with the Police.

 

Q2) Beverly Nicholson expressed support for the provision of additional cycle racks.

 

The Committee unanimously approved the implementation subject to positive consultation of the following schemes:

 

Scheme 1. Maids Causeway & Newmarket Rd 20mph signage improvements - £4,500

Scheme 4. City Centre Mobility Crossings - £10,000

Scheme 5. Quayside Improvements - £15,800

Scheme 6. Barton Rd right turn restriction - £500

Scheme 8. New seating on Grange Rd and to city centre for elderly - £5,000

Scheme 9. Wordsworth Grove near junction of Ridley Rd - £4,000

Scheme 10. Sculpted Oak Bench Grantchester Meadows - £3,000

 

Total Budget Allocated - £42,800

Presentation by the Head of Transport, Infrastructure Policy & Funding (Cambridgeshire County Council).

 

Followed by Member discussion and public questions.  

The committee received an oral report from Jeremy Smith, Transport Manager, Cambridgeshire County Council. He outlined consultation and delivery process. His department had achieved success in a number of funding bids.

 

The Officer made the following responses to members’ questions

              i.      The feasibility of a Park and Ride site to serve Huntingdon road would be investigated. Further consultation was needed.

            ii.      Concerns were expressed that the larger projects in the bids would delay delivery of smaller projects and the Officer stated that this was unlikely.

          iii.      Consultation was on-going regarding the re-location of the Taxi rank. Love Cambridge and other stakeholder groups would have the chance to comment.

Presentation by the Planning Policy Manager (Cambridge City Council).

 

Followed by Member discussion and public questions.  

The committee received a presentation from the Planning Policy Manager regarding the Cambridge Local Plan. She outlined the additional responsibilities regarding homes and employment. A joined up approach would be taken, working with South Cambs to deliver results across 10 locations.

 

The offier introduced the Issues and Options document and detailed the consultation process. Local residents were encouraged to visit the exhibitions around the City and to feed in their views to the consultation process.

 

Councillor Rosenstiel suggested that the previous Local Plan and omitted significant areas such as tall buildings and Public Houses and asked how gaps could be avoided in the new plan. The Officer stated that the plan would cover a lot of ground and it was hoped that the detailed consultations would highlight any omissions.

 

Members were concerned that the challenges of meeting housing needs while retaining the character of the area remained unresolved and suggested that this was key to the new Local Plan.

 

Q1) Barry Higgs

Does the definition of Open Spaces and Green Spaces include open spaces around new housing sites? Parks and Open spaces in the City were subject to increasing demand for public events.

 

The Local Plan includes protection of existing spaces and the creation of new open spaces. However, it did not include any controls over their use.

 

Members agreed that the plan would present food for thought including issues such as: population growth, the loss of farming land, erosion of green spaces and the need for employment opportunities in the area.