Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Election results by party > Declarations > Document > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams
Contact: Committee Manager Email: democratic.services@cambridge.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Welcome, Introduction and Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Sweeny. |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
Notes of the Previous Meeting PDF 256 KB Minutes: Councillor S Smith advised that he had not been recorded in the minutes
as being present at the meeting on 24 November which was an error. The Chair agreed that the notes would be updated *Committee Manager note: The electronic version has been updated and
Councillor S Smith recorded as present. Agenda for West Central Area Committee on Thursday, 24th
November, 2022, 6.30 pm - Cambridge Council |
|
Matters and Actions Arising From the Minutes PDF 210 KB Minutes: Reference: 22/19/WCAC Open Forum: Councillor Porrer requested that Ward Councillors were updated on any actions / outcomes from the multi-agency officer meeting scheduled for 22 March. ACTION: Head of Environment Members then noted the updated action sheet which could be found at the following link: Agenda for West Central Area Committee on Thursday, 16th March, 2023, 6.30 pm - Cambridge Council |
|
Re-Ordering Agenda Minutes: Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used thier discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the published agenda. |
|
Environmental Report - WCAC PDF 3 MB Minutes: The Committee received a report from the Community Engagement and Enforcement Manager. The report outlined an overview of the council’s Streets and
Open Spaces, Environmental Health and Shared Waste
service activity in the Area Committee area over the past six months. In response to Member’s comments the Community Engagement
and Enforcement Manager said the following: i.
Illegal camping referenced in the report
referred to individual or groups who had erected tents to sleep overnight or to
stay in a tent. This did not include rough sleepers or pop-up structures for
children in the summer. ii.
Acknowledged that Fitzroy Street and Burleigh Street were hotspots for littering; the number of
fixed penalties for that area was increasing. iii.
How often street cleaning occurred
was very much dependent on the area. Parked cars did cause an obstruction,
therefore main roads were swept more often than a side street with vehicles
parked down. iv.
The Government set a standard which the Street
Cleaning Teams had to work towards. Officers aimed for a minimum of a B grade,
minimal mulch, or detritus at the side of the road. v.
Officers were currently working on a ‘Bins on
Street’ Campaign across the city. The process was restricted as the power to
deal with persistent owners of bins (which caused an obstruction) had been
decriminalised by the Government ten years ago. A civil notice could be issued
to residents who persistently obstructed pathways (yet had an alternative
location to store them), this could be followed by a civil penalty. vi.
Noted the positive comments regarding the
engagement with volunteers. vii.
Would pass on the Committee’s thanks and praise
for their work; particularly highlighted in Market Ward and the ascension
burial ground. |
|
Area Committee Grants 2023-24 PDF 294 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillors were reminded that the Committee
could not make decisions whilst the Area Committees were taking place virtually,
but any discussion / debate would be taken into consideration by Officers when
the delegated decisions were made. In response to Members’ questions officers
said the following:
i.
Acknowledged
that Christ Pieces Resident Association had been successful in the past but had
not met the funding criteria on this occasion. The application had not
demonstrated how they would evidence an impact around social and or economic
deprivation or provided any evidence that the beneficiaries couldn’t fund the
activities themselves. Would be happy to
support the Resident Association to seek alternative funding.
ii.
Friends
of Midsummer Common would receive an increased award from the previous year
although not the full amount Requested as they also receive support from
another Council service
iii.
There
had been unprecedented demand for funding, but bids had been given rigorous
scrutiny from officers. Funding was
allocated where the criteria were met.
iv.
Reasons
why applications were not proposed to be awarded area committee grant funding
included: a.
Significant
funding had already been provided by the council through the main community
grants fund. b.
Poor or
insufficient detail regarding benefit to residents in the west area of
Cambridge; where appropriate officers would liaise with applicants where their
application would be better made to the main community grants fund. c.
Inclusion
of inappropriate costs (e.g. equipment only requests). d.
Financial
need of applicant group not demonstrated or over reliance on Community Grants
funding.
v.
Recommended
that organisations read through the guidance and talked with Grant Officers
before applying.
vi.
Money
that had been underspent within West Central Area would be placed into a
central ‘pot’ for funding. vii.
Would
like to carry out a review of how effective area committee grants were with
only one funding window. A member briefing had been arranged in September to
discuss this matter with all Councillors. viii.
Officers
would review the amount of detail included within the reports and would be
happy to discuss any further detailed queries outside of the meeting. |
|
Open Forum Minutes: Members of the public put forward the
following statement, as set out below. 1. A member of the public raised the following issues:
i.
Jesus Green Association proposal some years ago was
to refurbish the pavilion. After a professional survey it was found to be past
renovation. The Association agreed with the Council that a new Rouse Ball
building should be erected as a new entrance to the swimming pool and should
contain a cafe/restaurant, new toilets, and dressing rooms for the pool and new
up to date toilets for visitors including the disabled. It would also contain
meeting rooms and details of the history of Jesus Green. The pavilion has now
deteriorated markedly and is dangerous.
ii.
The toilets whilst having a temporary refit are now
hardly fit for purpose. Section 106 funds were proposed, and Trinity College
had agreed a small donation in memory of Rouse Ball a member of the College and
a City Councillor whose legacy included the pavilion.
iii.
We think it’s important for a Capital funding
proposal to be initiated by the Council to ensure these most important
improvements to Jesus Green are implemented as soon as possible. Councillor Gilderdale provided the following
response provided by Cambridge City Council Officers:
i.
Confirmed (as the member of the public had alluded
to) there was a relationship between the Lido and the Pavilion created from the
project planning.
ii.
Improvements to the Lido had been focussed on what
is available via S106[1] Swimming
Pool contributions[2] to include
improvements to the pool tank with the S106 funding have been prioritised to
address and improve accessibility and usability for users by a.
Profiling the pool tank to make it shallower
throughout to create more shallow areas for children and less able swimmers,
also to reduce unnecessary depth to promote natural warming of the water. b.
Inserting thermal insulation (retaining heat). c.
Creating a deck level pool (easier access/egress
and offers a natural filtration of surface debris and leaves). d.
making upgrades and improvements to changing and
toilet/showers to improve accessibility and better support year-round use.
iii.
Along with some capital funded improvements to the
pool plantroom housing the filtration systems. iv.
These improvements impact on when and what the
Council could do at the Rouse Ball pavilion.
v.
The plans to relocate the Rouse Ball Pavilion to
the pool, to create a community café & multi use space, toilets changing
etc were unaffordable and undeliverable in the short - medium term in the
current financial environment. vi.
It was still the ambition to deliver these
facilities as part of a future leisure offer for the Lido when the current
Leisure Contract expired at the end of March 2026 and work is now commencing on
what a new leisure contract can deliver for the City over the coming year. vii.
Officers could start work with the Friends Groups
on what a new facility may look like; where it could be sited and outline
designs to proceed to a position where planning permissions for a building may
be obtained, but delivery of the facility would be part of the new leisure
provision after 2026. viii.
In the short term, the Streets and Open Space team
had considered options for both the Rouse Pavilion and its associated toilet
provision and have made improvements to toilets and sublet part of the Pavilion
to support the punters on the river.
The toilets were in good condition and serviced every day. ix.
The Council also made periodic repairs and remove
graffiti as it appears, and the building remains fit for purpose, and we accept
this is a short-term solution.
x.
The Council would include Friends groups when
discussing options for change medium to longer term. Councillor Porrer respond with the
following:
i.
The Council had been looking at this issue for
several years and would want to be part of any work to bring the project to
conclusion; was happy to meet with Jesus Green Association.
ii.
There had already been cuts to the public convinces
in the city, Midsummer Common toilets would only be open part of the year and
those on Chesterton Road had been closed. This meant that the pressure on the
public toilets on Jesus Green would increase.
iii.
Disappointed that the funding would not be looked
at for three years due to the time the Council had been working on this project
irrespective of the Lido. Councillor Bick stated the following:
i.
The public toilets did not meet the public demand
for Jesus Green. This was the case before the Council part closed Park Street
and Midsummer Common public toilets and now having closed Chesterton Road
signposting Jesus Green as an alternative increase demand for an inadequate out
of date public conveniences.
ii.
Would query the maintenance costs of the Jesus
Green was cost efficient as would assume the costs were high.
iii.
Savings had been made from the closure of public
toilets in the city and yet there had been no provision for the investment in
supplying sufficient facilities on Jesus Green. The member of the public concluded with the
following points:
i.
Did not agree with the Officers that the pavilion
was fit for purpose, the roof was in bits and was leaked when rained. The
survey carried out six or seven years stated the condition of the roof was in
too bad of a state to repair and recommend the removal.
ii.
The toilets were not suitable for disabled use;
being “spruced up” from time to time was not enough.
iii.
The project would be suitable to apply for heritage
lottery funding and would ask if Officers had explored this route. Councillor Gay suggested that Trinity
College could also be contacted regarding the matter of funding. Councillor Gilderdale thanked the member of
the public for their time and hoped a meeting could be arranged with officers
to discuss a way forward (Action: Cllr Gilderdale) 2. A member of the public sent in the following
statement: I live in Cambridge city centre, on City
Road quite close to the Grafton Centre. My question relates to engine idling by
cars and vans in this area. At the end of City Road where it meets the
Grafton St area, the rear of the Grafton Centre near the car park behind Next
and Starbucks, and in fact anywhere a car can pull up to offload shoppers
heading for the Grafton, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding by
car drivers of the polluting effect of their idling engines on the air quality
where we live. Sometimes I speak to them and politely request that they turn
off their engines, and nearly always am met by bafflement as to why this is
necessary. My understanding is that an idling engine
can emit twice as much pollution as a moving vehicle, and that there has been
some discussion in Westminster about introducing on-the-spot fines for engine
idling. At present I believe drivers can be issued a fine if they fail to turn
off their engine within 60 seconds of being asked to do so. Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits
leaving your engine on when it is not needed. I believe we need to tackle
engine idling as an important part of our efforts to reduce pollution in
Cambridge. In the light of all this, would it be possible to have a number of
anti-idling posters and signs put up in the area? Any other measures aimed at
sorting out this problem would also be welcome Councillor Porrer stated the following:
i.
Agreed with the points raised as experienced the
same issues.
ii.
Had recently spoken with the traffic warden who
were trying to enforce it but they were not there every minute of every day.
iii.
Would support a poster campaign designed by local
school children on this subject matter and queried if this could be supported /
arranged by the City Council. Aware that in certain areas that could be
heritage issues but would like Officers to explore the suggestion. Councillor
Gilderdale highlighted that the following points
i.
The Head of Environment had provided an in the
Matters and Action sheet concerning, reference 22/19/WAC Open Forum Q2, as the
matter had been discussed at a previous meeting. Agenda
for West Central Area Committee on Thursday, 16th March, 2023, 6.30 pm -
Cambridge Council
ii.
There were powers in the Road Traffic (Vehicle
Emissions)
iii.
(Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002, which,
on application, would allow local authorities to enforce but the Council did
not have the resource to actively police this matter. iv.
Would go back to the Head of Environment Services
with the suggestion of signage, highlighting the suggestion of the school
children competition (Action: Cllr Gilderdale). |