Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Ashwood, Crawford and Dryden.

 

Due to prior commitments, it was noted that Councillors Birtles, McPherson and Pippas would be arriving late.

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.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Birtles	13/54b/SAC	Personal: Resident of Hartington Grove and knows the objectors. Chose not to take part in the decision or the vote.

 

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2013.

The minutes of the 13 September 2013 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were no matters arising.

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

 

1.    Speaking on behalf of local residents, Dr Walker raised safety concerns about the junction at Neath Farm Court. The Police had been informed but the issue had not been resolved.

 

2.    A resident of Neath Farm Court also raised concerns about vehicles driving over the speed limit and estimated that 60-80% of the vehicles in that area were using it as a ‘rat-run’.

 

Councillor Ashton responded that the issue had been raised by Councillor McPherson before the new estate had been built. A speed check had subsequently been undertaken by the Police but the results were felt to be flawed. A further check had therefore been requested. Councillor Ashton also confirmed that he had personally spoken with the Police and the County Council on this issue and supported the views of local residents.

 

It was agreed that the Police would answer this question under item 6 of the agenda (see below).

 

3.    Mr Carpen asked the following questions:

 

How many Councillors have used the 'Shape Your Place' (SYP) Website?

 

Councillor Taylor responded that she uses the SYP website every week to promote events and join discussion groups. She would also be conducting on on-line surgery on SYP later in the month.

 

Councillors Aston, Blackhurst, Meftah, Pippas and Swanson responded that, whilst they had looked at the SYP website, they were not regular users.

 

Which social media tools do Councillors use (e.g Facebook, Twitter) and how often?

 

Councillor Taylor responded that she regularly uses Facebook and Twitter and finds them a useful communication tool. Councillor Pippas responded that he had recently started using both Facebook and Twitter, and Councillor Meftah responded that he occasionally uses Facebook.

 

Councillors Ashton, Blackhurst and Swanson responded that they did not use Facebook or Twitter.

 

What do you think are the barriers stopping Councillors and residents using social media?

 

Councillor Ashton responded that he received the majority of his correspondence via email and felt that recent bad press and security issues acted as a barrier to him using social media more.

 

Councillor Taylor responded that she found social media to be a really useful method of communication.

 

A local resident responded that time was a barrier to using social media more. With access to Councillors telephone numbers, email addresses and home addresses, the need for an additional communication method was questioned. 

 

The Chair agreed to circulate the questions to those members of the Committee that were absent.

 

 

 

 

The Committee received a report from Police Sergeant Jim Stevenson regarding the policing and safer neighbourhood trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the Committee on 15 July 2013. 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 to reduce the theft of pedal cycles in South Area, combat the supply of drugs in South Area; and anti-social behaviour around the Spinney School area.

 

The Committee thanked the Police for their hard work and dedication in the South Area.

 

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

 

1.              Raised concern about anti-social behavior by young people in the area and the vandalism of the outdoor table tennis facility and the well used fitness equipment.  

 

The Police Sergeant acknowledged the concern but responded that there was no evidence to indicate that the damage had been caused by young people.

 

Councillor Ashton confirmed that the fitness equipment had not been removed as a result of the vandalism. The equipment had been put in temporarily whilst the existing equipment was refurbished. If the temporary fitness equipment was well used by the public Councilor Ashton agreed to look into reinstating it.

 

Mr Carpen responded that not all young people caused anti-social behavior and highlighted the National Citizens Service as an example of good practice across the country.

 

2.              Raised safety concerns about the junction at Neath Farm Court, and the speeding vehicles and ‘rat-running’.  

 

The Police Sergeant responded that the speed survey had highlighted speeding and ‘rat-running’ as an issue. However due to the limitations of the handheld speed camera equipment, and that the majority of those speeding were in the 35-40mph range, it had been difficult to issue tickets to offenders. Therefore unfortunately the issue did not warrant the use of a Safety Camera Unit.

 

It was suggested that another speed survey could be undertaken by PCSO’s to gather more data, but they would be unable to provide enforcement. Residents were encouraged to become involved in the local Speed Watch campaign in order to help address the problem.

 

In response to a further question regarding ‘rat-running’, the Police Sergeant confirmed that without a Traffic Management Order, it would be difficult to stop people using a public road.  The Police had also discussed the issue of the road layout with the County Council and this dialogue would continue.

 

The Police Sergeant arranged to meet with local resident’s outside of the meeting to discuss the issue, and possible solutions, in more detail.

 

3.              Raised concerns about public drinking on the recreation ground.

 

The Police Sergeant responded that, without a Section 30 Order in place, it was not possible to stop people drinking in a public place unless they were causing a nuisance.

 

A member of the public highlighted that a young child was present whilst the drinking was taking place. The Police Sergeant responded that, if this was the case, the issue could be tackled through other routes. He advised members of the public to dial 101 and report any future incidents.

 

The Committee discussed the following policing issues:

 

       i.          Speeding in Queen Edith’s Ward, especially around schools.

     ii.          Bike theft in Newtown.

   iii.          Speeding on the Addenbrookes Access Road.

   iv.          Parking enforcement near to schools.

    v.          Parking enforcement around Mill End Road.

 

The Committee requested that parking enforcement in Mill End Road be specifically included in Police Priority 3.

 

The following priorities were unanimously agreed:

 

i.                           Reduce the theft of pedal cycles in the Newtown area.

ii.                         Combat the supply of drugs in the South Area.

iii.                       Tackle vehicle parking offences around school premises across the South Area, and in Mill End Road.

 

 

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the alteration of a boundary fence and bin enclosure.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Helen Higgs.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          This is a building of local interest and the changes to the boundary had been done without permission.

     ii.          The application did not comply with Local Plan Policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 4/11 and 4/12.

   iii.          The industrial sized bins were too big and not actively used.

   iv.          The landscaping and screening around the bin area needed attention. 

    v.          The previous grounds for refusal still applied.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to reject the officer recommendation to grant the application for planning permission.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to refuse planning permission, against the officer recommendation, for the following reason:

 

The bin store, because of its scale, materials, prominent location and ineffective method of enclosure and landscaping, responds poorly to the surrounding context, jarring with, and detracting from, the character of the Building of Local Interest and the street scene, and eroding the special quality of the Newtown section of the City of Cambridge Conservation Area No.1 (Central), contrary to policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 4/11 and 4/12 of the saved Cambridge Local Plan 2006, and to government guidance in Sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

 

The Committee received an application for outline planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for the demolition of an existing building and the erection of three dwelling houses (resubmission).

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Charlotte Colucci.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

 

       i.          Speaking on behalf of residents from 66, 68, 70a and 72 Hartington Grove.

     ii.          Whilst in favour of a change of use, concern was raised about the effect on nearby properties.

   iii.          The proposal would have an overbearing impact on 68 and 72 Hartington Grove.

   iv.          The proposal would cause overshadowing and a lack of natural sunlight.

    v.          Residents request a shadow survey.

   vi.          The proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.

 vii.          Concerned that trees along the boundary would damage neighbouring properties.

 

The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Due to concerns that the area was used heavily to access local schools, Councillor Swanson proposed amendments to conditions 3 and 4 (amendment in bold):

 

3.       Except with the prior written agreement of the local planning authority in writing no construction work or demolition shall be carried out or plant operated other than between the following hours: 0930 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

         

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining properties. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/13)

 

4        Except with the prior agreement of the local planning authority in writing, there should be no collection or deliveries to the site during the demolition and construction stages outside the hours of 0700 hrs and 1900 hrs on Monday - Saturday and there should be no collections or deliveries on Sundays or Bank and public holidays. In addition, there shall be no collection or deliveries between 0830 and 0930, and 1500 to 1600 Monday to Friday.

 

Reason: Due to the proximity of a school and residential properties to this premises.  The above conditions are recommended to protect the amenity of these premises throughout the redevelopment in accordance with policies 4/13 and 6/10 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006)

 

The Committee agreed these amendments unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (unanimously) to grant the application for permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the amended conditions recommended by the officers.