Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Ashwood, Avery and Sanders.

 

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 Ashton	16/16/SAC	Personal: Chair of Cherry Hinton Resident’s Association.
Councillor Dryden & McPherson	16/16/SAC	Personal: Member of Cherry Hinton Resident’s Association.
Councillor Meftah	16/16/SAC	Personal: Member of Trumpington Resident’s Association.
Councillor O’Connell	16/16/SAC	Personal: Partner is a volunteer for Citizen’s Advice Bureau.   Member of Trumpington Resident’s Association.
Councillor Taylor	16/16/SAC	Personal: Member of Friends of Rock Road Library.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016.

 

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the amendment on P5 16/3/SAC:

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment on P21 15/121/SACS106 Priority-Setting: South Area Project Proposals. Councillor Ashton asked for it to be minuted that the Church Community Facilities Rock Cherry Hinton Road/Hartington Grove lies in the East Area, and at a time when South Area 106 funds are unable to meet their own Area requests, it was difficult to see why SAC should match East funding of £40,000.

 

16/6/SAC Bus Stops and Services: Councillor Ashton also asked for it to be noted that Andy Campbell did not believe in consultation.

Committee Action Sheet from last meeting attached.

ACTION	LEAD OFFICER/MEMBER	TIMESCALE	PROGRESS
Open Forum   Councillor McPherson (as Committee Chair) to write to local schools and colleges to: ·       Invite students to attend future South Area Committee meetings. ·       State that all South Area Committee Councillors have expressed a willingness to speak at local schools and colleges if formally invited to attend on specific times and dates.   Specifically write to Principals of Long Road College, Hills Road College and Netherhall School; to ask how public bodies such as the City and County Councils can engage with young people through regular events.	Councillor McPherson	Feedback at next SAC 18/04/16	Letters sent, awaiting detailed responses.   Acknowledgements from Long Road and Netherhall who hoped students would want to take advantage of this opportunity. The Principals would liaise with staff and students and respond as soon as possible.
Open Forum   Councillor McPherson to write to Hills Road College to ask how the South Area Committee and the County Council can support the college to provide appropriate cycle parking facilities following concerns raised at the 29/02/16 committee.   Councillor McPherson (supported by Councillor Moore) to liaise with Mike Davies (County Council) and East Area Committee Chair to seek bike parking options and funding available.	Councillors McPherson and Moore	Feedback at next SAC 18/04/16	Letter sent, awaiting response.                               Email sent, awaiting response.   Councillor Moore was informed there was no funding available from the County Council. He was informed by Claire Rankin (Cycling & Walking Officer) that City Council funding may be available, and will clarify if this was a suitable project to apply.
Open Forum   Joel Carre to respond to Mr Woodburn’s question about when the 20 mph limit will come into effect on Cherry Hinton Road (11/12/15 planned implementation date).	Joel Carre (Head of Streets and Open Spaces)	Feedback at next SAC 18/04/16	Response previously sent by John Richards (Senior Engineer - Development Unit). Joel Carre has re-issued.   Joel Carre said the timetable had changed from estimated completion in Spring to Summer 2016.   Mr Woodburn and South Area Committee (SAC) requested clarification on the timetable, completion date and how speed cameras would be used to enforce the 20 mph limit.   Action Point: Joel Carré to ask John Richards to provide requested information with notes of meeting; and failing that to arrange for John Richards to attend next SAC to update Committee in person.
Environmental Data Reports – SAC   Wendy Young to seek response from County Council about painting no cycling signs on the pavement.	Wendy Young (Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement)	Feedback at next SAC 18/04/16	Response to Wendy Young from Evan Laughlin at the County Council:   Each site would be treated on merit. However all additional works would have a cost to install and maintain as such unless signage that is legally required is not there we will not place more signage / road markings. It would be impossible to sign all footways that do not allow cycling it is far more practical to sign those which it is allowed, which is what we do. It is a police issue to enforce illegal use by cyclists on footways not signed for shared use.   Councillor O’Connell clarified with Wendy Young that SAC had asked if the City Council could undertake work on behalf of the County Council. She was told this would be possible the County Council could pre-approve sites to be painted before work was undertaken by the City Council. Councilor McPherson queried if the City Council had sufficient resources to undertake work.

 

 

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

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

 

1.       Ms Draper asked for a hustings in Cherry Hinton.

 

Councillor Dryden said it was not possible to organise one due to the pre-election period. He (as Mayor) would not be able to speak, although he was an election candidate, when other candidates could. The intention was to organise a hustings in another election year, when due notice of it could be given.

 

2.       A member of the public said the hustings in Queen Edith’s would occur 21 April 2016.

 

3.       A member of the public asked for the Highway’s Authority proposed ban on turning left from Hills Road to Queen Edith’s Way be discounted as it would cause traffic congestion.

 

SAC agreed the left turn ban was a bad idea.

 

Councillor Taylor said the County Council had proposed the ban to make it safer for cyclists to use the Hills Road cycleway by stopping cars cutting across it. The public were consulted on options and the overwhelming response was that people were opposed to the left turn ban.

 

4.       A member of the public said there were traffic flow and parking issues on Hills Road and neighbouring residential streets due to commuters and college students. Residents would like time restricted parking to stop commuters parking all day.

 

Councillor Taylor said the County Council were undertaking work regarding Hills and Homerton College parking. Nichola Gardiner was responsible for parking in Cambridge. Councillor Taylor and Ms Gardiner were working on a series of options (such as parking permits) to present to residents in June 2016.

 

5.       Mr Carpen raised the following points:

                i.          There was a lack of cycle parking at Hills Road College.

              ii.          He had interviewed a number of students who were scathing about public transport.

           iii.          Queried if there had been any response to his previous question about cycle parking at Hills Road College.

 

Councillor Moore said he was mapping student travel routes across the city. Traffic flow and parking issues caused safety concerns. There was a need to balance different people’s needs such as disable people, commuters and pedestrians. Sometimes taking action made things worse eg introducing resident’s parking permits moved problems to another area. However doing nothing caused even more problems.

 

Councillor Ashton said that parking was an issue across the city, and was frequently mentioned at South Area Committee meetings. There was no concensus from residents on options to address parking issues such as double yellow lines. A joined up City and County Council body was needed to identify and take action.

 

Councillor McPherson said there had been no response to his letter to the Principal of Hills Road College regarding parking.

 

6.       Mr Carpen asked if the City Council could work with Cycle Streets to map commuting as an evidence base for action.

 

7.       Mr Woodburn said both Cambridge Universities prohibited students from bringing cars into the city and asked if sixth form colleges could be asked to do the same.

 

SAC said this was up to colleges to impose and enforce. The universities had proctors to enforce policies (which did not always happen).

 

Councillor Taylor said that Hills Road College asked students not to drive to college. Better park&ride/public transport links may encourage a modal shift from cars to other transport.

The decision was noted.

 

The decision was noted.

 

The report from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement was noted.

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

 

The report outlined actions taken since the Committee on 14 December 2015. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted. Previous priorities and engagement activity noted in the report were:

       i.          Continue to target the supply of controlled drugs (Class A).

     ii.          Enforcement action against inconsiderate/illegal parking around schools [in] the city. Also speeding.

   iii.          Enforcement action against cycling on the pavement[s] around the city. Also cycling at night without lights.

 

The Committee raised the following policing issues:

       i.          School children cycling on the pavement in Wulfstan Way.

     ii.          Parking issues in Bosworth Road.

   iii.          Anti-social parking around schools.

   iv.          Parking issues across the city in general. People had been given sufficient warnings to educate them not to park illegally, SAC felt that enforcement action was now appropriate.

    v.          Requested details on the number of enforcement tickets issued be included in the next officer report.

   vi.          Speeding on Queen Edith’s Way and Hills Road.

 vii.          Drug dealing in the CB1 area.

 

Members of the public raised the following policing issues:

       i.          Drug dealing in Godwin Way.

     ii.          Anti-social behaviour linked to commuters parking in Bosworth Way. Resident’s had safety concerns due to speeding, blocking of access and damage to hedges.

   iii.          Anti-social behaviour linked to parking near the Queen Emma School. Commuters did not use the designated drop-off point.

 

Sergeant Horton responded to issues raised as follows:

       i.          Civil enforcement officers were responsible for parking enforcement in the city.

     ii.          Asked for 3 Speed Watch volunteers in the south area. Volunteers would monitor speeding and address it in areas such as Hills Road.

 

Action Point: Sergeant Horton to seek response from colleagues about Councillor Taylor’s query about speed cameras data monitoring.

 

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

 

1.       Mr Deb said burglaries in Cherry Hinton where the majority of victims were part of the Asian community was an issue raised in December 2015. Residents felt there had been no progress since raising the matter.

 

Sergeant Horton asked for the victims contact details to be passed to the Victim Hub. He understood that all necessary steps had been taken to investigate the crimes.

 

 

2.       Mr Carpen said the Cambridge Lakes site may be developed in future and so free up Police resources so they did not have to deal with trespassers.

 

Sergeant Horton said the site was private property so they should undertake security patrols to protect it.

 

The following priorities were unanimously agreed:

       i.          Continue to target the supply of controlled drugs (Class A).

     ii.          Road safety ( around parking ) to continue:

·       ASB parking around the city, particularly in South Area near schools

·       Speeding

   iii.          Anti-social behaviour at the Cambridge Lakes to include preventative patrols, to target hot spot areas around the lake and to speak to the management regarding the possibility of installing CCTV.

The Committee received a report from the Community, Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

The report outlined the council had devolved to area committees decision-making powers over the use of devolved S106 developer contributions, which include those for outdoor sports provision.

 

The South Area Committee allocated £100,000 of its devolved outdoor sports S106 contributions for improvements to Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground Pavilion in January 2014. A further £200,000 of devolved S106 outdoor sports contributions were allocated to the second phase of this project in December 2016. In both cases, the allocations were subject to approval of the project appraisal/business case. The overall value of the project is therefore £300,000. These amounts already feature of the ‘projects under development’ list of the council’s Capital Programme.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to:

       i.          Approve the Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground project (involving a single storey side and front extension with internal alterations to existing Pavilion), as detailed in the attached appendices, which has been properly planned and is ready for implementation.

     ii.          Delegate to the Chief Executive to invite and evaluate tenders for the contract for the Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground Pavilion project.

   iii.          Delegate to the Chief Executive, following consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokes of the South Area Committee, to award a contract for the Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground Pavilion project to the tender(s) that are evaluated as the most economically advantageous to the Council.

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding & Development Manager.

 

The report gave an update on the work of the review to date and proposals for the next steps of the information gathering exercise.

 

The Committee were also provided with a list of community facilities identified to date across the city that were invited to complete a survey and a map of those that had responded to the facility audit.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          The community facilities map needed to be kept up to date otherwise it would just be a snapshot.

     ii.          Mental health facilities were being cut across the city, those that remained were hidden away. It would be helpful to map these facilities as a signpost for people to find them.

 

In response to Members’ comments the Community Funding & Development Manager said that the map information is an issue. Consideration needs to be made regards data protection, keeping information up to date and the resources to do this.

 

In response to Members’ comments the Community Funding & Development Manager said that data management would be reviewed in future and undertook to liaise with area committees as appropriate.

 

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

 

1.       Ms Drapper said that Foodcycle were looking for a new venue.

 

The Community Funding & Development Manager said that officers would liaise with the applicant if an expression of interest was submitted.

 

2.       Mr Carpen raised the following points about the map of community facilities:

                i.          Would it be available on line?

              ii.          Would it include responses from school students?

           iii.          Suggested keeping the map up to date by getting people to come to council events and giving feedback. This was one of the aims of the former ‘Be the Change’ initiative. People could also respond through ‘Cambridgeshire.Net’.

 

The Community Funding & Development Manager said

                 i.          Some community facility details included personal information. The intention was to put a list of facilities on-line once permission to publish people’s contact details had been obtained. (Contact details were obtained during the community facility mapping process). Further details would be set out in the report going to Community Services Scrutiny Committee 30 June 2016.

               ii.          There would be engagement with young people in future regarding community facilities. They could also respond to the on-line survey now.

 

3.       Considerable support and thanks was expressed by both the committee and members of the public in this project.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to:

       i.          Note the work of the review and initial findings of the city-wide community facilities audit.

     ii.          Promote the ‘call for evidence’ stage of the review and encourage stakeholders to feed in their experience and evidence as detailed in sections 5 and 6 of the Officer’s report.

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding & Development Manager.

 

The report outlined applications received to date for 2016-17 funding for projects in the South Area, made recommendations for awards and provided information on the eligibility and funding criteria.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Community Funding & Development Manager said the following:

       i.          Outlined poverty calculation criteria and offered to forward this to Councillors upon request.

     ii.          The indices of multiple deprivation was used in calculations to give an apportioned figure. This weighting was approved by Community Services Scrutiny Committee. Officers could return to Community Services Scrutiny Committee in future to request use of more specific figures such as fuel poverty if deemed appropriate when reviewing Area committee funding.

 

A member of the public made the following comment.

 

1.       Funding had been requested for the Queen Edith’s Forum 2015 to produce a newsletter. Community Grant funding had launched the newsletter which was now self-sufficient. Particular thanks was given to the council officers for their support.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to agree the proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report and summarised in the table below:

 

Ref	Organisation	Purpose	Award £
S1	Accordia and Community Residents Association (ACRA)	Summer family sports day	0
S2	Accordia and Community Residents Association (ACRA)	Christmas event for Accordia families	0
S3	Age UK Cambridgeshire	Trumpington Trips	900
S4	Cambridge Royal Albert Benevolent Society	Social event for frail, elderly residents	500
S5	Cambridge & District Citizen's Advice Bureau	Pilot outreach project in Trumpington	2,605
S6	(Cambridgeshire Older People's Enterprise)  Evelyn Charnley Memorial Lunch Club	Monthly meetings	500
S7	(Centre at St Pauls) Harvey Road Group	Day trip for single parent families	340
S8	(Centre at St Pauls) Huxley Group	Day trip for single parent families	375
S9	Centre at St Pauls - St Pauls Lunch Clubs	Three day trips	700
S10	Cherry Hinton Festival Society	Festival Day costs	3,000
S11	Cherry Hinton Football Club	Improvement to playing surface	0
S12	Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall	Three community action days	100
S13	Gap Learning CIC	6 week Full Spoon course	800
S14	Hanover and Princess Court Resident's Association	Outing; barbeque; Christmas event; monthly craft sessions;  monthly art sessions	1,000
S15	Queen Edith's Community Forum	Community Action event	500
S16	Queen Edith's Community Forum	Olympic themed sports event	120
S17	Queen Edith's Community Forum	Annual insurance and CCVS membership costs.	200
S18	Queen Edith's Community Forum	Winter festival + Xmas lights switch-on	350
S19	Romsey Mill	Community football sessions, 2 trips, community cultural project	2,000
S20	Sustrans	Continuation of weekly social walks	300
S21	Trumpington Bowls	6 tables + storage trolley	0
S22	Trumpington Residents Association	Day trip	600

 

Budget available	£14,890
Total awards	£14,890
Budget remaining	£0

 

The Committee received a report from the Senior Engineer regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The report outlined progress of existing schemes and possible further scheme allocations for 2016/17.

 

Existing Schemes: Progress

The Senior Engineer referred to progress on approved schemes as set out in his report.

 

New Schemes That Require Decisions

In the absence of any new scheme applications from the latest invitation round, Members considered a number of suggestions put forward in 2014-15.

 

Members of the public made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Requested Project S6 Red Cross Lane dropped kerb be deferred as it would lead to pedestrian/cycle conflict. Asked for project details to be revised then brought back later in the year.

     ii.          Funding had been allocated to various verge projects, but they were once again back in a poor state of repair. There seemed little point in allocating funding to other verge projects.

   iii.          Asked for EIP funded noticeboards to be erected where people gathered, so the boards would be noticed eg at bus stops and the Co-op on Hills Road.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Engineer answered:

       i.                    EIP was refocused in 2015 on smaller projects that fell outside the normal work of the City Council and County Council, but could be delivered by the City Council. Projects had been delayed in the past where there were dependencies on partner organisations.

     ii.                    EIP was now separate from Local Highways Improvement funding. EIP could top up areas that needed improvement outside of core highways responsibilities and functions, but it should not replace funding for normal responsibilities eg s106 from the planning process.

   iii.                    Local Highways Improvement funding was the responsibility of the County Council. EIP was the responsibility of the City Council.

 

Members requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Ashton formally proposed the 2016/17 allocation be equally split between the three South Area wards for Ward Councilors to nominate which projects should receive funding.

 

The Senior Engineer said that funding could be nominated off-line, but it needed to be formally allocated (eg at a meeting) by the South Area Committee.

 

This amendment was agreed (unanimously).

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (unanimously):

       i.                    Noted the utilisation of £4,500 of remaining South Area EIP funding to the provision and maintenance of 26 hanging baskets along Cherry Hinton High Street during 2015-16.

     ii.                    Trumpington Ward Councillors to consider off-line the allocation of additional funding (up to £10,000) towards the existing committed scheme to improve street trees in Bateman Street.

   iii.                    To allocate funding from the 2014-15 programme year, and additional funding available for 2016-17, to S3 and S6 on the list of previously proposed projects in Appendix A of the Officer’s report. Subject to:

·       S3 to consider a planted area instead of a post or bollard.

·       S6 specifications to be re-worked.

·       S1, S2, S4, S5 and S7 projects not to receive funding.

   iv.                    Not to progress with an outstanding commitment to introduce controls on verge parking in Mowbray Road and Fendon Road. Funding to be reallocated to a different ward project(s).

    v.                    Discounted remaining funding allocations set out in recommendations on P101 of the Officer’s report. The 2016/17 allocation would be equally split between the three South Area wards for Ward Councilors to nominate which projects should receive funding. Funding would be allocated by the South Area Committee in future. Subject to the schemes being deliverable, obtaining consents necessary, positive consultation where required and final approval by Ward Councillors.

   vi.                    Noted the progress of existing schemes listed in Appendix C of this report.

 vii.                    To consider a second EIP application invitation round during 2016-17 to utilise any funding uncommitted from the present round plus any savings arising from the delivery of previously committed schemes.

The Committee is asked to agree the following meeting dates for the municipal year 2016-17:

·       6 June 2016

·       3 October 2016

·       16 January 2017

·       24 April 2017

The following dates were agreed:

·       6 June 2016

·       3 October 2016

·       16 January 2017

·       24 April 2017