Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

 

Item	Councillor	Interest
Area Committee Grants	Ashton	Personal: Member of Cherry Hinton Residents Association
Area Committee Grants	Dryden	Personal: Member of Cherry Hinton Residents Association

 

The notes of the meetings held on 28 November 2022 were noted.

The committee action sheet was noted. Councillors would send any updates to the Committee Manager outside of the meeting.

 

      i.          Councillor Davies asked a question regarding the report given by Officer on the Making Connections report and did not get a response before the closing date of the report but did get a response in January.

     ii.          Posed question to Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) officer in which the report stated that 53% of trips being undertaken by residents asked for a breakdown of that over hour of day and day of week. The GCP’s response was that the data did not contain that information. Should it be required they would be willing to include it in future reports.

   iii.          Councillor Ashton felt that officers are not providing all answers about where they got the numbers for the statistics of the Making Connection report.

Members of the public put forward the following statements, as set out below.

 

1.    A member of the public raised the following issues:

      i.          Enquired about potholes on Queen Edith’s Way.

     ii.          Enquired about streetlights on Spalding Road, stated there are not enough.

   iii.          Asked about a residents parking scheme on Glebe Road.

 

Councillors Beckett provided the following response(s):

      i.          Potholes were an issue. Had been doing upmost to get on top of them. Usually have 6 crews working on them but currently they have 10.

     ii.          There were approximately 5000 potholes outstanding. They are able to fix 1200 a week and are doing so as quickly as possible.

   iii.          Are resurfacing some roads in an attempt to lessen the number of potholes popping up.

   iv.          Regarding streetlights, they were submitting Local Highway Improvement funding (LHI) bids for more streetlights. Happy to take away suggestions.

    v.          There was a contract in place until 2027 for third party to fill potholes. The County Council does not have its own crews working on them. At present they need to adhere to the contract.

 

2.    A member of the public sent in the following statement:

      i.          I would propose the construction of a single tennis court to be placed adjacent to the skatepark in the Clay Farm area of Trumpington.

     ii.          Across the whole of Trumpington, to best knowledge, there is one in 'older Trumpington', one in Trumpington Meadows, but none in Clay Farm.

 

Dog Control - PSPO Proposal for Hobson's Park

 

   iii.          The questions have raised queries in the consultation with regards to whether they have followed the guidance provided by the Market Research Society - there are no questions about to support or refute the creation, renewal, expansion of the PSPO.

   iv.          The survey does not provide any quantitative data on the number of incidents that suggests that dog-control is ineffective or problematic. Nor does the proposal share any insights into already having tackled the issue via alternative means on pre-existing enforcement. For example dog-littering is an offence with the ability to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice.

    v.          There are also CPNs and CBOs which target the few irresponsible individuals and not a blanket group of people (all individuals who are dog owners).

   vi.          Further to this the guidance of LGA, DEFRA and Home Office says to provide alternative provision when proposing any PSPO to ensure the ability to maintain the Animal Welfare Act. The PSPO proposal fails to set out any alternative provision.

 vii.          The proposal specifically targets dog owners but the site being marked out and grounds are a disturbance to ground nesting birds but makes no proposed restrictions on humans. It seems there's a fundamental lack of knowledge or proper due diligence:

a.    Statista (used by gov.uk) has 1 in 3 households having at least one dog. Statista also has record that there are 13 million dogs in the UK.

viii.          In the development area of Clay Farm alone that is 800 dogs with 1,500 walks a day - if Animal Welfare of the dog is meeting the Animal Welfare Act and guidance of The Kennel Club, RSPCA etc.

   ix.          Yet we've not seen any efforts for enforcement of individuals, no statistics that there is a problematic issue and a disregard that in terms of disturbance to avian life - then lights, sounds and vibrations are all detractors - all of which is caused by the growing expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambridge South Station - the latter in particular including heavy machinery and the future construction taking over large portions of Hobson's Park - causing further restriction on all animal life and biodiversity.

    x.          For the Councillors who are sit on and represent the political parties on committee the lack of transparency with reference to evidence data being shared with the public, the leading questions of the survey all point to a biased approach.

   xi.          Given that Hobson's Park in particular is being cited for Seasonal restrictions then I would reference the wording created by The Kennel Club and RSPB - on effective dog control:

a.    The Kennel Club worked with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) to establish a definition of 'effective control':

1.    is kept on a lead whether fixed or extendable, or

2.    if not on a lead, the person in charge of the dog remains aware of its actions and the dog will return to him reliably and promptly on command.

 xii.          Why cannot this wording be used and applied to Hobson's Park.

xiii.          It was also noted the lack of The Kennel Club being approached prior to the proposals being put to Councillors - although LGA, DEFRA and Home Office all recommend doing so.

xiv.          Were Councillors aware of any statistics prior to this going to consultation?

 

Councillor Hauk provided the following response(s):

                          i.          Was not aware of any statistics. Only that it was based on complaints received. Stated that he would bring this up at the next Environment & Community (E&C) scrutiny committee.

                         ii.          Encouraged member of public to register to speak at next E&C scrutiny committee as this would be taken into consideration as part of the consultation.

 

Councillor Slatter provided the following response(s):

 

                          i.          Stated that she would encourage Councillor Hauk to bring this up at the next E&C scrutiny committee meeting and would like a report of it at the next available South Area Committee meeting.

 

3.    A member of the public raised the following issues:

                          i.          Why was their request for funding in Trumpington which specifically applies to community development activities not fully endorsed.

                         ii.          Why did all members of the committee receive instructions to put a stop to all questions about this application at this committee meetings and by who?

 

Councillors provided the following response(s):

                          i.          Councillor Levien stated he does not know the details of the application. Asked if member of the public could email them the details of the application.

                         ii.          Councillor Hauk stated that any criticism of the decision-making process should be directed to full council.

                       iii.          Councillor Ashton stated that Trumpington is getting a large share of the funding for other projects. Stated that the process of how funding is split up needs to be looked at again.

                       iv.          Councillor Slatter stated that she is unhappy with the changes in area committees and the fact that decisions cannot currently be made regarding grants.

                        v.          Councillor Davies stated that reports used to come to area committees about grants. There was officer commentary stating why funds were granted. Said that currently they do not have any information about why funds were granted or not and feels that is something that needs to be looked at.

 

4.    A member of the public raised the following issues:

                          i.          Red Cross Lane Area Neighbourhood Watch Scheme approved by Cambridgeshire Police is seeing an increase in suspicious activities and groups of men in the area of Greenlands estate. With The Biomedical and Hospitals next door there have been two noticeable changes in the last month:

a.    Daytime vans are parking on the estate and saying this is because they cannot park on site to go to the hospital, they say parking has reduced and changed and now vans are too large for the spaces. The vans are trespassing, but other vans and cars are parking around them for unknown reasons, there have been small groups of men in black who seem to go off wandering the local area.

b.    At night small number of similar vehicles are coming on to the estate to park 1- 4am but no one knows why (some may be taxis/private hire vehicles, but no one is sure and are they to do with the hospitals or something else?)

                         ii.          The link Red Cross Lane to Addenbrookes is bringing in suspicious, anti-social and possible crime from Trumpington and it is going out through the opening of the public right of way to Ninewells through to the cycle path/park and ride and backwards to Trumpington, what can be done?

 

Councillors provided the following response(s):

                          i.          Councillor Beckett has been working with member of the public and has put in an LHI bid to help with problem parking in the Red Cross Lane area.

                         ii.          Councillor Davies suggested that the traffic issue addressed by Councillor Beckett be separated from the policing issues and save that for the police to respond to that enquiry.

The Committee received a report from the Anti-social behaviour regarding policing and safer neighbourhoods.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the last reporting period. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see Officer report for full details.)

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

      i.          Continuing work with vehicle related issues.

     ii.          Reducing crime and ASB by young people. Operations Guardian and Springboard were in effect. Families and individuals were being visited by police.

   iii.          The Police sat on the Councils led peer group and places meeting which focuses on young people and hot spot locations. Targeted patrols were taking place by the police. There had been a drop in calls to these locations.

   iv.          Identified several outdoor spaces, multiuse games spaces that had a lack of lighting. This was having a negative impact on several children’s social groups during the winter and darker months. As a result, the council had funded portable LED lights at Trumpington Pavilion.

    v.          The council had been addressing ASB at Cherry Hinton Library and had attended meetings with Library Association, Police and CAMBAC to adopt a multi-agency approach to those issues. CCTV cameras have been installed both inside and outside of Cherry Hinton library.

   vi.          The peer group and places meeting took place. It was organised and chaired by the Council and was attended by police, fire and rescue, schools, social care, youth offending teams, Romsey Mill and housing associations. They looked at cases where young people have come to agencies attention around safeguarding, ASB and low-level criminality. All the agencies work together to try and resolve those issues.

 vii.          Councillors raised concerns that the police did not send a representative to the meeting.

viii.          Councillors felt that the lack of statistics in report was unhelpful. Felt it was more detailed prior to COVID.

   ix.          Stated that there was vandalism at Nightingale Garden and would have appreciated the opportunity to discuss this.

    x.          Happy to hear that CCTV cameras have been installed at Cherry Hinton Library.

   xi.          The Chair stated that he would find out why the police representative did not attend the meeting and would urge them to send a representative in the future.

 xii.          Councillor McPherson requested as the lead Councillor for community safety would like his comments noted. Councillor McPherson stated that he is disappointed that the police had not attended the meeting nor contacted anyone to say why they would not be attending.

xiii.          A Councillor asked why there was a lapsed police presence at new community college in Trumpington. Wanted to know if the police would be coming back.

xiv.          A Member of public stated that in his position at a governor at Trumpington Community College would be interested to find out about the police presence as well.

xv.          A Councillor wanted to enquire about parking of double yellow lines. Stated that this constitutes ASB. Said that County Council Parking Enforcement is responsible for this, not the police and wants to know who one needs to speak to in order to get Parking Enforcement to come to a specific area.

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

 

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

      i.          Councillor Davies enquired how more successful bids could come from Queen Edith’s.

     ii.          Councillor Slatter stated that applicants should contact Officers prior to submitting application as Officers would be happy assist them with applications to ensure that no errors were made.

 

The Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Aware of issues in the application process. The Community Grants programme application process will be reviewed.

 

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

 

1.       Applicant from Trumpington was present and enquired about why their bid was not successful. Stated he was aware that Officers response would be recorded/broadcast and minuted that gave approval for that. Said he has seen there was an underspend on grants in the South area and that not all grant money had been allocated. Stated he would like to know what will happen to these funds.

 

The Officer said the following in response to Applicants question:

      i.          Any underspend will be pooled and any groups wishing to apply may do so. They will be assessed in exactly the same way as previous applications.

 

2.       Applicant for grant stated he would like explained in detail why they did not receive all of the grant money the applied for.

 

The Officer said the following in response to Applicants question:

      i.          Did not have three unrelated directors. However, would be happy to make a partial award if that condition was met.

     ii.          It was determined that there was a limited measure of impact of the activity and how it would reduce social and economic deprivation. One off events did not have a sustained ongoing impact on social and economic deprivation. 

   iii.          Lack of funding from alternative sources. Expect groups to look to other sources for income and not just be fully funded by the council.

   iv.          Due to the cost of living crisis felt it was inappropriate to fund professional Santa and Elves. Felt that volunteers could fill these roles.

    v.          Previous awards were not recognised in accounts.

   vi.          Accounts information showed that reserves were available that could be contributed towards the activity.