Agenda and minutes

The Committee Manager opened the meeting and invited nominations for Chair. One nomination was received, Councillor Dryden. Councillor Dryden was elected unopposed as Chair.

 

The Chair invited nominations for Vice Chair. Two nominations were received, Councillor Meftah and Councillor Blackhurst. Councillor Meftah was elected by 5 votes to 4 votes.  

There were no apologies for absence. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 10^th May 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record. 

There were no matters arising from the minutes. 

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.

The committee received two questions during the open forum, requesting an update on the progress of installing yellow lines on the corner of Godwin Way and Godwin Close and expressing significant concern about the safety implications of the delay in implementation.

 

The County Council Parking Services Manager, responded to the concerns and explained that it was intended for the work to completed as the Minor Works programme within the current financial year but that until consultation had been undertaken an indicative timescale was not available.  

The committee received an update on the Southern Area Parking Review for the County Council Parking Services Manager and the County Council Director of Operations and Infrastructure. The committee were advised that the review covered the three wards in South Area plus parts of Coleridge and Romsey.

 

The following comments were made on the review

 

i.          Specific problems with parking on double yellow lines, inappropriate and double parking on Aldmonders Avenue, Kinnaird Way, Marshalls Road, Beaumont Road and Topcliffe Way were highlighted. Concern was expressed about the potential impact on the ability of emergency services to access property. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that restrictions were being considered as part of the minor works process. Other members of the audience expressed support for the suggestion.

 

ii.       The County Council were encouraged to liaise with Transition Cambridge, who had recently received a presentation from research students on a new piece of software developed to accurately predict likely travel flows including parking and public transport locations. The comment was noted.

 

iii.          Frustration was expressed about the length of time that the issues had been being raised with the County Council, without any apparent action.

 

iv.      It noted that in other European countries, such as Holland infrastructure projects such as hospitals were only approved, if it could be demonstrated that there would be no additional traffic effect in the neighbouring area.

 

v.       It was suggested that the price of park and ride was linked to the on-site parking, but that the level at which it was set would discourage lower paid workers from using either facility. It was also noted that certain local streets were significantly more convenient than onsite parking.

 

vi.          Significant concern was expressed if the situation on Wulfstan Way was allowed to continue unchecked that buses would choose to cease serving the estate.

 

vii.          Concerns were expressed about the potential consequential effect of introducing restrictions, on neighbouring areas without restrictions.

 

In response to concerns about access for emergency services, the representative of the fire service confirmed that, subject to there being access within 45 metres and an available fire hydrant, any fire could be tackled.

 

The meeting was thanked for the feedback, and it was agreed to explore organising a meeting for Queen Edith’s Councillors and interested members of the public.

The committee received a report from Inspector Poppit regarding Policing and Safer Neighbourhoods. The meeting was advised of progress against existing priorities and a recommendation on whether they should continue or not, and a summary of overall crime levels in the area.

 

Members of the public made the following comments on the report

 

i.        With reference to speeding and the fact that PCSOs were not permitted to undertake enforcement action, the committee was urged to set a priority requiring Police Officers to undertake this type of activity.

 

ii.       It was noted that the committee had asked on a number of occasions for a breakdown of violent crime and that this was not included, and it was suggested that a priority could be set based on reducing the number of injuries report.

 

iii.      It was also noted that the committee had also asked in the past for information about traffic and motoring offences to be included in the report, and that without that data it was very difficult for the committee to set priorities in these areas.

 

iv.      The effectiveness of existing social media work undertaken by the Police and other partners was challenged.

 

v.          Support for the continuation of the school parking priority was expressed. Concern was however raised regarding the apparent low level of resource focussed on this priority compared with other priorities.

 

Inspector Poppit responded to the issues raised by members of the public.

 

i.        The report was currently produced locally and that providing the level of detailed requested was not achievable without the use of significant resources.

 

ii.       With the reference to the suggestion regarding a priority based on number of injuries, the Inspector explained that it would be very difficult unless there was a particular hot spot, which could be focused on.

 

iii.      The comments related to social media were noted.

 

A representative of the Fire and Rescue Service explained that in addition to the Police hours, the Fire and Rescue Service had also invested time in addressing the priority regarding anti-social parking in the proximity of primary schools in Queen Ediths.

 

The committee noted further concerns regarding the apparent mismatch between the level of activity reported regarding anti-social parking in the proximity of primary schools in Queen Ediths, and the level of activity witnessed. The Inspector agreed to address the concerns outside of the meeting.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report

 

i.                    Support was expressed for the continuation of the Anti-Social behaviour in Cherry Hinton Priority. The positive activities of the PCSOs were welcomed.

 

ii.                  Existing social media activities undertaken by the Police and other partners was highlighted.

 

iii.                With reference to speeding at Church End, the comments raised by the police in the report regarding the difficulty in undertaking speed enforcement in that area due to the road layout were noted. It was highlighted that when the speed survey was conducted it coincided with the installation of temporary traffic lights, and it was requested that the exercise was repeated at a time when the lights were not present. It was also questioned whether it was possible for PCSOs to be authorised to undertake speed enforcement activities.

 

iv.               The possibility of including for each crime type a list of the different offences was suggested.

 

v.                 With reference to the issues of anti social parking, the Police were requested to consider the implications of the refurbishment work at Queens Edith’s Primary School. The comment was noted. Support was expressed for the continuation of the priority.

 

vi.               With reference to the issues of anti social parking, the work undertaken by the Fire Service was welcomed and it was also suggested that enforcement action should be extended to the Perse Pelican School and Homerton Childrens Centre. The Inspector confirmed that it was intended that enforcement activities would be extended.

 

vii.             In light of the increased number of dwelling burglaries, the possibility of undertaking awareness raising activities amongst the elderly population was suggested.

 

viii.           With regards to the increased rate of violent crime in Trumpington, it was suggested that it needed to be considered as a priority unless there was an explanation.

 

xi.      The committee expressed frustration about the difficulty of setting priorities without detailed information on certain crime types.

Resolved (Unamiously) to recommend the following priorities

 

i.                    Continuation – Anti Social Behaviour in Cherry Hinton

 

ii.                  Continuation – Anti Social of Mini Motos

 

iii.                Continuation – Anti Social parking associated with primary schools in Queens Ediths

 

iv.               Continuation – Speeding at Church End

 

v.                 New – Dwelling burglary

The committee received a report from the Project Delivery and Environment Manager regarding the Environment Improvement Programme.

 

The committee discussed the projects listed in the report, and noted that external funding may be available for some of the projects.

 

Resolved (Unanimously) to

 

i.          Allocate funding of £40,800 to the following projects.

 

·        Trumpington War Memorial - £8500

·        Hobson Brook Railings - £9000

·        South Area Mobility Crossings - £6000

·        Cherry Hinton War Memorial - £5000

·        Cherry Hanging Baskets - £4300

·        Noticeboard on Cherry Hinton Recreation Field - £4500

·        Bollards on forecourt at junction of Mill End Road and Cherry Hinton High Street - £3500

 

ii.          Approve the schemes listed in i. for implementation, subject to positive consultation and final approval by local Ward Councillors.

 

iii.      Note the progress of existing schemes listed in appendix C of the committee report.

The committee received a planning application requesting full planning permission to convert the barns into four dwellings.

 

The agent for the applicant (Jenny Page) spoke in support of the application.

 

Resolved (Unanimously) to approve the application for following the reasons

 

1.This development has been approved subject to conditions and the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (/a unilateral undertaking), because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003: P6/1, P9/8 Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/2, 3/4, 3/7, 3/9, 3/10,3/11, 3/14, 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/6, 4/7, 4/12, 4/13, 4/15, 5/1, 5/2, 5/14, 8/2, 8/6, 8/10, 10/1

 

2. The decision has been made having had regard to all other material planning considerations, none of which was considered to have been of such significance as to justify doing other than grant planning permission.