A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Committee Manager

Note: If members of the public wish to address the committee please contact Democratic Services by 12 noon two working days before the meeting. Questions can be submitted throughout the meeting to Democratic.Services@cambridge.gov.uk and we will endeavour to respond to questions during the discussion on the relevant agenda item. If we run out of time a response will be provided to members of the public outside of the meeting and published on the relevant Area Committee meeting webpage. 

Media

Items
No. Item

20/14/SAC

Election of Chair and Vice Chair - SAC

Minutes:

The Committee Manager took the Chair whilst the South Area Committee elected a Chair.

 

Councillor Summerbell proposed, and Councillor Page-Croft seconded, the nomination of Councillor McGerty as Chair.

 

Councillor McPherson took over as Chair of the meeting.

 

Councillor Ashton proposed, and Councillor Thornburrow seconded, the nomination of Councillor McPherson as Chair.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and flip of a coin by Committee Manager) that Councillor McPherson be Chair for the ensuing year.

 

Councillor McGerty proposed, and Councillor Summerbell seconded, the nomination of Councillor Page-Croft as Vice Chair.

 

Councillor Dryden proposed, and Councillor Ashton seconded, the nomination of Councillor Thornburrow as Vice Chair.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 4 and Chair’s casting vote) that Councillor Thornburrow be Vice Chair for the ensuing year.

20/15/SAC

Welcome, Introduction and Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

No apologies were received.

20/16/SAC

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were made.

20/17/SAC

Minutes pdf icon PDF 319 KB

Minutes:

A member of the public referred to minute reference 20/17/SAC in 9 March 2020 minutes and queried if Dutch style roundabout costs were correct. Expressed concerns that costs had risen from £800,000 to £1,800,000.

 

Councillors said that county council projects could overrun and increase in cost. Councillor Taylor had followed this up with the County Highways and Transport Committee 7 July 2020.

 

https://cambridgeshire.cmis.uk.com/CCC_live/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=FTy0OfEYKflYJgPQFvC%2bkspx2dFZMv2g801qgki%2fTYQ1zcsKp8kgcQ%3d%3d&rUzwRPf%2bZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3d%3d=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2fLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3d%3d&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&kCx1AnS9%2fpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2bAJvYtyA%3d%3d=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&FgPlIEJYlotS%2bYGoBi5olA%3d%3d=NHdURQburHA%3d&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3d

 

Action: Councillor McPherson to write to Councillor Baisley [Chair of County Council Highways and Transport Committee] to request cost information on the Dutch style roundabout. The officer presentation to SAC 9 March 2020 said the costs were a matter of public record. The cost/benefit analysis could be made available upon request (except any commercially sensitive information.

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2020 were approved as a correct record.

20/18/SAC

Matters and Actions Arising from the Minutes pdf icon PDF 154 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

20/19/SAC

Open Forum

Minutes:

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

 

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

  i.  I'm very pleased to see the improvements in local pedestrian and cycle infrastructure with the completion of the roundabout and the agreed closure of Nightingale avenue and I would like to thank those here who have helped to make this possible.

  ii.  Given the huge burden of illness and deaths that are a direct result of air pollution, including recent data showing those exposed to air pollution are at far greater risk of dying from covid-19, please could the committee advise on what steps are being taken in our area to reduce car traffic and ensure we can all breath clean air.

 

Councillor McGerty suggested waiting to see the results of projects to replace vehicles with other forms of transport [eg walking] during lockdown. Air quality had improved, but there were other considerations to be borne in mind too.

 

2.  A member of the public asked when the public consultation into the Nightingale Avenue point closure would start?

 

3.  A member of the public asked: With the Nightingale Avenue Project having been temporarily closed to cars from Babraham Road and planned works to the Robin Hood Junction and Queen Edith's Way, is there a cycling network being planned for good access to the Biomedical Campus?"

 

4.  A member of the public said:

  i.  Queen Edith Lib Dems produced a leaflet that shows the Hills Road Nightingale Avenue junction being permanently closed and narrowed with a cycle lane swerving through the wildlife corridor in order to restrict the junction to cycles only crossing into Red Cross Lane.

  ii.  Residents on the Hills Road frontage or service road are very concerned at the lack of consultation and discussion considering that closure of this road would reduce access to their homes and asked for a joint meeting with councillors, relevant Greater Cambridge Partnership and developer representatives to best negotiate an improved cycle junction while protecting the wildlife corridor and access for residents and service vehicles before and major decisions are made for this junction.

  iii.  Was supportive of cycling, but did not want to be totally cut off from cars or lose access for waste disposal or emergency vehicles.

 

Councillors Ashton and McGerty said that [ward] councillors were voted in to represent their residents, but were not consulted on road closures. If the County Council had the remit to close roads, they should say so, so [city] ward councillors were not petitioned by residents when they had no influence over county matters.

 

Councillor McGerty said the County Council and Greater Cambridge Partnership should advise residents they had funding that had to be spent quickly or be lost, then set out their proposals. A Greater Cambridge Partnership consultation on possible Nightingale works would start in November and residents were encouraged to respond to this.

 

Councillor McGerty offered to liaise with the member of the public after the meeting about issues raised.

 

5.  A member of the public said Hills Road Area Residents Association want to protect the tree lined green space and wildlife corridor between Hills Road and the Hills Road Access Road in front of Nightingale Avenue. Can the project team working on the Hills Road and Babraham Road Cycleway plans reassure them that this loved local green space will be protected?

 

Councillor Taylor said Greater Cambridge Partnership had shut the road without consultation. The County Council had advised Greater Cambridge Partnership that residents would not be pleased. Re-iterated a Greater Cambridge Partnership consultation on possible Nightingale works would start in November and residents were encouraged to respond to this.

 

Councillor Taylor offered to liaise with the member of the public after the meeting about maintenance issues raised.

 

With the permission of the Chair/Committee, Councillor McGerty shared the Queen Edith Lib Dem leaflet. It was not the intention of the pathway to impinge on green areas.


20/20/SAC

Policing and Safer Neighbourhoods pdf icon PDF 271 KB

Minutes:

The Committee received a report from DS Mazur regarding policing and safer neighbourhood trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the last reporting period. 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:

  i.  Address youth anti-social behaviour on the Anstey Way Estate;

  ii.  Address youth anti-social behaviour in Trumpington Meadows;

  iii.  Continue work to address serious street-based violence, child criminal exploitation and child sexual exploitation.

 

The Committee discussed the following policing issues:

  i.  Drug dealing around Russel Court.

  ii.  Drug dealing around the Clay Farm Centre.

  iii.  Drug dealing and anti-social behaviour around the Accordia Estate

  iv.  Drug dealing and anti-social behaviour around Cherry Hinton Hall.

  v.  Policing of the ‘Cambridge Lakes’. The area attracts anti-social behaviour in hot weather.

  vi.  Traffic [general] and anti-social behaviour by drivers of vehicles and motor bikes in the Lime Avenue and Hobson Avenue areas of South Trumpington. Can occur day and night.

 

Members of the public raised the following policing issues:

  i.  A small number of motorcycles (3 or 4) are causing a huge amount of noise disturbance due to their excessively loud exhaust systems as they drive in/out of the AURA development. This occurs daily and includes very early mornings and late evenings, sometimes past midnight. This noise pollution and anti-social behaviour happens circa 20 times/day. Particularly for residents along the main thoroughfare, Lime Avenue. Many have reported the issue to police but the standard reporting form seems ill-suited to this kind of anti-social behaviour and as yet, police have taken no action.

  ii.  Excessive speeding along the main thoroughfare of the AURA development, Lime Avenue, is a daily occurrence. Some vehicles drive in excess of 40mph. This main access road is in a heavily built-up residential area with pedestrians, dog walkers and cyclists also using the roads. There are no speed limits or traffic calming measures in place at all. This anti-social behaviour is a serious accident waiting to happen. The developer [Countryside] and the Council, have been notified of this issue, yet neither seems prepared to take any responsibility for it.

  iii.  Drug dealing seems to be a growing problem on the AURA development.

  iv.  There has been an increase in cycle thefts recently, especially at the train station. Not all cycle thefts are reported as the victims seem to think that nothing will get done. They are also frustrated that there appears to be CCTV in the cycle parks, but no one seems interested in looking at it.

 

DS Mazur said in response to questions from members of the public:

  i.  The number of cycle thefts in the city had decreased.

 

Action: DS Mazur to include details about citywide cycle thefts in report to East Area Committee 17/09/20. Committee Manager to put link to report in 07/09/20 SAC minutes for reference.

 

Post meeting note: Hyperlink https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=147&MId=3871&Ver=4

 

  ii.  Police liaise with the owners of ‘Cambridge Lakes’ about security. As soon as one [illegal] access point is closed, a new one is created. Land owners do take prompt action.

 

Action: DS Mazur and Dave Prinsep [SAC Lead Officer and Head of Property Services] to organize a meeting between councilors, police, local MP, landowners and other relevant stakeholders to find ways to address the continuing issue of anti-social behavior resulting from people trespassing onto ‘Cambridge Lakes’ land.

 

The following priorities were unanimously agreed by all councilors present:

  i.  Traffic [general] and anti-social behaviour by drivers of vehicles and motor bikes in the AURA, Lime Avenue and Hobson Avenue areas of South Trumpington.

  ii.  Support for funding so Police Officers can be trained to use decimetre to monitor decibels of noise from vehicles and motor bikes, as part of general monitoring of speeding and anti-social behaviour by drivers/riders.

  iii.  Drug dealing around the Clay Farm Centre.

  iv.  Drug dealing and anti-social behaviour around Cherry Hinton Hall.

  v.  Policing of the ‘Cambridge Lakes’.

20/21/SAC

GCP Presentation: CSET

No decision required.

Presentation on Cambridge South East Transport scheme.

 

https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/transport/transport-projects/cambridgesoutheast

Minutes:

The Committee received a presentation from Greater Cambridge Partnership and Mott Macdonald representatives.

 

The presentation can be viewed: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=122&MId=3879&Ver=4

 

Officers said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  The intention was to make the travel hub as carbon neutral as possible. Greater Cambridge Partnership and the County Council were working on its design, which would include solar panels.

  ii.  Greater Cambridge Partnership representatives would meet with Stapleford and Shelford Parish Councillors in the next few weeks.

  iii.  The Cambridge South East Transport scheme route would be located as far as possible from the 9 Wells Nature Reserve beside the cycle route that followed the railway line. Officers recognised the need to enhance and protect the area around 9 Wells Nature Reserve.

20/22/SAC

Update on s106 Items pdf icon PDF 305 KB

No decision required.

Information report [to follow] regarding:
- Nightingale Recreation Ground Pavilion Project.
- King George V Play Field Boundary Improvements.

Minutes:

The Committee received a report from the Head of Property Services on behalf of the Community, Sport & Recreation Manager regarding Nightingale Recreation Ground Pavilion Project.

 

Councillor McGerty said the item was coming to Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee for consideration 1 October 2020. Funding requirements would be looked at then. This was an urgent issue as residents were waiting for a new building once the old one was demolished. Queried what, if any, facilities would be available in the meantime.

 

Action: Head of Property Services to seek answers from Community, Sport & Recreation Manager regarding the following queries about Nightingale Avenue Pavilion:

·  Will the gardening group continue to have access during the building period?

·  What renewable energy systems will be included in the scheme?

·  Will there be an outside fountain for people to fill up bottles as discussed at planning?

·  Will there be a veranda?

 

Post meeting note: Response from Community, Sport & Recreation Manager:

·  Garden group can still access their area and we’ll be seeing how we can keep the water supply going too.

·  Photovoltaics to be installed, good thermal installation and water reducing measures in showers and toilets

·  There will be an outside tap. Location to be confirmed.

·  There will be a veranda.

 

The Head of Property Services said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  Asbestos needed to be cleared from the site when the building was demolished, to clear the site properly.

  ii.  The City Council had undertaken a risk assessment and concluded people were at no risk from asbestos when using the building [before demolition]. There was no issue when it was left in situ.

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Property Services on behalf of the Streets and Open Space – Development Manager regarding King George V Play Field Boundary Improvements.

  i.  The Council used S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of developments on facilities and amenities in Cambridge.

  ii.  In view of the Covid-19 period, applications for the 2020 S106 funding round were invited over an extended period (from mid-March to the end of July 2020.  

  iii.  Eighteen proposals relating to play areas and open spaces were received (Trumpington Recreation Ground boundary treatment was one) and have been assessed against the Council’s agreed S106 selection criteria.

  iv.  The Executive Councillor is due to consider a report at the 29 September Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee when the Trumpington Recreation Ground project/application will be considered and may or may not receive funding.

  v.  If the project received funding, the scheme would be developed and implemented in late 2021 at the earliest.

 

A member of the public addressed the committee: We would be grateful for information about what is proposed around the perimeter of the play field, including the reason for any changes and the options that are being considered. As far as we are aware, other than messages on a Facebook group, there has not been any general consultation with the neighbours who live around the play field or our staff at Trumpington Pavilion. We are concerned that any physical barrier around the play field may prove to be counter-productive. There are elderly residents who have for many years walked across the play field rather than use the path to the north of the field. Also, there is a need for regular vehicle access to the football pitches and to the changing rooms and patio to the rear of the Pavilion, for maintenance and events. Residents were open to consultation on proposals.

 

Councillor Lord said he had proposed the project:

  i.  The trigger for proposed changes was the use of the play field by groups of travellers.

  ii.  Councillor Lord proposed the project in 2019.

  iii.  Due to time constraints on funding, the project had been started with the intention of undertaking consultation later.

  iv.  A multi-form barrier was proposed to block [unauthorised] vehicular access.

  v.  The project would increase the biodiversity of the area.

  vi.  The project had been put on the committee agenda tonight so residents could discuss the idea.

 

Councillor Thornburrow said:

  i.  Travellers and campers had stayed on the recreation ground to access local hospital facilities. This only happened a few times, the families concerned had caused only a few problems as far as the council was aware. It was understood families left of their own accord and removed any rubbish.

  ii.  No further action was expected until the consultation period went ahead.

  iii.  Undertook to feedback issues to the Streets and Open Space – Development Manager.

20/23/SAC

Network Rail: (Proposed) Cambridge South Station pdf icon PDF 274 KB

Update report on proposals for a new station south of Cambridge. To follow on from presentation to South Area Committee in March 2020.

Minutes:

The report was noted.