Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from County Councillor Heathcock.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2011 were approved as a true and accurate record.

There were no matters arising or actions 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.

 

Cllr Al Bander – Personal Interest – Item 9a – Daughter at Hills Road Sixth Form College and a member of Cambridge Cycle Campaign.

 

Cllr Dryden – Personal and Prejudicial – Item 9c – Wife previously employed by applicant.

Two local residents addressed the committee and made the following comments regarding the Wulfstan Way Shops re development project.

 

i.                    The scheme was welcomed, however concerns were raised that the downpipes had not been reconnected properly causing water to overflow. It was also noted that the roof over the balcony had not been fixed. Councillor Taylor agreed to follow up the issues raised.

 

ii.                  Concerns were expressed about the current restrictions on the sale on newspapers. Councillor Taylor explained that negotiations were on-going, and that it was inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

 

iii.                Reservations were expressed about the amount of money spent on the project, particularly in the current economic climate. Councillor Taylor explained that the project had developed over the last three to four years and was designed to improve the attractiveness and viability of the area.

 

The Chair thanked the local residents for raising questions in the open forum.

The committee is asked to consider the approval of meeting dates for 2012/13 and 2013/14 (Provisional).

 

2012

 

10th May (Thursday)

16th July

10th September

12th November

 

2013

 

14th January

7th March

9th May (Thursday)

 

2013/14 (provisional)

 

15th July

9th September

6th January

10th March

8th May (Thursday)

The committee received a report a report from the Committee Manager regarding future meeting dates.

 

Resolved (Unanimously)

 

 

i.                    To approve the committee dates for 2012/13 and 2013/14 as listed in the committee report.

 

ii.                  To continue meeting at the Cherry Hinton Village Centre until the end of 2012, with a view to moving to a venue in Trumpington Ward in 2013.

The committee received a report from the Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant Jim Stephens.

 

The committee were updated on the current status of the existing priorities

 

·      Youth anti-social behaviour on Cherry Hinton High Street

·      Drug-misuse and associated anti-social behaviour – Arran Close, Cherry Hinton

·      Anti-social and off road use of Mopeds – Cherry Hinton and Queen Edith’s

 

The committee and members of the public made the following comments regarding the neighbourhood profile. 

 

i.                    The positive performance overall was welcomed.

 

ii.                  The thanks of residents from Arran Close were passed onto the Police for the positive improvements in the area as a result of the work undertaken.

 

iii.                On-going problems with youth anti-social behaviour on Cherry Hinton Rec were highlighted. Further concerns were expressed regarding the green at the rear of Mallets Road. It was explained that this was likely to be a result of displacement from the High Street.

 

iv.               On-going problems with vandalism of motor vehicles were highlighted in the Bridewell Road area of Cherry Hinton.

 

v.                 A specific example was highlighted regarding the apparent reluctance of the Police to use private CCTV evidence regarding a theft of a cycle. The Sergeant explained the local police policy with regards to the enhancement of CCTV evidence.

 

vi.               In response to a question it was confirmed that there had been no convictions for proxy purchasing of alcohol within the south area. It was also highlighted by the Police that during a recent test purchase operation no premises in the south area had failed for under-aged sales.

 

vii.             Concerns were expressed that if the enhanced levels of intervention on Cherry Hinton High Street were withdrawn, problems would return.

 

viii.           Clarification was requested on the table on page 12 of the committee report, and whether that meant that all the call types were now classed as anti-social behaviour. The Community Engagement Manager acknowledged that the table was confusing, and confirmed that anti-social behaviour incidents were categorised from the call types listed but excluded crimes and administrative calls e.g. burglary and complaints against police.

 

ix.               A request for further information regarding speeding; violent offences (including the split between violence in the public and domestic) and the outcomes of Police surgeries. The Sergeant explained that the report format was set by the Community Safety Partnership, but where practical additional crime related information was included. It was also explained that 90% of the information discussed at surgeries was personal information and not suitable for wider dissemination.

 

x.                 In response to a question, the Sergeant highlighted that Cambridgeshire was now part of the pilot for the national non-emergency number (101). It was also explained that the 0345 456 456 4 number would continue to operate in parallel. In response to a concern raised, it was acknowledged that on occasions it may take a little bit of time to get through on the non emergency number depending on other pressures on the service, but it was also highlighted that past incidents can also be reported via email.

 

xi.               Clarification was requested regarding the jurisdiction of the Police on private land. The Sergeant explained that trespass was a civil matter, but in certain circumstances it could be could be classed as aggravated trespass. The Sergeant agreed to liaise with Long Road Sixth Form College regarding the specific issues raised.

 

xii.             Significant concerns were raised regarding parking around schools and particularly inappropriate or dangerous parking. The concerns were acknowledged but it was explained that in Cambridge parking control issues were largely delegated to the County Council, and that the Police only had limited enforcement responsibilities. The Sergeant also agreed to address issues regarding the responsiveness of the PCSOs.

 

Following discussion regarding potential priorities, the committee agreed to recommend the following priorities.

 

i.                    Youth anti-social behaviour in Cherry Hinton, specifically the Rec and Mallets Road.

ii.                  Anti-social use of mopeds

iii.                Police patrols around schools in Queen Ediths

iv.               Cycle Theft in Trumpington

v.                 Anti-social behaviour in Trumpington – it was agreed that this suggested priority would be refined post meeting to focus on ASB hotspots in Trumpington.

 

Resolved (Unanimously)

 

i.                    To recommend the priorities as agreed following discussion.

An additional self-help touch screen kiosk, which can give access online to answers to common issues, is available for South Cambridge. Suggestions are sought from the members of the committee and the public on potential locations for the siting of the kiosk.

 

A representative of the CAB will be present to introduce the item and answer any questions from the committee and/or the public.

The committee received a report from Kulbir Singh (Partnership Manager – AdviceHub) seeking suggestions for the siting of an additional Adivce Kiosk.

 

The following suggestions were made

 

·      Central Library

·      Rock Road Library and Cherry Hinton Library – the possibility of rotating between the two venues was also suggested.

·      Cherry Hinton Tesco

·      Cherry Hinton Village Centre

·      Cambridge Railway Station

·      One per ward

 

The suggestions were welcomed.

The committee received an application for full planning permission for the demolition of an existing sports pavilion and replacement and relocation of new replacement Sports Pavilion, with associated secure open-air store.

 

The committee received representations from two objectors (Professor Mutheisus and Mr Gordon), who made the following comments

 

i.                    The application is contrary of planning policies regarding highways and intensification.

ii.                  Not against the principle of development of the facility, but access issues needed to be resolved.

iii.                Risk of intensification of the use of the facility.

 

Mr Standbridge spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.

 

Following the debate two conditions were proposed

 

i.        Prior to the use of the proposed sports pavilion, the applicants shall submit a Travel Plan, which shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The Travel Plan shall specify the methods to be used to discourage the use of the private motor vehicle for trips to and from the existing site and the neighbouring streets of Luard Road and Sedley Taylor Road and the arrangements to encourage the use of alternative sustainable modes of transport to the site including public transport, car sharing, cycling and walking. The Travel Plan shall be implemented as approved upon the use of the pavilion and monitored in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

ii.     Restriction of the use of the pavilion to D1 (educational establishments)

 

The Travel Plan condition was agreed by 8 votes to 1, and the restriction to D1 was rejected by 2 votes to 6.

 

It was also noted that the condition list should have included a condition requiring an archaeological survey. The committee agreed to include the condition.

 

Resolved (Unanimously) to accept the officer recommendations as amended for the following reasons

 

1. This development has been approved, conditionally, because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies:

 

East of England plan 2008: SS1, T9, T14, ENV7

 

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/7, 3/12, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/9, 6/2, 8/2, 8/6, 8/10, 8/18

 

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. 

 

These reasons for approval are a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission only. In granting planning permission the Council took the view that it would be unreasonable to try and rectify existing issues associated with access to and from the playing fields and that it would unreasonable to place any additional restriction on either the use of the sports pavilion or the playing fields given that the application was for a replacement pavilion and no new facility was being been added. As such, it was considered that the proposal would not significantly worsen what are existing access issues. The Council was also mindful of the reasonable scope for additional conditions to control or improve the southernmost access, being outside of application site, not within the singular control of the applicants and being limited in terms of any improvements that could be made. Given that there was no intensification of proposed use, the application was determined to be based on sufficient information regarding the nature of and levels of future use and this was reflected in the extensive consultation responses received from the Highways Authority. Additional parking provision with the site accessed from the northernmost access would require a further planning application and would not necessarily be supported given the status of the playing fields as protected open space and the likelihood that this may further increase vehicular movements through this access which is substandard. Other issues regarding amenity, privacy, drainage and noise and disturbance to neighbours were considered but were assessed but were not considered sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission. These issues were considered within the officer report. 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

The committee received an application for full planning permission for alterations to provide dependent relative’s annex single storey side and rear extension.

 

Mr Westwood spoke in objection to the application and raised the following concerns

 

i.                    Intensification of existing parking problems and associated difficulties.

 

ii.                  The intensification of the site.

 

iii.                Concern at the reference to no complaints in the report.

 

Resolved (5 votes to 3) to accept the officer recommendations for the following reasons

 

 

1. This development has been approved, conditionally, because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies:

 

East of England plan 2008: SS1, T14 and ENV7

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/1, 3/4, 3/14 and 8/10

 

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.

The committee received an application for full planning permission (retrospective) for change of use from private dwelling house to house in multiple occupation.

 

Resolved (Unanimously) to accept the officer recommendations for the following reasons

 

1. This development has been approved, conditionally, because subject to those requirements it is considered to conform to the Development Plan as a whole, particularly the following policies:

 

East of England plan 2008: ENV7

Cambridge Local Plan (2006): 3/4, 3/7, 5/7, 8/2, 8/6.

 

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.

 

These reasons for approval can be a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission only. For further details on the decision please see the officer report online at www.cambridge.gov.uk/planningpublicaccess or visit our

Customer Service Centre, Mandela House, 4 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1BY between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.