Agenda and minutes

The Chair gave permission for Mr Taylor to film the meeting. It was confirmed that filming would cease if members of the public or speakers expressed a desire not to be filmed.

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Benstead, Brown and Marchant-Daisley.

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Saunders	14/5/EAC	Personal: Member of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2013.

It was noted that the comment attributed to Councillor Johnson on page 11 (regarding engaging local students and a visit to Parkside Sixth Form) was actually made by Councillor Roberts.

 

With this minor amendment the minutes of the meeting of the 28 November 2013 were approved and signed as a correct record.

 

 

An updated Action Sheet from the meeting held on 28 November 2013 was circulated.

 

It was confirmed that Councillor Whitehead had forwarded details regarding double yellow lines to Mr Fernando.

 

1.    Dr Timothy Grout asked whether, following the rejection of Trumpington Meadows for the Cambridge United ‘Community Stadium’, the East Area Committee would support suggestions to redevelop the Abbey Stadium.

 

Councillor Blencowe responded that, as the Council had already approved redevelopment of the north end of Abbey Stadium, this could be looked into again.

 

Councillor Herbert responded that, as the area is to be retained as a sports ground, he hoped that Grosvenor would work with Cambridge United to ensure the Stadium met current need.

 

Councillor Whitehead responded that surveys had been conducted with local residents and had received mixed responses. Whilst many value the Stadium in their Ward, there have been parking problems on match days. Concern has been raised that an increased capacity may result in further problems.   

 

2.    Dr Timothy Grout asked whether the East Area Committee supported, in principal, 20mph speed limits in the area.

 

Councillor Blencowe confirmed that the East Area Committee did support this in principal.

 

3.    Richard Jennings asked Councillors to support a trial of streetscape changes on Riverside and to allocate an amount of money from the area Improvement Fund.

 

Councillor Roberts responded that Abbey Ward Councillors were keen on the ideas put forward for the Riverside area and suggested that they be circulated wider and submitted through the formal channels. It was agreed that Abbey Ward Councillors would discuss this in more detail.

 

Councillor Blencowe responded that the original aim, when funds permitted, had been to upgrade this whole stretch and incorporate it into the ‘Riverside Vision’.

 

Councillor Johnson thanked Mr Jennings for highlighting this and bringing it to the attention of the committee. It was noted that, whilst the Environmental Improvement Funds would not be available until the summer, other sources of funding may be available. 

 

4.    Mr Antony Carpen expressed thanks to Councillors, the Police and the Fire Service for attending the recent event at Morley School.

 

Noted

 

5.    Mr Antony Carpen suggested that the East Area Committee hold a future meeting at Coleridge School.

 

The Chair agreed to consider this, but did point out that the committee had made a prior decision to hold all of its meeting at Cherry Trees Day Centre.

 

Councillor Saunders asked Councillors if, instead of holding an Area Committee meeting at Coleridge School, they would be prepared to visit it for a Q&A session.

 

Councillors expressed support for this suggestion.

 

6.    Mr Antony Carpen thanked those Councillors that had responded to questions from the last meeting about the ‘Shape Your Place’ website and social media.

 

The responses can be found via the following link:

http://cambridge.shapeyourplace.org/east-area-committee-questions-i-have-submitted-for-answer-on-thurs-28-november/#.UtFHvmRdUww

 

Noted

 

7.    Mr Simon Nuttall thanked Councillors for the trial of cycle racks in Thoday Street. He requested that a full report on the public consultation, with an Officer recommendation, be produced.

 

Whilst Councillor Bourke supported increased cycle parking in the City he did feel that this consultation had been ‘messy’ and that a more detailed consultation would be beneficial. It was suggested that a door to door survey may produce a better response rate, but did support the idea of a full report and Officer Recommendation.

 

Councillor Moghadas supported the suggestion of a full report and Officer recommendation and agreed to ask the public’s views as part of her regular work in the Ward.  

 

Councillor Saunders responded that it was a difficult issue that affected many people; both residents of Thoday Street and those using its pavements etc.

 

8.    Mr Nuttall confirmed that 31 responses had been received from the 80 houses, and felt that a response rate of 40% was very good. The public were fully aware of the trial and all of the houses had been leafleted. He reiterated his request for a full Officer report.

 

Councillors Kavanagh supported the need for more cycle parking but highlighted the need for a more detailed consultation.

 

9.    Mr Martin Lucus-Smith supported the request for a full Officer report and recommendation on the cycle rack trial in Thoday Street. He noted that over 50% of those who had responded to the consultation had expressed support for the cycle racks. It was also noted that car parking in the area was currently underused.

 

Councillor Smart responded that many students had not yet returned to the area so the pressure on car parking could increase. It was noted that, as the consultation was so finely balanced, Officers did not want to go straight to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

 

10.                    Ms Helen Troughton requested an update on the funding available to lay paving slabs in Norfolk Terrace.

 

Councillor Walsh confirmed that £50,000 had been allocated to lay asphalt but that he was in correspondence with Officers regarding additional sources of funding for paving slabs. It was noted that the County Council did have a Local Highways Improvement Programme but this required a 10% contribution from the local residents. It was agreed that Councillor Walsh would contact local residents when he had had a response from Officers.

 

11.                    Mr Antony Carpen asked Councillors and the public if they had seen the Area Committee posters that he had been putting up throughout the area.

 

No one indicated that they had seen one of Mr Carpen’s posters. 

 

12.                    Mr Martin Lucas-Smith asked for an update on Eastern Gate.

 

Councillor Blencowe responded that the East Area Committee had agreed funding for a feasibility study. It was agreed that Councillor Blencowe would keep Mr Lucas-Smith informed of any progress.

 

 

The Committee received a report from Detective Chief Inspector Sloane regarding the consultation on Draft Community Safety Partnership Priorities.

 

1.    Ms Ann Sinnott requested a firm commitment from the Community Safety Partnership to make domestic abuse a high priority.  

 

Detective Chief Inspector Sloane stated that the increase in crime incidents of domestic abuse reflected an increased level of reporting, which indicated that improvements were being made in raising the profile of this crime. In response Ann Sinnott cited evidence, including Cambridge Community Safety Partnership’s October 2013 Report, which showed that the rate of reporting had actually fallen. Detective Chief Inspector Sloane confirmed that further work with the County Council was needed to tackle the issue.       

 

2.    Mr Antony Carpen highlighted the need for a city-wide Community Development Strategy in order to strengthen local communities.

 

This comment was noted.

 

3.    Mr Antony Carpen highlighted the lack of night time economy targeted at older people.

 

This comment was noted.

 

4.    Mr Antony Carpen highlighted the need to work with colleges and language schools to educate students on safe cycling practices.

 

This comment was noted.

 

5.    Mr Richard Taylor suggested that more joint working between the police, Magistrates, the NHS and Area Committees would be beneficial.

 

This comment was noted.

 

6.    Councillor Smart highlighted the impact that cuts in mental health services could have and welcomed the inclusion of the related strategic objective. Councillor Moghadas supported this.

 

This comment was noted.

 

7.     Councillor Hart asked if there was scope to include domestic abuse as a strategic objective in order to raise its profile. Councillor Moghadas supported this.

 

Detective Chief Inspector Sloane responded that if domestic abuse was raised as an important issue through the consultation there would be scope to include it as a strategic objective.

 

8.    Councillor Owers asked why drug related issues did not feature as a high priority – especially as it was often featured in the Safer Neighbourhood reports.

 

Detective Chief Inspector Sloane responded that, whilst the East Area did have a local police priority related to drug offences, this is a city-wide consultation. 

 

9.    Councillor Moghadas asked how successful the Immobilise Scheme had been. 

 

Detective Chief Inspector Sloane responded that it was a valuable tool and the police were encouraging as many people as possible to use it.

 

10.                    Councillor Johnson asked what challenges there were for the police in working in a 2-tier City such as Cambridge.

 

Detective Chief Inspector Sloane responded that, whilst good practice was employed from other areas, Cambridge was a fairly unique City. Close working between the police and the two Councils was very important. 

 

11.                    Councillor Roberts commented that the perception or crime, as well as the raw data, was an important factor. It was suggested that more visible policing could be beneficial.

 

Detective Chief Inspector Sloane agreed that the perception of crime was an important factor. Bringing crime figures down and then marketing these successes was one way of tackling this.

 

 

In response to the discussion, the Area Committee agreed that domestic abuse should be added as an additional strategic priority.

 

The Area Committee suggested that the following priorities be adopted:

 

Strategic

-        To understand the impact of mental health, alcohol and drug misuse on violent crime and anti-social behaviour.

-        Domestic Abuse (with local work around awareness raising and training).

 

Tactical

-        Personal Acquisitive Crime – looking at emerging trends.

-        Alcohol related violent crime – extending the pub clusters if necessary.

-        Anti-social Behaviour – embedding new ways of working.

 

To continue to track and support County led work on

-        Re-offending.

 

The Partnership will keep a watching brief on road safety issues by:

-        Working collaboratively with politicians and the County Road Safety Partnership.

-        Addressing local issues through the Neighbourhood profiles at Area Committees.

 

The Safer Communities Section Manager confirmed that the consultation would be available on the CSP website from 10 January 2014. It was also noted that a full report would be brought back to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 17 March 2014.

The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery and Environment Manager regarding the Cambridge 20mph Project.

 

In response to member’s questions the Project Delivery and Environment Manager confirmed the following:

 

i)                Whilst traffic counts will be undertaken on the current 20mph roads, the whole area will form part of the consultation.

ii)              Agreed to expand the wording with regard to ‘Mill Road’ (page 109 of the agenda pack: Consultation Questionnaire).

iii)             The specific environment of a road determines its suitability for a 20mph zone.

iv)            In the North Area phase of the consultation many respondents suggested the ‘splitting’ of particular roads. In response to these comments we have therefore given this option in the East Area phase.

v)              The views of the previous consultation on Coldhams Lane conducted by Councillor Bourke would not be taken into account. This is a fresh consultation exercise.

vi)            Acknowledged members concerns about ‘split’ roads being more difficult to police. The police however form part of the Project Board and have confirmed that speed limits on ‘split’ roads will be enforced.

vii)          Speed cameras can only be used on roads where there have been fatal accidents. 

viii)         When assessing consultation responses Officers can distinguish between those from ‘inside and those from ‘outside’ the consultation area. It would be a lot more difficult, and time consuming, to distinguish between individual streets – but may be beneficial if the consultation results are particularly close.

ix)            Ditton Lane is a ‘B’ road and under current County Council policy would not be eligible for a 20mph zone.

 

Members supported the idea of including Ditton Lane in the consultation and the Project Delivery and Environment Manager agreed to discuss this further with the County Council. Councillor Blencowe also agreed to raise this through the Project Board.

 

 

Within the Consultation Questionnaire, Cherry Hinton Road is split into 2 sections. Members discussed options for splitting this road into different sections and separate votes were taken on each proposal:

 

Splitting the road into:

 

-        3 sections (proposed by Councillor Whitehead and seconded by Councillor Saunders): proposal lost by 4 votes to 8.

 

-        1 section (proposed by Councillor Kavanagh and seconded by Councillor Owers): proposal lost by 3 votes to 6.

 

-        2 different sections: Hills Road to Coleridge Road and then Coleridge Road until the end (proposed by Councillor Smart): proposal lost by 3 votes to 10. 

 

It was therefore agreed that Cherry Hinton Road remain split into the 2 sections specified in the Officer’s report.    

 

Councillor Johnson suggested holding an additional Consultation Exhibition at East Barnwell Community Centre, but this was not supported by the committee.

 

Resolved to:

 

i.                 Note the project programme, and previous approvals from Environment Scrutiny Committee, and to note the proposed consultation area, consultation method, and content for Phase 2;

 

ii.               Request that the Project Delivery and Environment Manager feedback their comments on the proposed consultation arrangements, as above, to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate change (Councillor Tim Ward).

 

The committee took a break at 9.10pm and returned at 9.20pm.

Report attached separately

The committee received a progress report from the Mill Road Coordinator. 

 

Members thanked the Mill Road Coordinator for her hard work and the improvements that had been made. Thanks were also expressed to the Chair of the Mill Road Traders Associated for attending the meeting.

 

In response to member’s questions the Mill Road Coordinator and the Head of Tourism and City Centre Management confirmed the following:

 

i)                A capital grant of £5,000 was available to fund the Mill Road Information sign.

ii)              The Mill Road Traders Association has a current membership of 188 (1 representative from each individual business). This is a high percentage of the traders on Mill Road but a survey has been conducted to find out why the others have not joined. The findings will be reported back to members in due course.

iii)             The weekly email bulletins are sent to a mailing list of 195 people and opened by an average of 45% – which is a good return rate.

iv)            As small businesses have many conflicting priorities, this may account for the very low number (1 to date) of applications for the forecourt improvements.

v)              The work being undertaken in Mill Road is part of a pilot that, if successful, could be rolled out to other areas in Cambridge with a high concentration of independent traders.

vi)            Plans for the Farmers Market events in 2014 are progressing and stall holder applications are being received. Acknowledge comments about the benefit of having a more regular timetable for these events but highlighted location as an issue.  

 

Members agreed to forward any further comments regarding the Mill Road Information sign to the Mill Road Coordinator.

 

 

 

The committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought permission to convert the upper floors of the premises into 3No independent habitable flats.

 

Barbara Bell (on behalf of Jenny Josselyn who was unable to attend the meeting) addressed the Committee and made the following points in objection to the application.

 

i.                 A single street level door to access 3 flats would be dangerous for the public and occupants. There would be potential for a serious accident.

ii.               Urged the committee to reject the application.

 

Resolved (8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officer.

 

 

The committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought permission for change of use from a 8 bed Guest House to HMO for 7 occupiers.

 

Resolved (8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officer and the following additional Condition:

 

The building shall not be occupied as an HMO until a management

plan for this use has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

 

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 3/4)

 

 

 

 

The committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought permission for a three storey side extension, roof extension and first floor rear extension to existing building to create 3 additional flats

 

Resolved (by 7 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions) to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officer.