Agenda and minutes

The Committee Manager took the chair whilst the East Area Committee elected a Chair.

 

Councillor Smith proposed, and Councillor Robertson seconded, the nomination of Councillor Barnett as Chair.

 

Resolved unanimously that Councillor Barnett be Chair for the ensuing year.

 

Councillor Barnett assumed the chair from the Committee Manager at this point.

 

 

Councillor Baigent proposed, and Councillor Massey seconded, the nomination of Councillor Moore as Vice-Chair.

 

Resolved unanimously that Councillor Moore be Vice-Chair for the ensuing year.

Apologies were received from Councillors Herbert and Sinnott; Inspector Paul Rogerson, Sergeant Jim Stevenson and Lynda Kilkelly, Safer Communities Section Manager.

No declarations were declared.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Executive Councillor for Communities and the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces said the following:

 

     i.        Individuals should not be able to make financial gain from free council facilities and anyone doing so should be reported to cambridge city council. 

    ii.        The equipment was currently being installed.

   iii.        The public open spaces policy outlined that permission was required to run an event on city council land by an outside organisation or individual; and the proper liability insurance was required.

  iv.        Would raise with officers the use of the phase ‘boot camp’ on the signage.

 

The decision was then noted by the Committee.

Resolved that Councillor Hart be the representative for the Cambridge Airport Consultative Committee for the ensuing year.

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2018 were signed as a correct record by the Chair.

The Action Sheet was noted and an updated copy could be viewed at the following link under ‘Committee Action Sheet’:

 

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=147&MId=3510&Ver=4

 

 

The Committee received a report from the Anti-Social Behavior Officer, regarding policing and safer neighbourhood’s 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.        Coleridge Rec: Anti-Social Behaviour

    ii.        County Line drug dealing – focussing on Godesdone Road and Stanley Road in the Riverside Area

   iii.        Road Safety

  iv.        Mill Road: Anti-Social Behaviour

 

The following question and comments were made by the public and members of the committee.

 

     i.        Would like to pass on the public thanks to the police and the city council’s anti-social behaviour team, for their hard work and effort, in dealing with those individuals rough sleeping and drug taking in Hills Road.

    ii.        Expressed thanks to the anti-social behaviour team and Councillor Sinnott for their work on Hills Road.

   iii.        Had been advised six individuals had been served with injunctions on Hills Road. Four of who had been housed.  The remaining two had refused to engage with the city council in anyway.

  iv.        The anti-social behaviour issues on Hills Road had been brought to the attention of city council officers and councillors two years previously; a number of proactive residents had worked continually with the police and officers, collating evidence which had assisted in the removal of the individuals.  

   v.        Problems with anti-social behaviour, such as drug dealing and drug taking still remained in Burnside as highlighted at the last East Area Committee meeting.

  vi.        Would like to see the subject of drug dealing and drug taking as a single standard item on the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel agenda.  The police had to be held to account on why they were not doing what was expected of them on this matter.

 vii.        A large proportion of anti-social behaviour was as a result of drug related issues and the long term response of the police was that they were ‘too busy’ to deal with these issues. The police presence on drugs needed to be increased; being busy with other priorities was not an acceptable excuse. Drugs were a feeder of crime and need to be treated as a priority

viii.        Resident support was crucial to resolve similar issues in other areas of the city. There was no simple solution to the problem.

  ix.        Increased city council provision was needed to work with those people who were rough sleeping, to determine if they were genuinely homeless or were ‘fake beggars’.

   x.        The dealing and taking of drugs was a huge problem in Cambridge and members of the public giving money to those begging assisted the problem.

  xi.        There seemed to be an increase in the number of complaints from residents to Councillors regarding suspected drug dealing and drug taking.  It was very difficult for the public to see any action from the police and any positive changes. Would request a response from the police on what was being done regarding these issues and how the anti–social behaviour being addressed by city council officers.

 xii.        Daily complaints were received from residents on Argyle Street regarding the dealing and taking of drugs.

xiii.        Drugs were unrelenting problem which the police (who were under resourced and understaffed) could not always deal with as effectively as residents would like.

xiv.        The city council’s anti-social behaviour team would continue to work with the police. It could be a future possibility to employ an officer who was part funded or fully funded by the City Council to deal solely with street life issues.

xv.        Enquired why the current crime figures for cycle theft in the Petersfield ward was so high. Was this because of the area around the railway station; the cycle point had been active in the location for a year which could be a contributing factor and questioned if the CCTV and cycle marshal were active?

xvi.        Believed that cycle theft was a particular problem outside Anglia Ruskin University and Parkside swimming pool.

xvii.        The results of the first round of Operation Velo deployments were very promising. Could this be a continuous police standard, particularly close pass?

 

The Committee agreed that it was regretful that no police presence could attend the meeting.

 

It requested a letter be sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) expressing disappointment, outlining their concerns on the issues of drugs in the City and inviting the commissioner to a future meeting (ACTION).

 

Councillor Jones suggested that the letter to the PCC could be signed by all Area Chair’s as the issue of drugs covered all wards in the city.

 

A request would also be sent inviting the Police to the next East Area Committee (ACTION).

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to approve the following as a local issue of focus:

 

i.                 Dealing of drugs, drug use and the associated anti-                           social behaviour.

Member of the Public (MOP): Travis & Perkins would like to move from Devonshire Road but are having difficulty finding new premises. Do Councillors have any suggestions or ideas to make this happen please? (This would lead to a welcome reduction of traffic in South Petersfield’s residential streets).

 

Councillor Blencowe: Ridgeons had found an alternative site and relocated to Coldams Lane. The relocation had left part of the site for housing development; however Travis & Perkins had not yet chosen to relocate but in the future it may be agreed by Shareholders that a move was financially beneficial. The Council would assist in finding an alternative location for Travis & Perkins but this was proving to be difficult.

 

MOP: Please can we have a traffic management plan of the area surrounded by the railway, Mill Road, Gonville Place and Hills Road before the next phase of the CB1 development and the new building at the Mill Road depot site? The area on the other side of Mill Road had this many years ago and the outcome was a much better quality of life for residents.

 

It would not cost a lot of money to stop access to the station from Tenison Road near the Great Northern Way. All Station traffic should use Station Road which is wide and not residential. Taxis’ should be able to sue the bus road from the station in order to access the north of the city. It is nonsense to force them back through residential streets.

 

When Tenison Road was originally built it did not go through to the station.

 

Councillor Robertson: Supported the idea of a traffic management plan which would be advantageous to the next phase of the CB1 development.

 

With regards to Station Road there had been various discussion with outside agencies on how the traffic could be managed that required access to Station Square. A proposal for only Hackney taxis to access the Square from Station Road was being considered reducing traffic on the Great Northern Road by 30%, with a reduction in Tenison Road.  However this proposal was part of a future planning application and not for immediate consideration.

 

Councillor Jones advised that she had previously spoken with County Officers regarding a traffic management plan but had been advised there were too many imponderables (which also included Travis & Perkins to finalise such a plan.) The matter would continue to be taken forward and it was hoped that progress would be made as it had with the traffic management plan for Newtown.

 

MOP: Would question whether there would be a 30% reduction, currently there were 400 hackney carriages and 2000 private hire vehicles. 

 

MOP: Currently Hackney carriages had to pay a fee to the railway operator to use Station Square, with only half of the hackney carriages paying the fee. The proposal was simply not good enough. Over a ten year period the number of passenger journeys had increased from five million to eleven million, with near future predictions of fifteen million. Air pollution figures taken on the Great Northern Road were one point below the EU maximum.

 

MOP: A resident of Budleigh Close has requested a disabled parking space for six years. She has been promised this on several occasions but it has not materialised. Can the Committee look into this matter?

 

Councillor Baigent took additional details and advised that he would investigate the matter further.

 

MOP: Despite ‘No Ball Games’ signs, balls games were being played by people of all ages late into the evening. This created noise for those residents living close by. 

 

The Anti-Social Behaviour Officer advised that the signs were only advisory and this type of problem did increase in the summer holidays. However, where the behaviour was a nuisance such as this and it was affecting a number of people, safer communities team would get involved, the team would work with the immediate affected neighbours; letters would be sent for considerate use of open spaces and will take action where appropriate

 

An action would be taken to liaise with Councillor Moore and to send  letters to all residents reminding them of the signage.

 

Councillor Moore advised that access to the park / playing would continue to be improved which may also negate some of the issues.

 

MOP: There are four flats and two bungalows in Budleigh Close which are in Romsey Ward. The rest of the estate is in Cherry Hinton. The entire estate should be in Romsey, as it is closer to the Romsey area rather than Cherry Hinton which is further away.

 

Councillor Benstead: A city council boundary review was currently being undertaken which would be submitted to the boundary commission for consideration once completed; the aim was for a standard number of electors per ward and tidy up any anomalies, such as Budleigh Close. However the boundary commission would have the final decision and could issue a completely different electoral boundary map. The 2019 elections would remain the same until the changes had been made in 2020.

 

Councillor Moore: Believed that this had now been rectified after the recent Council elections and would clarify the correct city council and county council boundaries with the resident.

 

Councillor Whitehead: The county council boundaries had been redrawn by the boundary commission just before the 2017 elections. Therefore, there would be two different boundary structures and would not be revised in the near future. 

 

MOP: Could it be arranged for the path to be cleared along the brook on Burnside. It is not possible to walk along there at all and would be a better option than the path on the other side of the road.

 

Councillor Smith: Would speak with officers to investigate the matter further as it had to be determined who was responsible for the land. (ACTION)

 

MOP: The recent sink hole that appeared on Mill Road had stopped through traffic while the road was being fixed. The closure had changed the atmosphere of Mill Road, with cyclist using the highway as they felt safe and not the pavement; there was also a reduction in traffic and noise.  A number of parklets could be installed alongside the road, seating areas outside shops, reinvigorating the area. Bus services would be able to run on time, congestion and pollution would reduce. Could a permanent closure point at the centre of the bridge be investigated?

 

Councillor Moore: Supported the idea of improvements to Mill Road but when the road had been closed to through traffic, the traffic had increased on Cherry Hinton Road which was a popular route for school children, to and from school. Therefore improvements should not be made at the detriment to surrounding areas, as it could be argued that Cherry Hinton Road should also be a no through road. 

 

Councillor Baigent: Supported the idea and suggested a six month experiment. There needed to be a major change in the city and believed there would be a natural reduction in traffic to Mill Road and the surrounding area due to traffic evaporation. Recommended this could be trialled on other nominated roads at the same time.

 

Councillor Jones: There were similar experiments taking place, such a Newtown. Displacement was an issue that needed to be taken into consideration 

 

Councillor Whitehead: Each councillor could nominate a particular road. With regards to the suggestion of Mill Road there needed to be sufficient areas to turn the vehicles around and queried where the space could be found.

 

 

Report to follow

The Committee received a report from the Public Art Officer which referred to the preliminary work which had begun on the Urban Art Strategy. Newmarket Road Subway had been identified as a potential area for the provision of walls for urban art to be created on. 

 

The Chair suggested that the report recommendations not be voted on at this point but that the discussion should focus on approving the principle of developing this site as an urban art space, with suggestions on the proposals. Officers could then take the report to the relevant scrutiny committee who could approve the funding to take the project forward.

 

This amendment was carried nem con.

 

In response to questions from the Committee the Senior Public Art Officer and the Green Space Manager said the following:

 

     i.        Could not advise how many signatures were on the petition calling for urban art walls in the City as referenced in the Officer’s report.

    ii.        The petition had been set up a professional graffiti artist whose work could be viewed around the city and had expressed an interest in assisting with the project.

   iii.        Cambridge Arts & Technology College had also advised that their students would be willing to undertake work on this project.

  iv.        It was the intention to include local schools and involve local people to work with a professional commissioned graffiti artist.

   v.        Noted the Committee’s comments that a cautious approach was needed; the design(s) had to stand the test of time and would be of a high standard.

  vi.        Agreed that a permanent piece of art would deter vandalism as demonstrated by larger urban art projects in other cities.

 vii.        Noted the comments that public consultation was required with local residents; particularly those in Abbey Road as the underpass backed on this residential area.

viii.        Proposals would also be looked at in conjunction with the county councillor officers.

  ix.        Would establish that the project was feasible and there was support which would attract a cultural space in the city.

   x.        The Eastern Gate Proposals had not been taken forward due to the prioritisation of schemes within the City Deal. Newmarket Road was not prioritised in the first tranche of funding. Therefore the roundabout over the underpass would remain in place for the foreseeable future.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to:

 

i.        Approve the principle of developing this site as an urban art    space.