Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Whitehead

Name	Item	Interest
Bourke	13/72/EAC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2013.

The minutes of the meeting of the 12^th September 2013 were approved and signed as a correct record.

No specific ‘Actions’ were agreed from the last meeting.

Councillor Blencowe confirmed that all outstanding actions had now been completed.

1.   Mrs Deards highlighted problems with pavements in the Grafton Centre / Fitzroy Street area and around the Guildhall. New paving was not performing very well and there are a number of trip hazards. A wheelchair user had been tipped from the chair when a wheel got caught on uneven paving.

 

Councillor Bourke agreed to take this up with the highways department. He stated that the County Council had spent a considerable amount on new paving and if is failing, action should be taken.

Action: Councillor Bourke

 

2.   Mrs Deards stated that disabled facilities in general are poor and under threat. Blue badge spaces are being removed to make room for cycle parking in the Guildhall area.

 

Councillor Blencowe stated that the proposal to replace the disabled parking spaces with cycle racks had not been approved by the Environment Scrutiny Committee and was being reconsidered. A decision would be made at a later date.

 

3.      Michael Bond welcomed the Committee and public to the refurbished Cherry Trees Day Centre. He stated that further work was planned, such as improving the kitchen facilities, and that sources of funding to cover this were being explored. The aim was to secure the long term future of the building as a community facility.

The Committee received a report from the Capital and Funding Manager (Cambridgeshire County Council) regarding the process for allocating Corridor Area Transport Plan (CATP) S106 funding. The Officer updated the Committee on existing schemes as detailed in the report.

 

The Committee also made the following comments in response to the report.

 

Crossing facilities across Newmarket Road from Meadowlands to Jack Warren

Councillor Hart was concerned that the Newmarket Road crossing facility was considered ineligible for CATP when the need arose from development in the area. The Capital and Funding Manager confirmed that the money must be spent on mitigation in relation to recent developments. Councillor Hart questioned this as removal of street furniture in areas that had no new development had been considered eligible. The Officer explained that this was possible as the streets in question were improvements to strategic routes which were directly impacted by new developments.

 

Chisholm Trail

The Committee noted that the Chisholm Trail Plan proposal would be included in the Local Plan. The results of a feasibility study into the bridge section of the Trail were expected shortly. It was suggested that the East Area Committee might wish to consider part funding this as a joint project with the North Area
Committee.

 

The Committee discussed the Chisholm Trail. The Committee suggested that Officers appeared to prioritise the Travis Perkin side of the Railway Track but the other side of the track was also important. The Officer responded and stated that land in Network Rail ownership was hard to acquire. Discussions were on-going with Network Rail but specific land had not yet been identified. In addition, some land in the Cromwell Road area was now blocked by development.

 

The Committee questioned how much funding might be available to CATP in the future and how much a new bridge would cost. The Officer stated that the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would end the CATP funding stream and, while the date of the introduction date for CIL is uncertain, is was unlikely that future funding available to the East Area Committee would be more that £200,000. A new bridge would cost in excess of two million pounds. The Officer confirmed that the plans for Chesterton Station included the bridge but stated that no funding had been allocated. Other funding sources were being explored including the potential of funding through the proposed city deal.

 

Some members were concerned that allocating funding to an expensive project, that might never happen, might not be best use of limited resources. However, the Committee agreed that the point of the funding was mitigation and the biggest mitigation impact would be a new bridge. Making a commitment to fund some of the cost of the bridge as a ‘statement of intent’ in the region of £50,000 was proposed. The Committee received an assurance that, should the project be abandoned, the funding would return to the East Area Committee for re-allocation.

 

Councillor Bourke requested that the Committee recommended to the County Council’s Cabinet, completion of the Cromwell Road stretch of the Chisholm Trail as a discrete project.

 

Tenison Road Traffic Calming

The Committee questioned why proposals for Tenison Road traffic calming measures had never been presented to the working group and asked for this to be arranged.

Action: Capital and Funding Manager

 

Real Time Passenger Information Coldhams Lane

Real Time Passenger Information was needed in this busy area such as the Broadway on Mill Road rather than in the less used Colhams Lane area.

 

Vehicle Activated Signs for Coleridge Road

The Committee questioned who should apply for a Local Highway Improvement Scheme grant. The Officer confirmed that any individual could apply and that he would supply more information.

Action: Capital and Funding Manager

 

Key Projects in the Eastern Gate Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

The Chair stated that a lot of change was currently taking place in the area covered by the Eastern Gate SPD. It may therefore, be apposite to carry out a feasibility study into the transport improvement proposals covered in the SPD to better link the two sides of this part of Newmarket Road.

 

Riverside Environmental Projects

The Chair also reminded members of previous part funding of environmental improvements on Riverside by the East Area Committee. This allowed the first phase of the project to be carried out. The Chair recalled n East Area Commitment to support further phases of the enhancement project when funding allowed.

 

New Proposal

Councillor Johnson proposed a project that would link to the Chisholm Trail. He proposed improvements to the entrance to Stourbridge Common to improve access for cyclists and pedestrians. Officers would investigate this.

 

Resolved: (unanimously)

     i.        That all schemes considered eligible for CATP funding would remain in the plan.

 

Resolved (by 14 votes to 1)

    ii.        To allocate 25% of the current East Area CATP pot to the Chisholm Trail bridge.

   iii.        To allocate £50,000 (from funding available after the above) to carry out feasibility studies into the key projects identified in the Eastern Gate SPD.

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought permission for the erection of a new terraced dwelling house. The proposed new house will extend seamlessly from the main roof ridge of 34 Howard Close by 6.4m to the north. 

 

Mr Courtney (Agent of the Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Resolved (unanimously) 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 a first floor and single storey rear extensions and sub division of a single dwelling to form two new dwellings.

 

Mr McGuckin addressed the Committee and made the following points in objection to the application.

 

     i.        Objects to proposal as the owner of adjoining property and also owner of passageway.

    ii.        Currently not overlooked by neighbouring property.

   iii.        Objects to proposed location and size of first floor window.

  iv.        Window would be right on the boundary of the two properties would encroach on the airspace of his property

   v.        Window could be located to flanking window.

  vi.        Drawing are inaccurate and suggest a tree is a shrub.

 vii.        Additional property would add to parking pressures in Stanley Road.

 

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the issues raised in ii, iii, v, vi, and vii had been addressed in the officer report and would not justify refusal of the application, and that the issues raised in i and iv were civil rather than planning matters.

 

Resolved (by 9 votes to 1) 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.