Agenda and minutes

Councillor Herbert was elected as Chair and Councillor Wright as Vice Chair.

 

The Chair welcomed the new Councillors to the Committee.

 

Councillor Herbert asked the committee to consider future improvements to the process of the area committee. Suggestions would be sent to the Chair for discussion at a later date. Timed agendas were suggested. Members also agreed to meet regularly between area committees to ensure progress on actions and matters arising.

Apologies were received from City Councillors Brown and Shah and County Councillors Sedgwick-Jell and Harrison

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.

 

 

Councillor	Agenda Items	Interest
Marchant-Daisley	11A	Personal and prejudicial. Close neighbour of proposed development.
Pogonowski	11E	Personal. Signed petitions against the development before being elected as a Councillor.
Saunders	11A	Personal. Member of Cambridge Past, Present and Future. Licensed wine merchant.

 

To agree the minutes of the 15^th April 2010. 

The minutes of the 15^th April 2010 were agreed subject to minor changes to text: 10/13EAC to read that members had volunteered to take part in the publicity around Speedwatch.

10/13EAC, 10/5 Youth Summit 

Councillor Walker updated members on the Easter events for children. The following report from the CHYPS teams was circulated.

 

The Easter Eggstra Events were promoted citywide and locally.  Every school child was given a flyer advertising the regular ChYpPS programme and the Eggstra events.  Flyers were also distributed to members, to community facilities and distributed via other organisations as well as on the DEC.  The programme was downloadable from the council website and during Easter were advertised on the home page.

 

These events were funded through the Area Committees.  Each Area Committee committed resources for the delivery of 2 area based sessions in addition to the regular Easter Programme. 

In the East we organised two events - 8th April on Coleridge Road Rec 1 - 4pm and Friday 16th April on Ditton Fields Rec 2 - 5pm.

 

Both events went well, aided by good weather and a busy programme.

 

On Coleridge Road we had a climbing wall, birds of prey demonstration, outdoor cookery, giant games, art and craft, environmental activities.  160 people attended this event.

At Ditton Fields we had face painting, giant games, much of the same as Coleridge but with the added bonus of a BBQ provided by the local church.  125 people attended this event.

Both sessions also involved the County Council who provided additional staff.

 

Coleridge - lots of families who came with picnics, gave very positive feedback and asked about future events and wanted to know where else to find the climbing wall over the holidays.  Outdoor cooking was very popular.

Ditton Fields - much more involvement from children coming solo, alot of children travelled from other parts of Abbey.  The BBQ was a huge hit.

 

We also know anecdotally that children travelled across the city to other Eggstra events - Jesus Green had over 230 people attend (included a skate competition) and alot of Petersfield young people were at the Lammas Land event.

 

The age spread varied from site to site but the greatest number were the 9 - 13s which is the team's target age range although we also attracted alot of 14 - 18 yr olds - again particularly at Jesus Green.

 

General feedback over Easter was positive, more wanted, liked the range of activities on offer, particularly liked doing new things like the outdoor crafts and the climbing wall was a huge hit with some children going to several events.

 

10/13EAC, 10/06 Play Equipment

The following update from the Recreation Services Manager was circulated.

 

Following the rapid deterioration of the wooden play equipment at Petersfield play area, its removal was required as it could no longer be cost effectively maintained to the safety standards required for our play areas.

 

Working with Ward Councillors, some new play items were installed to replace the wooden equipment and keep play area operational. These include a climbing and activity unit with a fantasy castle theme, a new mini roundabout and the replacement of two worn out springers. The equipment is aimed at the under 6 age groups known to predominantly use the play area. Photos are attached

 

These have been installed with the view to keep the play space operational whilst further local consultation is undertaken in the future to develop the site and provide a new play space out from under the trees.

With the prospect of dedicated S106 funding for the site, potentially becoming available from the Fire Station development over the road, these funds would be used to develop the play facilities. The new items already installed have the potential to be incorporated in the new designs or can be easily relocated elsewhere in the City’s other play spaces if not desired.

 

Additionally works started on the 1st of June to redevelop the play space at Sleaford street and this is expected to be finished by the end of the month, when works will then commence on the play area in Shenstone Court off Norfolk Street, essentially providing 3 new/updated play areas in the ward.

Q1 Georgie Deards

Budleigh Close residents have been suffering from blocked drains. This has been an on-going problem for 20 years and it has been difficult to establish who is responsible for the work needed.  A contractor has been promised but the problem is getting worse.

A. The Chair will look into this and a Ward Councillor will visit the site. Members agreed that surface water is a problem across the City.

Action: Ward Councillor to visit site 

Q2 Janet Griffiths

The digital switch over will leave residents who use communal TV aerials without a service. Many elderly residents will not be able to afford an individual aerial and those living directly on public footpaths do not have suitable locations to install such equipment. The current policy of upgrading those who live in building of three storeys is unfair.

A. Cllr Smart responded that that a decision had been made to only upgrade the aerials of flats over three storeys and those living in sheltered housing based on the cost implications. There are other sources of assistance available for those on a low income.

Members suggested that communication with tenants on this issue had been poor. Cllr Smart revisit the issue with City Homes to review how helpful the letters had been. 

Action: Cllr Herbert asked for a briefing note from officers for the next meeting.

Q3 Gerri Bird

Cambridge residents are increasing upset by use of community centres as profit making ventures rather than hubs for the community. A disabled group have lost their regular meeting room at the Cherry Hinton Village Centre to anther user who is able to afford a higher fee. They have been unable to find another venue that meets their needs.

A. Members agreed that the East area is poorly served in comparison to other areas. An interim report will be coming to the East Area in August looking at use of S106 money.

Cllr Herbert stated that the contract for managing the village centre, currently held by SLM, should be reviewed. The centre should be primarily a community centre rather than a sports venue.

Members felt that a review of all facilities in the East area was needed and that this should include access issues to public buildings and toilets.

Action: Officers to be asked to review facilities

Two further questions were received and will be addressed later as they are in connection to items on the agenda. 

Officer Contact: Paul Boucher Tel. 01223 457311 and Nova Roberts Tel. 01223 458601

The Business & Information Services Manager introduced the report. He gave a demonstration of how the public access system works and what the various screens look like.

Q. Richard Taylor

The system is a step forward but it is disappointing as there are a number of restrictions on the site, for example, reproducing data?

A. The restrictions were arrived at in consultation with the legal department. Ordnance Survey information forms the bases for the locational information and is not reproducible.

Q. Richard Taylor

Are there any plans to add the S106 information to the system?

A. The Business & Information Services Manager will look into this and respond outside the meeting.

Q. Public Question

Is this a bespoke system?

A. The system was developed for Scottish authorities and at present the ability to make changes to it is limited.

Q. Richard Taylor

The cost of monitors is given as £30,000. What did this sum purchase?

A. This sum provided for large, high quality public access screens.

Q. Richard Taylor

The system does not generate a URL (web page address) that can be sent to others that linked directly to a specific planning application or a specific document.

A. The Information Services Manager explained that you can find the URL of a specific planning application by searching for the case and then clicking on the 'Details' tab. This URL can then be sent to others.

Sending others the URL of a specific document within the planning application is not possible. However, you can send them the URL of the full list of documents for a planning application. Users can then pick documents they wish to view from the list shown.

 

Members discussed the new system and were assured that it is still possible to speak to a case office.

Officer Contact: Christine Allison, Licensing Manager, Tel. 01223 457899 

The Licensing Manager introduced the item and outlined the consultation process. There is a minor error in the report with the consultation process closing on the 5^th September and not the 15^th as stated in the report. Residents are invited to make their views known either in writing or via email by the 5^th September.

 

It was suggested that event promoters might be missed from the consultation process. The officer invited all interested parties to make their view known via the website.

 

Cllr Walker asked if the item would be discussed at Area Committees after the consultation.  The final report will be considered at the Licensing Committee on 11^th October and then at Full Council on the 21^st October.

 

Q. John Green

Should the police be making decision on these matters? It would be more democratic if Citizen Panels were consulted. S 30 moves problems on to other areas which is not helpful.

A. The consultation is one part of a complex process. 

 

Members felt the issues raised but the consultation needed wider discussions. It was suggested that this be raised at the next meeting when the Police will be present. The position of side streets outside the Cumulative Impact Zone will also be discussed at this meeting.

Marion Branch, Grants Manager, Cambridgeshire Community Foundation

The Grants Manager introduced the report and drew members attention to the two recommendations for grant allocations.

 

Q. David Hollingsbee on behalf of Mill Road Festive Lights Association

An application by Mill Road Festive Lights Association had been omitted from the report.  Members may be unaware of this application or may confuse it with the Mill Road Winter Fair Application.

The committee funded the lights last year via the funding given to the Winter Festival. What happened to this application and why didn’t members get a chance to discuss it.

A. The Community Foundation is unable to fund a group that has been refused registration as a charity. Other sources of funding are being looked into.

 

Only finalised applications are presented to committee and this application in on-going. Cllr Pogonowski asked for a briefing on grant funds to avoid confusion in future. Members debated the rules of the grant funds and how they are applied. It was agreed that there is a lack of clarity about the process. The position of retrospective applications is unclear. However, members felt that some flexibility should be retained. Cllr Howell suggested that all application, including those pending or refused, could be listed on future reports.

Action: Members Briefing

 

 

RESOLVED: To agree the recommendations detailed below by a vote of 8 to 1 for the Petersfield Area Community Trust and 8 to 0 for the Mill Road Winter Fair.

 

Community Development current applications.               Available: £14,680
CCF ID	Group	Project	Requested £	Recommended from Area Committee Grants £	Offer from other CCF  funds £
WEB9214	Petersfield Area Community Trust	2 community events, administration costs and volunteer training	900	450	450
WEB 115245	Mill Road Winter Fair	publicity, safety measures and platforms/PA systems for entertainment at the fair.	3,750	1,250	2,500
Total			4,650	1,700	2,950
Remaining			10,030	12,980

The Environmental Projects Manager introduced the report. The newly recommended schemes currently have no recommendations, as the highways verge work will be a big outlay. The committee will need to agree future priorities when costing are known.  

 

Cllr Herbert expressed frustration at the time it takes to complete schemes. A number of items have been on hold for some time and now need to be brought forward for action.

 

Cllr Sadiq asked for an update on the Perne Road crossing and was informed that a layout in being agreed with the County Council.

 

Q. James Woodburn

The proposed access ramp or the Carter Bridge may be in conflict with the planned planting. Can this be taken into account when making a decision?

A. The station ramp proposal will only effect about 20% of the planting and may take a long time to complete. Given that shrubs are time limited it is worth pursuing the scheme.

Gerogie Deards

Please remember to include future maintenance for planting schemes.

The officer responded that this is standards practice and street Scene are consulted about the best way to reduce future maintenance requirements.

 

Q. James Woodburn

When considering the Ashbury close cycle route, consideration needs to be given to the access to the school.

A. The consultation will take into account the comments of all stakeholders. The Cambridge Federation is planning a walk about in the area in the near future.

 

Cllr Smart reported that the shop front parking in Cavendish Road served a specialist shoe shop that provides a valuable service to disabled clients and deserved special consideration.

 

RESOLVED (unanimously):

 

Cavendish Road

Decision: To carry out further consultation and implement at a cost of £15,000.

 

Devonshire Road/Carter Bridge replanting

Decision: Agreed to refurbish landscaped area adjacent to the

Carter Bridge at an estimated cost of £17,500. 

The applications for planning permission listed below require determination. A report is attached with a plan showing the location of the relevant site. Detailed plans relating to the applications will be displayed at the meeting. The East Area Committee have agreed that Planning Applications will not be considered before 8.30pm.

The Councillors present for the consideration of planning applications were Cllrs, Benstead, Hart, Herbert, Shah, Smart, Pogonowski, Walker and Wright.

 

These minutes and the appendix should be read in conjunction with the reports on applications to the committee, where the conditions to the approved applications or reasons for refusal are set out in full and with the Amendment Sheet issued at the meeting. Any amendments to the recommendations are shown.

 

Full details of the decisions, conditions of permissions and reasons for refusal may be inspected in the Environment and Planning Department, including those that the committee delegated to the Head of Development Control to draw up.

                                                                                                

Site Address:  The Jubilee, 73 St Catharine Street

Application Number: 10/0132/FUL

Proposal: Erection of 5 dwelling houses and 2 studio apartments with associated garden space (following demolition of Jubilee Public House)

Applicant: James Arnold

Case Officer:  Tony Collins

Officer Recommendation: Approve

 

The committee received an application for planning permission as above.

The committee received representations from John Coleman.

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee in support of the application.

Resolved (4 Votes for and 4 Votes against and on Chairs Casting vote) To accept the officer recommendations and grant planning permission subject to imposition of the conditions outlined in the committee report (11a of the Agenda) and subject to completion of the section 106 agreement.

 

 

                                                                                                

Site Address:  81a Greville Road

Application Number:  06/1026/FUL

Proposal: Erection of two 2-bedroom flats on land to the rear of 81a and 81a Greville Road with access from Rustat Road

Applicant: Teresa Barns

Case Officer:  Catherine Linford

Officer Recommendation: Approve

 

The committee received an application for planning permission as above.

The committee received representations from Peter Celentano.

The applicant’s agent addressed the committee in support of the application.

Resolved (8 Votes for and 0 Votes against) To accept the officer recommendations and grant planning permission subject to imposition of the conditions outlined in the committee report (11b of the Agenda) and subject to completion of the section 106 and to an additional condition:

 

1. All the windows shown to be obscure glazed on the drawing no. 57009.02A shall be obscure glazed when first introduced to the building and shall remain obscure glazed thereafter.

Reason:  To safeguard adjacent neighbouring property against overlooking and the potential to erode the privacy of the occupiers.  (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/7 and 3/12.)

 

 

                                                                                                

Site Address:  35 Corrie Road

Application Number: 10/0426/FUL

Proposal: Part two and part single story rear extension

Applicant: Melanie Mynott

Case Officer:  Catherine Linford

Officer Recommendation: Approve

 

The committee received an application for planning permission. The application sought approval as above.

 

Resolved (7 Votes for and 0 Votes against with 1 not voting) To accept the officer recommendations and grant planning permission subject to imposition of the conditions outlined in the committee report (Reference number 11c of the Agenda).

                                                                                                                   

Site Address:  6 8 Coleridge Road

Application Number: 09/0815/FUL

Proposal: Erection of 2 semi-detached houses

Applicant: Deborah Pearl

Case Officer:  James D’Arcy

Officer Recommendation: Approve

 

The committee received an application for planning permission. The application sought approval as above.

 

The applicant addressed the committee in support of the application.

 

Resolved (8 Votes for and 0 Votes against) To accept the officer recommendations and grant planning permission subject to completion of the s. 106, and with the rehearsed conditions outlined in the committee report (Reference number 11d the agenda) and the addition of two further conditions:

 

1. Prior to any development commencing on the site or any materials being delivered to the site, a detailed scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority, for approval that is to be given in writing, showing details of the surfacing of the access both during the construction period and post completion.  The construction of the access for the construction phase and for post completion shall be implemented in accordance with that agreed.  

Reason:  To safeguard a tree important to the local townscape (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/4)

2. Full details of all servicing arrangements for the site, any drainage, power, gas or other services shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority before development commences and implemented in accordance with that agreed.

Reason:  To safeguard a tree important to the local townscape (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy 4/4)

Site Address:  Murdoch House, 30 Garlic Row

Application Number: 10/0298/FUL

Proposal: Single Storey Side Extension

Applicant: Murdock House

Case Officer:  James D’Arcy

Officer Recommendation: Approve

 

 

The committee received an application for planning permission. The application sought approval as above.

 

The committee received representations from objector David Pescod and Ward Councillor Pogonowski.

 

Resolved (6 Votes for and 1 Votes against) To accept the officer recommendations and grant planning permission subject to imposition of the conditions outlined in the committee report (Reference number 11e of the Agenda) with the addition of one further condition:

 

No part of the extension hereby approved shall be a distance of less than 1 metre from the common boundary fence of the site with the public boundary to the south west of the building.

Reason:  To safeguard the planting outside the site and ensure that the building is not unduly intrusive in the local context, or out of context a tree important to the local townscape (Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4 and 3/14)