Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Shah and Sedgwick-Jell. 

To approve the minutes of the meetings on 16^th December 2010 and 20^th December 2010 

The minutes of the meeting of the 16^th December 2010 were approved and signed as a correct record subject to the following  amendment: Item 10/57/EAC Councillor Owers raised concerns about robbery and burglaries. 

 

The minutes of the meeting of the 20^th December 2010 were approved and signed as a correct record.

Ainsworth Street and York Street 

Councillor Walker reported that she and Councillor Marchant-Daisley had  had achieved good results liaising with i) police, PCSOs and City Council Safer City team to do with drug dealing and burglery in the local area, ii) Environmental Improvement team to get the lighting in Vera's Way repaired, and iii) the playground team to get signs for the new play area.

 

Speeding Priority

Cllr Wright reported that the Cycle Steering Group have made some progress with this issue. 

 

Follow-up Meeting re Hills Road Bridge

Member had an on site walk about and a follow up meeting will be arranged in the near future.

Action

 

Tenison Road Mitigation Measures

Petersfield ward members have had a meeting with County Council officers and an open meeting will be arranged to discuss options. . The first phase of the CB1 project triggers the release of funding for mitigation works, and County officers are also seeking funds from other pots.

Action

 

Rustat Road

Cllr Sadiq is taking this matter forward. A sub group to address this matter was under consideration. A remit for the group, along with the boundaries of the area of interest and who to consult would need to be agreed.

 

Galfrid Road and Rawlyn Road

Cllr Hart reported highway improvement work had been completed in Galfrid Road and was about to begin in Rawlyn Road. Local residents had welcomed this.

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.

 

Name	Minutes Item	Interest
Councillor Wright	11/3/EAC	Personal: Member Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Councillor Walker	11/3/EAC	Personal: Member Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Councillor  Saunders	11/3/EAC	Personal: Member Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Councillor  Saunders	11/9/EAC	Personal: Works in the Wine Trade
Councillor  Pogonowski	11/3/EAC	Personal: Member Cambridge Cycling Campaign

 

 

Q1. Frank Gawthrop: Given the importance of urban trees why did the City Council allow St Barnabas Church in Mill Road to cut down four mature trees and severely cut back two more?

The consultation process was flawed as most of the properties contacted were homes in multiple occupation or business addresses. 

Members made the following comments:

             I.      This is a very public area and given the anxiety about trees in the public realm the lack of protection for trees on private land is a cause for concern.

          II.      Officers need to look again at the list of Consultees.

       III.      The draft conservation area appraisal for Mill Road included these trees and should have been considered.

      IV.      The consultation process refers to the trees in question as ‘less than good’. This term means very little to the general public.

         V.      Members questioned the consultation process and how an area is defined for consultation purposes.

      VI.      Members would seek to establish a dialogue with the church as it is not clear what their goal was in removing the trees. It was suggested that they did create a barrier between the road and the church.

   VII.      Recovering what has been lost was agreed as a priority and members will see what can be done to ensure that replacement trees are appropriate to the character of the area.

 

Ward Councillors to take this issue forward in consultation with Mr Gawthrop. Councillor Walker would take the lead on this matter. The church would be contacted, as their voice should be heard.

Action

 

The committee resolved to put the following questions to officers (Planning and Trees) and copy to Exec Cllr for Climate Change and Growth:

 

1. Can the St Barnabas Church plans be altered to include replacing the felled trees with appropriate trees?

2. Can the public consultation policy be reviewed to include Resident Associations in the relevant area?

 

Q2. Mike Pitman, Sue Jeffreys and Debbie Loubell There have been long standing problems with the residents parking arrangements in the Guest Road Area. Permits are very expensive and resident often fail to find a space. The number of properties had not changed but there appeared to be additional permits in use. The system is being abused by students of Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) who should not have cars. Visitor permits are also being abused, possibly for profit.

 

Councillor Walker said that County Council officers Richard Preston and Graham Lowe had agreed to assist with this matter. Councillor Harrison will look into this and report back at the next meeting. She expressed disappointment that ARU had not responded to residents concerns. She was aware of similar problems in other streets in the area.

Action

 

Q3. Frank Gawthrop Mill Road between the swimming pool and the railway bridge is now becoming a road of hot food and hairdressers. A number of small, local outlets have been lost in recent months to be replaced with hot food shops. The area now lacks variety and this is against planning guidance. Rents in the area have risen to a level that makes it almost impossible for small businesses to survive. Sandwich shops appear to be a grey area and many now have seating making them more like cafes.

 

The Chair agreed to take this forward and will arrange a meeting in the Guildhall to consider the issue. Councillor Smart suggested that the enforcement officer be invited together with ward councillors from Romsey and Petersfield. County Councillors would also be invited. Councillor Pogonowski also expressed and interest in attending.

Action

 

Q4. Janet Griffiths: Residents of Budleigh Close were promised a follow up letter regarding their communal aerial and the digital switch over plans. This has not happened.

Councillor Owers was concerned that residents with communal aerials were not getting adequate support. There is also concern about the advice and assistance that is being given to City Homes tenants. Residents had met with Robert Hollingsworth of City Homes and with private contractors Crystal and this had been helpful. Councillor Smart suggested that vandals had caused some of the problems. She further agreed to ensure that vulnerable tenants were keep informed on sources of assistance with the digital switch over process.

Action

 

Q5. Andrew Bowers: Parking problems continue to grow in the City. Could the parking policy for new development be changed to reflect the need for more parking?

It was noted that such decisions are contained in the Local Plan and are outside the remit of this committee.

This will be a preliminary deliberation to inform a full discussion including Cambridgeshire County Council speakers in April. Background information can be found on Cambridgeshire County Council’s website  http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/leisure/libraries/news/libservicereview/

Members were reminded that this item would be covered in more detail at the next meeting in April when representatives for the County Council would be present.

 

Members raised the following points:

             I.      The future of all libraries is uncertain and people should not get complacent and assume that some libraries were safe.

          II.      Increasing usage would add support to the campaign to save libraries.

       III.      The methodology for scoring libraries is complicated and looks at both usage and the social deprivation of the catchments area. This has an impact on rural libraries.

      IV.      There would be a public meeting at Rock Road library on the 2^nd March to discuss the future plans.

         V.      More details can be found on the County Council’s web pages: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/leisure/libraries/libservicereview/public_consultation_report.htm

Presentation from Census Area Manager, Ralph White-Paddon 

The committee received an oral presentation from the Census Area Manager regarding the 2011 census process.

 

Councillor Harrison suggested that an under count at the last census had had an impact on funding for Cambridge.

 

In response to questions, the Census Area Manager said:

       I.      Staff would wear identification at all times and the Police would be aware of which areas they are working in.

    II.      Students would be counted early, during the Easter break, to avoid a double count.

 III.      Older people would be offered assistance if needed.

IV.      A special team will work with hard to reach groups such as the homeless.

   V.      The results would be 100% confidential.

 

Q. Richard Taylor – How robust will the Census Team be in prosecuting for non-completion?

A. The goal is to get forms returned rather than prosecute.

Application from St Philips Church – Community Facilities

Ken Hay, Head of Community Development 

The committee received a report from the Head of Community Development regarding Community Development Capital Project in the East Area.

 

Speaking on behalf of St Philips Church, Martin Clark stated that the building would be very efficient and the pay back period would be a few years,

 

The committee resolved by unanimously to:

 

Recommend that the Executive Councillor approve a grant of £44,000 for St Philips Church to improve community use and the sustainability of their facilities.

 

Licensing act 2003 – public consultation on the inclusion of a fourth cumulative impact area and an extension to the existing leisure park cumulative impact area within the statement of licensing policy. 

Link to Statement of Licensing Policy.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/docs/Statement_of_Licensing_Policy_Jan_2011.pdf

This document is large and limited numbers of hard copies will be available at the meeting

The Committee received a report from the Licensing Manager regarding the Licensing Act 2003 Public Consultation.

 

The committee expressed support for the proposals. In response to questions the officer explained that the police had been consulted and the proposed changes were to increase consistency across a wider area.

 

Q. Frank Gawthrop: To object to an application you need to be near an outlet. Has the proximity classification changed?

A. Vicinity was never defined in Cambridge and this could change in future.

 

C12 was discussed. Resident Associations find this useful as it does not prevent all applications. Applications would need to demonstrate that there is a need and there would be no adverse impact.

 

Jon Green: There is a clear need for a comprehensive policy across the City and this should expand to the Ring Road.

A. This is beyond the scope of this consultation.

Christine Allison, Licensing Manager 

The Committee received a report from the Licensing Manager regarding the Licensing of Sex Establishments, public consultations on the Draft Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

Councillor Brown questioned some of the assumption in the report as it appears to assume that the dancers would be female and that such venues would be aimed at heterosexual clientele only.

 

Members discussed how the public could respond to the consultation without using moral arguments. Decisions would be based on the policy rather than individual morals. However, some members suggested that moral objections had value.

The committee received an application for a loft conversion and rear roof extension including raising of roof ridge height. 

 

The committee heard representation from Malcolm Hunter on behalf of the applicant. Mr Hunter made the following points:

·        The building is already dominant and further work would not significantly increase this,

·        The planned frontage is in keeping with the area and the rear would present a modern infill aspect.

·        Plan is within the current footprint.

·        Good internal design.

·        The building is largely screened from Sleaford Street.

·        The only objection had come from a property company and not a local resident.

 

Resolved (by 6 votes to 4) to accept the officer recommendations to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

The proposed rear box dormer would, by reason of its excessive scale, bulk, height and poor design, represent an overly dominant and visually intrusive and incongruous feature that would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling or relate satisfactorily with its surroundings. The development would therefore cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, of which this dwelling forms a part. For these reasons the proposals are contrary to policies ENV6 and ENV7 of the East of England Plan (2008), to policies 3/4, 3/14 and 4/11 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 and to advice provided by PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.