Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Baigent, Hart and Sinnott.

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2015 were approved as a correct record.

 

Open forum 02/07/15 to advise Dr Eva of consultation regarding Climate Change Strategy

 

Councillor Owers confirmed that Dr Eva had been made aware of the consultation exercise.

 

Open Forum: Cllr Whitehead to liaise with Ms D’Souza regarding school places

 

Councillor Whitehead confirmed that Ms D’Souza had been provided with a response and there was no further information to add.

 

Open Forum: Cllr Walsh to raise issue of traffic calming measures including banning HGV vehicles from Tenison Road. 

 

Cllr Walsh confirmed that he had had a meeting with residents and Officers, but Officers had confirmed that they would not be able to ban HGVs.

 

Open Forum: Cllr Roberts to arrange for Officers to call Mrs Cranmer to discuss scientific readings for Tenison Road.

 

Cllr Roberts had had a discussion with Officers and Ms Cranmer and a site visit had been arranged for the following week to discuss the issue.

 

Wendy Young to provide information on the frequency of weeding.

 

Completed and response included in the Action Sheet.

 

Sir Graham Bright – Police and Crime Commissioner – Asked whether speed cameras can operate if street lights are not switched on.

 

Completed and response included in the Action Sheet.

 

 

1.   Dr Eva referred to a question he had asked at a previous East Area Committee meeting on the 29 November 2012. 

 

He asked the Committee to resolve that ‘for buildings where there exists a community or civic interest we will ensure that all such buildings are made cycle-friendly by providing an adequate provision of free and safe cycle stands by December 2013.

 

The EAC agreed a resolution that “where there exists a civic or community interest, EAC would strive to ensure that all such buildings were cycle friendly by providing adequate free and safe cycle parking by December 2013.

 

The Committee were asked:

-      How many buildings of civic or community interest were identified within the EAC area.

-      How many of these lacked adequate free and safe cycle parking.

-      How many sites had since been fitted with adequate free and safe cycle parking.

-      How many sites (if any) remained without adequate free and safe cycle parking and if such still existed what plans were in place to correct the situation.     

 

Councillor Blencowe read a statement from the Cycling Officer and apologised to Dr Eva on behalf of the Committee for the lack of information that had thus far been provided.  He commented from his local knowledge that new cycle racks had been provided at St Pauls Church and the Youth Hostel, although these were not often used for City Council events.  The proposals for further provision at the Cherry Trees Day Centre had stalled pending a likely re-design of the buildings frontage. Options to redevelop the garages site opposite the Cherry Trees Centre were going to the March Housing Scrutiny Committee for consideration. It was possible that cycle rack provision could be included in the project appraisal for the site.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that cycle racks had been installed outside the River Centre in 2013.  A report regarding the review of community provision was going to come to the Committee in April. 

 

Councillor Smart commented that Ross Street Community centre had more cycle racks put in when it had been refurbished.  Other buildings in Romsey ward for example Churchs had cycle provision.

 

Councillor Blencowe agreed that there was a need to identify where increased provision had taken place and where it was still needed.

 

ACTION: Referred issue to the Pedestrian and Cycling Steering Group and requested an audit of cycle provision at Community facilities was undertaken.

 

2.   Dr Eva referred to the City Council’s long term vision for the Riverside Promenade which would stretch between Midsummer and Stourbridge Commons. Phase 1 of the project was completed in 2011. He commented that the stretch of the river between Riverside Bridge and Stourbridge Common was a popular walking and recreational space.  Cambridgeshire County Council were reviewing parking near to the Riverside entrance to Stourbridge Common and was recommending that parking spaces were maintained between the junction with Stanley Road and the entrance to Stourbridge Common.

 

Dr Eva proposed a resolution “That the East Area Committee (EAC) notes the plans put forward by Cambridgeshire County Council in their email from John Richards to residents and Councillors dated 22 January 2016.  The EAC reaffirms its long term vision of a Riverside Promenade between Midsummer and Stourbridge Commons.  As such it deplores the proposal for parking bays adjacent to the river on Riverside and calls for the introduction of double yellow lines adjacent to the river along Riverside between the Riverside Bridge and Stourbridge Common.”

 

Councillor Whitehead commented that the scheme that John Richards had drawn up was due to go out to consultation and therefore it was not appropriate for the Committee to pre-empt a decision on this issue.  There were two issues, the first was parking and the second was bicycle and pedestrian access.

 

Councillor Roberts commented that he recognised that there should be a riverside vision and was aware that one side of the river looked good and the other side less so, however works had been undertaken, new bins had been provided and some areas had been painted.

 

Councillor Blencowe commented that the Committee still supported the long term vision of the promenade but it was understood that funding in the region of £1.2million was required in order to complete the project.  If resources were available to complete the project then it would be completed however the funding was not available.  He referred Dr Eva to raise his issues as part of the County Council consultation.

 

3.   Ms Cranmer stated that photographs had been sent to Officers regarding issues that residents had with bins being left on pavements at the Mill Road end of Tenison Road.  She had spoken to businesses located on the corner of the road who could not move their bins because cars were parked where they were meant to put their bins.

 

ACTION:  Cllr Roberts to discuss the issue of bins on the pavement with Mrs Cranmer.

 

4.   Mr Carpen asked whether visits that had been undertaken by Councillors to Coleridge School for year 9 and 10 pupils would be repeated for the new cohort of pupils.

 

ACTION: Cllr Smith to contact the Principal at Coleridge School to see if a Member visit could be arranged.

 

5.   Mr Carpen enquired whether officers could liaise with firms and bus companies to put noticeboards up which could display information about Councillors and how to contact them.

 

ACTION: Cllr Herbert to look into community noticeboards to display information about Councillors and Environmental Improvement projects.

   

6.   Ms Manning asked a number of questions about Coleridge Recreation Ground on behalf of the Friends of Coleridge Recreation Ground.  The questions covered whether the toilets could be opened or temporary toilets provided.  Reference was made to debris which had been left following improvements which had been undertaken and highlighted that some fencing had disappeared.

 

Councillor Roberts responded that there was currently a consultation regarding the provision of public toilets and asked that comments be provided to him so that these could be fed into the consultation process.

 

Councillor Benstead commented that Coleridge Recreation Ground was a good facility and he would press for the toilets to be upgraded in the hope that they could be open 12 months of the year.

 

Councillor Herbert commented that Ward Councillors had attended the recreation ground the previous week and had noticed the problem with the contractor’s area, which had been taken up and the issue with the fence would need to be followed up.  He requested that any suggestions about improvements be sent through to him as there was a small sum of money which could be used for example to open up the entrance. 

 

ACTION: Cllr Roberts to look into Coleridge Recreation Ground query regarding toilets being closed because of asbestos and issue regarding fence and overgrown entrance.

 

7.   Mr Lucas-Smith addressed the Committee regarding inappropriate parking which caused blocks in the road and asked whether Councillors would be in favour of the Police booking the vehicles.  He also addressed the Committee regarding a gate which had been erected near the Beehive Centre and behind York Street and the lack of consultation on this.

 

Councillor Blencowe responded that there had been a lot of tension between commuters and residents in late summer and early autumn and that the area was becoming a free parking facility.  The original gate solution had not been thought through sufficiently but a revised solution had been put in place and it was hoped this would help resolve the issue.

 

8.           A resident of Maltings Close asked that a statement be read out on their behalf regarding part of the route of the Chisholm Trail. This area had 3 important designations, firstly it was a City Wildlife Site, the second was that it was part of the Inner Greenbelt and thirdly that it was part of an historical Conservation Area.

 

Residents were concerned that in the consultation the facts regarding the 3 important designations were not provided to the public in background information or when asked about the status of the land at an exhibition evening. It was questioned why this was. It was also thought that information had been presented in a bias way and it only provided positive views about the opportunities on the site.  It was felt that as many people care about wildlife and Conservation Areas and the fact that this information was not included would have affected the responses given.  Question 1 of the survey was structured in such a way that it was not possible to provide an answer which disagreed with the off-road cycle route. Further concerns regarding the scope of the survey and the unequal treatment of stakeholders were also raised. 

 

Councillors were asked firstly to take action to ensure a fair process was undertaken in the consultation.  Secondly they were asked to explain the apparent infringement of Council Policy in developing land where there were alternative routes available. Thirdly they were asked for full details of which stakeholders were contacted before the consultation and during the consultation.

 

Councillor Johnson thanked the resident of Maltings Close for attending the Committee.  His personal view was that the route proposed for the Chisholm Trail was acceptable and it achieved a difficult balance between the environment and the proposed route.

 

An email from Mike Davies (Team Leader - Cycling Projects

Cambridgeshire County Council) was read out at the meeting and the main points are summarised as follows: It was acknowledged that the route was proposed to go through the Conservation Area and Green Belt area however this did not mean that the area was unsuitable as a cycle route.  The route was still subject to planning permission being obtained. Ecological surveys had been undertaken.  The consultation questions had been determined by the City Deal Communications Team, Cambridge Research Group and the Cycling Project Team.  Stakeholder meetings had been held and 10,500 homes had received information about the consultation.  John Grimshaw the County Council’s consultant had visited Maltings Close to discuss the proposals.

 

Councillor Blencowe commented that any proposal would take into account Council policies and the Conservation Area would be taken into account.  The stakeholder meeting would have included all known residents associations however Maltings Close may not have been known about and apologised if the database was not up to date. 

 

Councillor Smart asked what list the County Council had used and whether the residents’ group list was up to date.  Maltings Close was a new development and assumed that they had not been included on the list.  Questioned whether the County Council had liaised with the City Council, and if they were using the same information.

 

Councillor Kavanagh commented that the Maltings Close residents’ had been visited by the County Council consultant.  The Chisholm Trail would be on the next City Deal Assembly agenda, further decisions would be made by the City Deal Executive Board and there would be a decision on any planning application.  

     

 

 

 

The Committee received a report from Sergeant Colin Norden regarding the policing and safer neighbourhoods’ trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the Committee on 2 July 2015. 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.             Continue with the work against the supply of Class A drugs and the presence of persons linked to organised crime groups from the London area

ii.            Continue to target street drinking and alcohol based anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the Petersfield and Mill Road areas.

iii.           Continue to address road safety matters such as vehicle speeding and anti-social cycling.

 

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.              Ms De Beaux endorsed the Police in trying to encourage lights on bicycles but questioned whether the failure to use lights was anti-social and if that description was appropriate.  The definition of anti-social behaviour was on the Cambridgeshire Police’s website and it did not appear to fall within the definition.

 

Ms De Beaux raised the issue of driver behaviour at the Mill Road bridge and how as a cyclist she had felt unsafe cycling in this area and had been involved in cycling incidents.  She also stated that it appeared that the Police did not take any action.  She had reported incidents to the Police but had been told that no action could be taken unless a Police Officer witnessed the incident.

 

Sergeant Norden asked if Ms De Beaux had reported any cycling offences to the Police as the Police could only become involved if an offence was reported to them.

 

Sergeant Norden stated that he could not comment on Ms De Beaux’s case as he had not personally been involved.  He confirmed that Cambridgeshire Police had prosecuted offences based on evidence from a head camera and had also prosecuted spitting offences having used swabs that had been taken as evidence.  A case could not be taken to Court without evidence, the more evidence the better. As a Sergeant he took the decision whether to send a case for prosecution. He commended Ms De Beaux for reporting the incidents that she had been involved with.

 

Sergeant Norden agreed to spend a day at Mill Road Bridge monitoring driving and cycling by the end of February 2016.

 

2.              Mr Gawthrop endorsed the comments made by Ms De Beaux about the Mill Road Bridge.  He had seen reports in the paper about incidents and had seen a previous Councillor involved in an accident there. 

 

Mr Gawthrop enquired whether the play area behind the bath house could be included in the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) once improvement works had been undertaken.

 

Sergeant Norden stated that if there was anti-social behaviour in the bath house area to let him know, further patrols could be organised.

 

3.              Mr Carpen raised an issue about adapted engines which made a loud noise and made it difficult to sleep.

 

Sergeant Norden stated that if the cars were seen by the Police then they would usually be pulled over.  He asked that if there was a particular time that these issues arose to let him know.

 

The Committee discussed the following policing issues:

i.             In order to introduce a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) there had to be evidence of anti-social behaviour. Therefore in relation to the Bath House a PSPO could not be applied for until there was evidence of anti-social behaviour.

ii.            Welcomed the Police’s agreement to spend a day monitoring the Mill Road Bridge.

iii.           Queried with Officer’s at the County Council whether the signage at the Mill Road Bridge was adequate, Officers stated that it was adequate but that it would be re-looked at.

iv.          When the recommendations were considered would request that speeding was continued as a priority because of the introduction of the 20mph speed limit.

v.           Questioned the Police about an upsurge of graffiti, the Police confirmed that there were individuals who sprayed tags and if they could catch the individuals then they would do.  

vi.          Queried whether there could be a speed camera on Coleridge Road

 

ACTION: Cllr Walsh to arrange briefing note on Traffic Regulation Orders.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to agree the following priorities:

 

i.        Continue to target the supply of controlled drugs.

ii.       Continue to target street based ASB in and around Mill Road area.

iii       Retain speed checks.

 

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement.

 

The report outlined an overview of City Council Refuse and Environment and Streets and Open Spaces service activity relating to the geographical area served by the East Area Committee.  The report identified the reactive and proactive service actions undertaken in the previous quarter, including the requested priority targets, and reported back on the recommended issues and associated actions. It also included key officer contacts for the reporting of waste and refuse and public realm issues.

 

The following were suggestions for Members on what action could be considered for priority within the East Area for the quarter of January to March 2016:

 

Continuing priorities

     i.        Enforcement patrols to tackle fly tipping at Ekin Road, Riverside and St Matthews Street area

    ii.        Early morning, daytime and weekend patrols for dog fouling at the following locations:

-      Romsey Recreation Ground

-      St Thomas’s Square and Road

-      Ravensworth Gardens play areas

-      Coldhams Common

-      Thorpe Way play area

 

New suggested priorities

   iii.        Enforcement patrols to tackle fly tipping in and around the Ashbury Close area

  iv.        Enforcement investigation and action to deal with littering problems on Brooks Road from Sainsbury’s, and Newmarket Road from Tesco and around the areas of Wicks and Staples.

   v.        Enforcement patrols to undertake enforcement action against abandoned, untaxed and nuisance vehicles in the East Area.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

     i.        Litter bins on the corner of Wycliffe Road where it meets Brook Road.

    ii.        A ward walkabout was undertaken in riverside, about 30 residents turned up to meet key operational staff and it was hoped that other people would take up this opportunity.

   iii.        Extra signs had been given to wards and for Abbey, Thorpe Way was being considered.

  iv.        Small scale projects for example Coleridge Recreation Ground were to be spruced up.

   v.        The alleyway behind the odd numbered houses on Abbey Road had a huge amount of rubbish which had been left outside number 71.  There was also an abandoned vehicle on Abbey Road which had no resident’s permit and the vehicle had 3 parking tickets on it.

  vi.        Thanked Wendy and her Team for the work that had been undertaken on the Elizabeth Way underpass and asked if the Community Pay Back Team could be used to paint the railings on St Matthews Street and Norfolk Street.

 vii.        Referred to p14 of the Officer’s report and asked if the amount of waste that went to landfill could be included so it could be seen if the amount had been reduced.

viii.        Asked if the statistics (for example dog fouling) could be identified by ward.  

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to approve priorities for action as amended above.

 

The Committee received a report from the Urban Design and Conservation Manager regarding the Mill Road Draft Planning and Development Brief and Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

 

The report provided an update on the preparation of the Planning and Development Brief SPD which would help guide the redevelopment of the Mill Road Depot.  The depot was allocated for residential development in the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission for 167 dwellings.

 

A second consultation evening had taken place on Tuesday 26 January 2016, the Urban Design and Conservation Manager listed a summary of the issues discussed, this included:

 

i.             Broad support for a range of house types

ii.            Support for affordable housing

iii.           Consideration for community uses and community groups who may want to relocate onto the site.

iv.          The access strategy off Mill Road and requested that there was no vehicle access to Hooper Street

v.           Car parking

vi.          Dwellings being 2 – 4 storeys in height

vii.         Expressed support for the Council to retain control of the site

 

A member of the public made the following comment:

 

Mr Gawthrop commented that he hoped the site would continue to be considered for housing and that other uses proposed in the past would not be considered.

 

The Committee had a varied discussion the topics included:

i.             Tenure mix

ii.            Sustainable urban drainage system

iii.           The mature trees on the site and the position of public open space

iv.          The development and the viability of the site.

v.           Car parking provision

 

The Committee noted the report.