Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

Councillor Roberts announced his resignation from his position of Chair and asked for nominations for the vacant position.

 

Councillor Sinnott proposed, and Councillor R Moore seconded, the nomination of Councillor Barnett as Chair.

 

Resolved unanimously that Councillor Barnett be Chair for the remainder of municipal year 2017/18.

 

Councillor Barnett assumed the chair at this point.

 

Councillor Smith proposed, and Councillor Johnson seconded, the nomination of Councillor R Moore as Vice-Chair.

 

Resolved unanimously that Councillor R Moore be Vice-Chair for the remainder of municipal year 2017/18.

 

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 Monitoring Officer should be sought before the meeting.

No declarations were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2017 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 ‘Matters Arising Action Sheet’.

 

http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=147&MId=3360&Ver=4

Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking. 

Dr Timothy Grout: What is the latest development of the proposed Cambridge City Council Housing development on the Mill Road depot site in Petersfield?

 

Councillor Robertson instructed there would be a further public consultation workshop on 2 November, 3.00pm – 8.00pm; which would exhibit the results from the public consultations held in the summer and suggested way forward.

 

Councillor Herbert stated that the City Council would also undertake two significant reviews by the end of the year, starting with a meeting of the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 13 November.

 

Janet Griffiths: Double yellow lines have been painted in Tiverton Way but not where I had previously requested.

 

Councillor Kavanagh advised that the installation had been at the request of residents in that area under the Local Highway Improvement Scheme. He requested that Mrs Griffiths contact County Councillor Crawford with the details and an application for funding could be submitted under the scheme.

 

Mike Edey: Would like to bring to the attention of the Committee the unwelcoming condition of the Newmarket Road and Elizabeth Way under path which does not encourage the use of the pedestrian tunnels. 

 

Councillor Smith advised that the Community Payback would be painting over the graffiti. Three artists had contacted the Council expressing an interest in making the area more attractive.

 

Councillor Whitehead stated that she had raised the matter of improvement on several occasions and had suggested that a camera could be installed to see who was responsible for the graffiti.

 

Councillor Roberts advised that the underpass came under three different wards which made the application for funding slightly complicated. It was also further complicated that the underpass was owned by the County Council with the City Council responsible for the maintenance.

 

A discussion then followed with suggested ideas on how to improve the area, ranging from community gardens; coffee shop; to longer term solution from changing the area to a cross roads or a junction.  

 

Dadhi Chudali: Could the Committee advise who I should contact regarding a request to install two cycle stands outside the Romsey Post Office opposite St Philips Church. Who should I speak with regarding the problem of graffiti?

 

The Committee provided a number of options available to Mr Chudali regarding anti-social behaviour issue of graffiti, such as making the Police the first point of contact and the use of Police Community Support Officer (PCSOs).

 

Councillor Barnett stated that she would speak with Mr Chudali in the break on both matters to provide contact details.

 

Elizabeth Parr: Could the Committee provide an update on the request for barriers to be installed on Elizabeth Way Bridge.

 

Councillor Johnson advised that an application for funding had been submitted sponsored by the Environmental Improvement Fund. To date no decision had been made so further information could be provided.

 

Margret Cramer : There have been three proven cases of the misuse of parking permits in Tenison Road with a possible further two drivers abusing the system. The plans to restrict visitor permits to 20 per household (100 days) in April 2018 did not go far enough. Please could the Committee support a further reduction to 12 visitor permits per household per year, with the provision that if more are needed, the completed permits are submitted to the Council first?

 

Councillor Blencowe advised that he and Councillor Baigent had looked at future parking schemes for residents across the City and felt this subtle change was a sensible way forward. Currently a resident could apply for a visitor permit every day of the year and there would be some residents who oppose the restrictions.

 

James Woodburn: Is there any news of when Cambridge will ban all polluting vehicles in Cambridge City Centre? According to today’s paper, Oxford is to ban all polluting vehicles, cars, buses and taxis from the city centre in 2020.

 

Councillor Herbert replied the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) recognised the need for a clean air zone in Cambridge. The GCP had highlighted Mitcham’s Corner to Mill Road Bridge (including the City Centre) in the first instance. Funding had been allocated for this project with a public consultation next spring. It was recognised the air was too polluted in the City but there would not be a quick fix.

 

Councillor Roberts highlighted the work that the City Council had undertaken: An Air Quality Officer had been employed; a record number of electric vehicles were now used by the Streets and Open Spaces Team; additional charging points for electric vehicles across the city were to be installed and encouraging taxis to be greener.

 

Councillor Benstead stated it was important not to rush to implement a scheme but it was imperative to put in place the right arrangements first time.

 

Frank Gawthrop: In London a major source of particulate pollution is from wood burning stoves. What is Cambridge City Council doing about this issue?

 

The Committee agreed pollution was not caused just from vehicles and accepted wood burning stoves did contribute to the issue. However it was dependent on the quality of the stove. There were no figures to indicate how many wood burning stoves were in use and how much they contributed to the pollution in the City.

 

Richard Wood: At the East Area Committee Meeting on 6 April 2017, it is minuted that Mr Al Storer, on behalf of Camcycle, raised the problem of the design of some street corner barriers, pointing out that they obstructed tricycles and cargo bikes and caused conflict with many bikes using the footway.

 

At that time, a number of councillors expressed reservations about replacing the barriers (with Cambs Fire & Rescue approved locked, removable bollards) as this might make motor-cycle infractions easier.

 

Would Councillors please revisit this question of replacement of the gates by bollards – using Local Highway Improvement Initiative funding at the Gwydir Street, Hopper Street, Sturton Street junction and the Gwydir Street and Milford Street Junction, in view of these points:

     i.        Misuse by motor cyclists is not currently obstructed

   ii.        Proper use by tricycles or cargo bikes is obstructed

  iii.        Pedestrians are currently being put at risk

  iv.        The gates have drop-bolts but are not locked and it is a regular occurrence for them to be opened to allow vehicular traffic to pass.

 

Councillor Robertson opined that the removal of barriers and the installation of bollards could encourage cyclists to increase their speed. Improving the design of the barriers must be a possibility and he would speak with Officers to review the design. (ACTION)

         

Richard Wood: We have noted there has been some recent activity on the derelict Perne land and buildings 47-59 Perowne Street. However it has taken from January’s East Area meeting when we presented a petition concerning this site until this month for the metal barriers to be secured around the site and a pair of shiplap-panelled wooden gates installed.

 

Some clearance of undergrowth has been undertaken but little else during the nine months. Despite the new gates the site remains vulnerable to unauthorised access via the adjacent crumbling fence; there are a number of potential hazards on this site

 

Could the Committee advise whether the City Council’s Planning Enforcement Officers have initiated action under S215 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and/or S76-79 of the Building Act 1984 and/or S79-82 of the Environment Protection Act 1990? Or is this matter after years of increasing dereliction still being handled by encouraging voluntary action from the owners?

 

What improvements, cosmetic, public safety related or otherwise have the owners agreed to undertake, and in what timescale?

 

Councillor Robertson stated that an order had been issued to the owner for the cleansing of the site. As the notice has been issued this matter had been removed from the action sheet, but Councillor Robertson would instruct Officers to follow up on the order. (ACTION)

 

Richard Wood: At an earlier East Area Meetings of 6 April and 20 July, the issue of footway and cycleway path obstruction by vehicles outside the Co-op store on Perne Road and Mill Road was raised.

 

The Police representative correctly pointed out that, with de-criminalised (civil-penalty) parking enforcement in Cambridge this was a matter for the civil authorities in the first instance the Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways Department.

 

Will members of the Committee commit to pressing the Highways Department to use their powers to introduce a traffic regulation order banning all pavements and verge parking, other than in authorised marked bays (eg in Romsey side streets).

 

This would enable civil penalty tickets to be issued by the County’s Civil Enforcement Officers (traffic wardens) and be self-financing under the principle that the offender pays the cost of enforcement.

 

Would this committee please seek advice on this matter from Councillor Ed Murphy (Labour and Co-op Councillor for Ravensthorpe) who successfully cross party support for the implementation of a similar traffic regulation order in the Peterborough unitary authority, where, Cambridgeshire County Council’s remit does not run.

 

Councillor Jones replied that she had walked along Mill Road with City Engineers to observe the issues highlighted at the last meeting and scrutinised the by-laws for loading and unloading. The regulations had not changed in 15 years and she was currently exploring whether it was possible to update and revise the operational hours. It had also been noted that the signage was poor.

 

Councillor Jones requested that Mr Wood send her the contact details of Peterborough City Councillor Ed Murphy so she could contact him to discuss the introduction of banning all pavements and verge parking, other than in authorised marked bays in Peterborough. ACTION.

 

Mr Richard Wood: At earlier meetings of the East Area Committee (12.01.17, 06.04.17 & 20.07.17) minutes record the concerns regarding the unwillingness of the Cambridgeshire Constabulary to enforce the 20mph speed limits.

 

At the April meeting, I pointed out that a change of legislation meant there was no longer a restriction in using standard 20mph limit signs and that other ‘20’s plenty hearts and minds’ signage encouraging compliance was also permissible.

 

More recently, there has been a refusal of the local police to run an ‘Operation Close-Pass’ educational campaign to stress to vehicle drivers the importance of Highway Code rule 163 which states that a motorist must “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.

 

I have become aware of the incorrect display of speed limits across most of Cambridge on the Tom-Tom mapping and satellite navigation system. I have been in touch with this organisation to request updates.

 

Could we have clear and unequivocal commitment of councillors present to:

 

     i.        Present for policing priorities to include measures to improve motorists’ compliance and concordance with our 20mp limits.

   ii.        Bid to obtain funding for ‘20’s plenty hearts and minds’ signage throughout the 20mph zones.

  iii.        Instruct an officer of the Council in collaboration with a Highways Officer, to contact Tom-Tom and other mapping and satellite navigation companies to ensure that our speed limits are correctly displayed on their systems.

  iv.        Press for policing priorities to include ‘Operation Close Pass’ to educate vehicle drivers on the importance of Highway Code 163.

   v.        Arrange for an audit and removal of misleading speed limit signage such as the ‘30mph, end of 20mph zone’ sign at the junction of Hemingford Road and Mill Road.

 

Councillor Baigent spoke of the Committee’s disappointment with the Police response to enforcing 20mph zones in and around the City and recommended they should be challenged on this matter.

 

As at the previous meeting held in July, the Committee discussed the enforcement of 20mph, particularly the ACOP (Association of Chief Police Officers) agreeing to the revised guidance on not supporting 20mph limits that were clearly signed or indicated.

 

During the discussion Mr Wood questioned if the speed camera on Cherry Hinton Road opposite the Swiss Laundry was in operation. Councillor Herbert advised that he would investigate this matter. (ACTION)

 

Councillor Smith expressed concern with Cambridgeshire Constabulary refusal to rollout operation close pass which was designed to protect vulnerable road users.

 

Councillor Barnett advised that she would follow up with Officers on the Tom-Tom mapping problem by contacting the organisation to highlight this matter. (ACTION)

 

To note decisions taken by the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokesperson since the last meeting of the East Area Committee.

The Committee noted the Officer delegated decision and made the following comments:

 

     i.        Pleased to see the community facility was being improved.

    ii.        Important that local Councillors engaged with the Church to ensure sufficient access to the wider community.

   iii.        Noted the Council had placed terms and conditions on the funding. In return for the funding the Church had to offer a set number of hours each month to be made available for community use. It was vital that these were adhered to

The Committee received a report from the Enforcement Officer, Nick Kester.

 

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.

 

  i.        Early morning, daytime and weekend patrols for dog fouling Mill Road Cemetery.

  ii.       Enforcement patrols to tackle environmental crime at Thorpe Way estate and St Matthews Street area

   iii.     Enforcement patrols to tackle fly tipping, litter, side waste and trade waste along in the Petersfield area of Mill Road

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

 

 i.     Welcomed the increased number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN’s) issued for littering over the reporting period.

    i.          Requested that the column providing the Informal Action / Written Actions were set out in a clearer format. The figure provided related to the footnote and not the total number of actions undertaken which was misleading.

  ii.          Congratulated the team of volunteers and recycling champions on their dedication and hard work. 

 

Members of the public raised the following issues:

 

     i.        Enquired if a dog bin could be installed at the back of Lichfield Community Hall.

    ii.        Suggested that the house number and road name be put on wheelie bins to identify the property it belonged to.

  iii.        Recommended that the universities’ and lettings agents’ introduced a welcome pack to advise of the dates and times of bin collections; how the bins were sorted and what enforcement could be taken if compliance had not been met. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Enforcement Officer and the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre said the following:

i.             The needles removed in Cherry Hinton Road were all from the one property.

ii.             The money from FPN’s was allocated to educational projects.

iii.             Would obtain further information from the Environmental Health Team on the increase in investigations on Private Sector Housing Standards.

iv.             A breakdown of noise complaints in this reporting period had been attached to the updated action sheet and would be included in all future Environmental Reports.

v.             Leaving wheelie bins on footpaths had changed from a criminal offence to a civil offence which was now a laborious procedure for the Council to enforce.

vi.             The refuse teams should put the bins back from the location they had been collected from.

vii.             A future campaign regarding wheelie bins being left out on the pavements was being explored by Cambridge City Officers and an update would be given at the next meeting by the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre (ACTION)

viii.             The recycling facility at the Sainsbury Site on Coldhams Lane was now operated directly by the superstore and therefore they would determine what items would be accepted for recycling.

ix.             Items such as batteries could be attached to the outside of the blue bin if placed in a bag.

x.             The City Council held an annual electrical recycling event.

xi.             Ekin Road and the surrounding area was part of a weekly enforcement patrol.

xii.             Promoted the Cambridge Community Scrapstore held on Wednesday’s at Barnwell Business Park, 4.00pm -7.00pm.

xiii.             A map to show the location of litter, dog and recycling bins was available on Cambridge City’s website. This information could be viewed at the link below:

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/litter-and-dog-bins-map

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to prioritise for action as amended:

i.        Early morning, daytime and weekend patrols for dog fouling on Mill Road Cemetery.

ii.       Early morning, daytime and weekend patrols for dog fouling on Brooks Road & Sedgwick Street.

iii.      Enforcement patrols to tackle environmental crime at Thorpe Way estate and St Matthews Street area

iv.      Enforcement patrols to tackle fly tipping, litter, side waste         and trade waste along in the Petersfield area of Mill Road