Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Johnson and Whitehead.

No declarations were received.

The minutes of the meeting of 12 July were approved subject to the following amendments (additional text underlined and deleted text struck through).

 

Page 7 of the minutes, page 9 of the agenda pack:

 

A resident of Budleigh Close Tiverton Way has requested a disabled parking space of the six years. She had been promised this on several occasions but it had not materialised. Can the Committee look into the matter?

 

Councillor Baigent Benstead took additional details and advised that he would investigate the matter further.

 

Page 5 of the minutes, page 7 of the agenda pack:

 

The Committee agreed that it was regretful that no police presence could attend the meeting it was wrong that the Police could not send a representative to the meeting this evening and that there should have been a representative in attendance.

The Action Sheet was noted and an updated copy could be viewed at the following link under ‘Committee Action Sheet’:

 

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=147&MId=3511&Ver=4

 

Representatives of the Safer Communities Team will talk about the work they do to address Anti-social Behaviour across the city.

The Committee received a presentation from the Safer Communities Section Manager and Anti-Social Behaviour Officer about how the Safer Communities Team tackled anti-social behaviour.

 

In response to comments from members of the public, the Communities Section Manager and Anti-Social Behaviour Officer said the following:

     i.        Thanked the member of the public for their positive comments on the success to stop drug taking, rough sleeping and the associated anti-social behaviour, in Hills Road. Six individuals had been served with injunctions, four of who had been housed.  To ensure the success, the Safer Communities Team had worked with various agencies and local residents all of whom were aware from the start that the process would take a great deal of time to resolve, and did not stop reporting all the issues that were witnessed.

    ii.        The Hills Road model was currently in place for Mill Road and injunctions would be sought on certain individuals.  Members of the public were encouraged to keep reporting any criminal activity or associated anti-social behaviour.

   iii.        Confirmed that the two CCTV cameras’ installed by the Home Office on Mill Road were still operational. 

  iv.        Bike theft was a crime but although CCTV in the city was operational it was not monitored every day. Therefore it was important to give the Police a limited time frame (if possible) of when the theft occurred. 

   v.        If information was reported to the Safer Communities Team on criminal activity or associated anti-social behaviour this was always passed onto the Police with the permission of the witness.

  vi.        In the first instance it was always quicker to report criminal activity to the Police.

 vii.        With regards to needle finds, these could be reported to Streets and Open Spaces and they would be removed very quickly.

viii.        The Safer Communities Team could be contacted on the following details:

Safer.communities@cambridge.gov.uk  or 01223 457950

 

The Committee then made the following comments:

     i.        When reporting criminal activity or associated anti-social behaviour it was important that the footage was kept on the device it was taken on to report. The evidence on the device could then be used in a court of law. Images could not be used if they had been uploaded to a cloud or stored elsewhere.

    ii.        There had been no Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO’S) on Mill Road before Labour came into power at Cambridge City Council. PSPO’s were now in place on Petersfield Green, Ditchburn Place and the Cemetery. If the PSPO’s needed to be extended further then the Council would consider such action.

   iii.        For six months there had been weekly reporting from residents on Argyle Street regarding the dealing of drugs and taking of drugs in one particular area. Resident(s) had been threatened with a knife by a drug dealer recently but were told there was no police available to investigate. Drugs and drugs dealing was a problem in the area and all were potentially high priority crimes.

  iv.        The Police representatives had not attended the previous meeting as scheduled and could not attend this meeting. It was imperative that the matter of attendance be raised with the Police and requested that the matter be brought to the attention of the Police and Crime Panel. A letter should also be sent stating the importance of attending the East Area Committee as Residents needed to be heard. (Action).

   v.        All incidents should always be reported and if this could not be done by using the Police website which was difficult to navigate, then facebook or twitter were alternative options.

  vi.        Questioned if a ban on street drinking along the whole of Mill Road was possible, as this would include the pavement cafes.

 vii.        There were various ways to report criminal activity to the Police but from experience the use of the police website live chat had been positive.

viii.        Suggested a community action group could be formed to take issues forward.

 

Councillor Massey advised that as the City Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel, the lack of police presence at East Area Committees would be brought to the Panels’ attention.  The matter had been mentioned to the Police and Crime Commissioner previously regarding the July meeting. The subject of Police not attending to residents when a crime had been reported was also discussed. The Commissioner had advised that 80% of the times Police were responding to non-criminal activity, such as dealing with mental health issues and the other 20% dealing with criminal activity

A Police Representative will be present to take questions from members of the public and committee members.

Member of the Public: (MOP): Would like to the highlight the traffic congestion experienced on Newmarket Road. There are already two budget hotels and Anglia Student House on the road, further development is proposed with the new Aldi and Lidl supermarkets and the new Easyhotel which will bring a further increase in traffic.

 

The road can be very problematic when trying to access it from the residential side streets and can take a considerable length time to get on to Newmarket Road. This is a particular problem when Cambridge United are playing at home. The road is stationary for a length time and can be hazardous if emergency access is required onto Newmarket Road. The Cambridge United Website makes no mention of the park and ride facilities but advertises free street parking close to the ground.

 

With the additional proposed developments the road could become permanently gridlocked.

 

Councillor Massey: The Greater Cambridge Partnership were currently looking at the matter of public transport and cycling on Newmarket Road.  Councillor Whitehead had previously spoken with Stagecoach to persuade them to put on extra buses from the park and ride on match days. Figures had shown that there was an increase on the use of the Park and Ride on these days.

 

Would be meeting with Cambridge United next week and would request that the Club push the message to use the Park and Ride to their fans. (ACTION).

 

MOP: CamCycle had objected to developments on Newmarket Road many times as the applications had not contributed to improving the street scape and transport facilities. The developer of the new student accommodation had said that students would be travelling to Anglia Ruskin University via Midsummer Common and therefore no contribution was needed to be made.

 

Developers should be made to provide contributions to the Eastern Gate proposals but the study (which would cost £50,000) to conclude specific proposals. Until this has been completed no contributions could be made from the developers. Could funding be found from the City and / or County to fund the Eastern Gate Plan?

 

Councillor Blencowe:  Student accommodation was car free and therefore no S106 monies could be requested. The Eastern Gate SPD was a planning guidance document only; planning monies could only be requested for specific proposal and not for guidance. 

 

MOP: The path between Garlic Row and the Green Dragon Bride (Stourbridge Common) has become very dangerous and is an accident waiting to happen, especially at night. Could the Committee arrange for the path to be resurfaced as priority?

 

Councillor Barnett: The matter would be looked into (ACTION).

 

MOP: A resident parking scheme is being introduced in Romsey; concern regarding parking had been raised by traders who travel to their place of business on a daily basis and would have an issue when unloading their stock.

 

Councillor Jones: Business Permits were available and any resident who is elderly and/or infirm and requires regular visits from relatives or services on medical grounds could also apply for a medical visitor' permit free of charge. Would discuss the points raised with Officers as believed that local businesses were going to be offered permits in Newnham Croft (ACTION).

 

Councillor Baigent: Shop Keepers should also be encouraged to use the Park and Ride facilities; the number of cars entering the City had to be reduced.

 

MOP: Residents were advised that a ‘No Entry - Access Only’ sign would be installed on Romsey Terrace but this has not happened. Vehicles were constantly entering into Romsey Terrace and then having to turn around on a continuous basis. This was no good for pollution levels.

 

Councillor Baigent: Agreed to look into this matter (ACTION).

 

MOP: Wished to bring to the Committee’s attention, particularly Romsey Ward Councillors, the planned march on 27 October to protest against the potential demolition of charitable housing association CHS homes in Montreal Square.  This was likely to be one the biggest housing campaigns held in Cambridge. The decision had been postponed yet again, this time due to the City Council cancelling the meeting with CHS. Councillors needed to make this matter a priority.

 

Councillor Barnett: Romsey Councillors were aware of the situation and thanked the individual for highlighting the situation.

 

MOP: With the future planned closure of Mill Road Bridge, this should be treated an unmissable opportunity to explore the options for the future of Mill Road. This could become a destination that people want to explore on foot generating an increase in footfall, which could only a benefit to traders. Special events could be planned.  The closure of Bridge Street to public vehicles had been successful and there was no reason why a road closure could not be positive thing on Mill Road.

 

Councillor Moore: Had spoken with Officers to measure the air quality impact on surrounding roads, such as Coldham’s Lane and Cherry Hinton Road. A congestion study on the surrounding areas was also a possibility during this period.

 

Councillor Smith: Had raised the issue of cleaning the exterior of the cycle bridge as this would become accessible while the bridge was closed.

 

Councillor Robertson: Needed to consider those residents who relied on public transport and those who were less mobile. There seems to be no proposal to leave the bridge open. When work on the bridge had taken place 30 years ago, the road had not been closed but a one way system in place with traffic lights which had been successful.

 

Councillor Baigent: It was important all agencies worked with the shopkeepers and business owners as they were essential to Mill Road and should not experience any loss of earnings.

 

MOP: Since the development of New North Cambridge Station the Petersfield area was suffering with a drop in footfall and businesses were closing down.

 

Councillor Jones: Supported the balance of being creative and experimenting regarding a partial road closure but needed to get the balance right. 

The Committee received a report from the Enforcement Team Leader. 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 following were suggestions to the Committee 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 Enforcement Team Leader made the following comments in response to the Committee’s questions:

 

i.      Petersfield Green was regularly included in teams’ patrol route to ensure that the area was safe and clear of needles, as children regularly used the playground.

ii.     With regards to the 400 needles which were removed from a street bin in Vinery Road, some had been boxed and some loose. It was believed to have been dumped by the same individual.

iii.    Offensive graffiti would be removed the same day it had been reported, none offensive graffiti would be cleaned off 5 to 7 days from being reported. 

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to prioritise for action as amended (additional text underlined):

 

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, with a particular focus on Petersfield Green.

iv.    To patrol the newly installed seating areas of Cavendish Road and Mill Road.