Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Collis and Sheil.

Member	Item	Interest
Thittala Varkey	22/13/NAC	Personal: Works as a criminal defence lawyer.

 

The notes of the meeting held on 28 February 2022 were noted.

Histon Road Area Residents Association (HRARA) report to the Committee regarding minutes 22/5/NAC Questions 2, 3 and 4.

HRARA informed the Committee that the issues raised in minute reference 22/5/NAC had moved forward.  HRARA invited Paul van de Bulk (Greater Cambridge Partnership Representative) to the General AGM on 17 May and he gave a positive update regarding the details of various complaints. The requested RSA3 Audit – the “as built survey” had been packaged together with WSP and submitted to the Road Safety Team so they could proceed with the Audit.  HRARA received confirmation that their concerns would be dealt with and that the long steel meshed fence had been mended with steel ties instead of the soft garden plastic ties.  The contract with the Subcontractor for landscaping was due to end in October 2022.  Noted that the narrow, outdated design for the pavements would remain for the moment.  The 20mph signs had been produced but needed to be installed on the road.

The Action Sheet was noted and an updated copy could be viewed at the following link under ‘Committee Action Sheet – updated post committee.

Agenda for North Area Committee on Thursday, 9th June, 2022, 6.30 pm - Cambridge Council.

The Committee received a report regarding policing and safer neighbourhoods trends.

 

The virtual Area Committee would not be making a decision, so would not vote on priorities set by the Police. The Police reported back on the local areas of concern they were currently focussing on. Councillors and members of the public could not change these, but they could suggest ideas/issues for the Police to focus on.

 

In response to Members’ discussion Sargeant Emms provided the following responses:

      i.         Was aware of issues on Nuffield Road and the area did form part of the patrol area. Also noted the report about drug dealing taking place at Green End Road, Bramley Court, Frank’s Lane and Laxton Way. Noted concerns about the gathering of youths at Brownsfield Community Centre. Asked Councillors to encourage residents to report concerns online so that the Police had an up-to-date record of issues. Also asked for as much information as possible to be provided including the car make / model / colour / numberplate etc.

    ii.         Was not aware of any s60 stop and searches being carried out in Cambridge. Commented that the Police had an action plan which took into consideration the local areas of concern, but officers could also be called upon to respond to calls for action as required. It was difficult therefore to specify how long or often the Police would spend time in a particular area.

   iii.         Commented that there had been a series of thefts from motor vehicles in the Kings Hedges area. These incidences were all down to one person, that person had been arrested and taken to court and was now in prison.  Stated that if anyone was unhappy with how their investigation had been handled then they could request a review of their case (Victim right to review). Victims' Right to Review Scheme | Cambridgeshire Constabulary (cambs.police.uk).

  iv.         Action: Would provide a written response to how knife crime in King Hedges Ward compared to other North Area Committee wards.

    v.         Was aware that cycle crime across the city was high. Noted that people thought the Police didn’t do anything about it. Stated that cycle crime was the only crime in the city where there was a monthly meeting which took place between Cycling Representatives and the Superintendent. The City Centre Police Team had one officer dedicated to cycle crime.  Where cycle thieves were arrested and taken to court a Criminal Behaviour Order was sought.  Two people had been arrested in the north area for dealing with stolen bikes and investigations were ongoing.

  vi.         Commented that there was a multiagency group ‘MASH’ who worked with both victims of domestic violence and perpetrators.

 vii.         Noted that the issues of drug dealing on Victoria Road / Hilda Street should no longer be an issue as the people who were involved no longer lived in Victoria Road.

 

Noted the following local areas of concern which had been raised during the meeting:

i.               Street based drug dealing

ii.             Cycle crime

iii.            Anti-social behaviour / driving.

 

The Community Safety Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.    The Council worked with a number of stakeholders including the County Council regarding domestic violence. Noted that the freedom programme was run at the Meadows Community Centre for survivors of domestic abuse. The Council was also part of the White Ribbon Campaign and the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance.

ii.  Asked for issues around anti-social behaviour (ASB) to be reported directly to the ASB Team, this could be done online or by phone. Also noted that litter picks could be requested in local areas and if this was reported online then different parts of the council could action this.

 

A member of the public commented that they had received a speedwatch kit so that speed checks of the 20mph limit could be carried out on Histon Road as and when required.

The Committee received a report from the Project Manager and Communication Officer (GCP - Greater Cambridge Partnership) regarding the Greater Cambridge Partnership ‘new road classification for Cambridge’ consultation.

 

Road classification in Cambridge was last reviewed in the early 1980s and a lot had changed since then. The review of the road network would also take into consideration:

·      Quality of life objectives

·      Air quality legislation and obligations

·      Declaration of climate emergency

·      Decarbonising Transport plan

·      National Walking, Cycling – Gear change

·      Bus Back Better initiative

·      The Combined Authority’s Local Transport and Connectivity Plan / Greater Cambridge Local Plan

·      Physical changes to the road network

 

A new road classification for Cambridge: Consultation 2022 | Consult Cambridgeshire (engagementhq.com)

 

A couple of members of the public asked the following questions:

i.               Asked what local member’s plans were for encouraging engagement with the Greater Cambridge Partnership Road Classification consultation among local residents, businesses and other stakeholders and for leading positive discussions on the changes the proposals could mean for the area and how local people could help shape the details. Was concerned that there was not always a joined-up process regarding transport in the area and that it was important to make sure that this was approached from a user-hierarchy point of view, i.e. looking first at the key routes for pedestrians, then cyclists, then buses and then motor vehicles. Although they strongly welcomed changes that would create safer active travel routes and nicer places for people to live and work, was a bit concerned about the proposal (and location) of a modal filter on Green End Road and how this would affect the journeys of those who drove from Fen Road as many already had a very long detour. Felt this highlighted the need for a better link directly from Fen Road to Milton Road in addition to that crossing the railway line.

ii.             Asked why the arterial circular route was not being pushed further out of town. They lived between Chesterton Road and Victoria Road (both heavily-residential roads, prime cycling and walking routes and – in the case of the latter – a 20mph zone) and they were both being put at the highest level, permitting/encouraging all types of traffic at all times.  Asked if people wanted to drive from one part of town to another, why they couldn’t be directed out to the A14 or motorway.

iii.            Asked (in relation to Histon Road becoming an A road), does becoming an A Road mean that residents will have lorries etc 24 hours a day coming up and down the road as TIR (International Road Transportation) lorries make a lot of noise and are extremely polluting.

iv.           Asked if consideration could be given to colour contrast within the consultation documentation. Asked local councillors to use social media to engage with residents to bring the consultation to life.

 

The Project Officer said the following in response to public questions:

i.               Wanted to engage with as many stakeholder groups as possible. Was happy to set up one to one meetings with groups if necessary. This consultation was looking at how to define the network moving forward. There would be a second phase to the project which would look at plans in more detail (for example where to locate modal filters). A plan would need to be developed to move from the current classification network to the new classification network. Would need to ensure that any proposals were consistent with other strategies and plans (cycling and walking plans).

ii.             Noted that Albert Street, Victoria Road and Chesterton Road areas were a sensitive point and had been a busy route for many years. Noted that Victoria Road and Chesterton Road formed part of the ring road system and that the purpose of a ring road was to allow traffic to circulate. If Victoria Road was taken out of the ring road this would put more traffic onto Chesterton Road and visa versa. This consultation wasn’t just looking at local roads, the main road network would be looked at as well to see if any mitigation measures were required.

iii.            Histon Road was currently a ‘b’ road and may continue as a ‘b’ road but it would continue to act as a main distributor road which would carry a lot of traffic into the heart of the city. Was aware of concerns regarding HGVs moving around the city. The County Council had a policy which considered where HGVs should be restricted and the GCP review would need to take account of and be consistent with this.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.         Asked whether councillors could gather feedback on the consultation in alternative ways or whether feedback could only be provided online.

    ii.         Asked how much feedback the GCP had received to date and what form this had taken. Asked if there were restricted areas within the city how this would be enforced. Was intrigued by the comments about potential locations for the bus station. Asked how deliveries to shops in the city centre would work if access was restricted. Asked how the project fitted in with the GCP Milton Road project.

   iii.         Queried what the intentions and principles were regarding ‘distributor roads’.

  iv.         Asked if there was any intention for more smart technology in local residential areas (for e.g., to exclude vehicles (cars) other than buses and taxis in the city centre).

    v.         Asked if the GCP had considered ideas from other countries. For e.g., minibuses were used in the city centre of Dijon rather than full sized buses. Asked if Mitcham’s Corner would be revisited and if the Milton Road works could be considered as part of the road classification consultation.

  vi.         Noted that buses needed to be more regular and on time to encourage people to use them rather than their cars. Asked if there was a telephone number for people to respond to the consultation.

 vii.         Asked if there was any plan to look at the allocation of space on the public highway. Asked if there was a plan to have cycle lanes on all roads in Cambridge.

viii.         Stressed the importance of having accessible consultation documentation from the start of the consultation. Felt there needed to be a better distribution of the consultation. Queried which classes of road would be eligible for a modal filter.

 

The Project Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         People were encouraged to look at the consultation online. Confirmed that if people wanted to provide feedback in an alternative way this was fine.

    ii.         With reference to concerns about enforcement, noted that it was easy to talk about restricting traffic on the road network, suitable enforcement measures needed to ensure that it worked. Noted concerns which had been expressed about HGV lorries.

   iii.         Confirmed that they were not looking to move the bus station rather that they were looking at distributing bus stops over a larger area. Needed to consult with the retail sector about consolidating deliveries to the city centre. University colleges had responded to consultation on consolidating deliveries.

  iv.         Noted that people travelling into the city and residents moving across the city contributed to the congestion within the city. Both groups needed to contribute to the solution.

    v.         Noted that Central Government needed to follow through and give powers to local authorities to provide more flexibility and opportunity to use more smart technologies.

  vi.         The project was still in its early stages and looking at how the network should operate. The consultation was not at the stage of considering where modal filters should go, that would be considered in the second stage of the project. Needed to make sure that the project did not make the city centre inaccessible for some members of the public. A shuttle service may be considered. Ideas from abroad were being considered. Initial proposals were that Gilbert Road could become an access road and could have a modal filter.

 vii.         The GCP had high aspirations to significantly enhance bus services across the GCP area. Proposals would be debated by the GCP Board later in the year.  Members of the public could contact the GCP via telephone 01223 699906 to provide feedback on consultations and to request paper copies of the brochure and survey.  Transport for All (Transport for All » Access, Rights, Advice) had been asked to carry out a review of the initial consultation proposals. 

viii.         It may be possible to reallocate parts of the highway to other uses. Noted that it may not always be possible to have a cycle lane on every road in Cambridge.

  ix.         Maps were available for anyone who found it difficult to distinguish between colours. Noted that the Communications Officer would take the accessibility concerns on board. The consultation had suggested streets which were area access and local access streets, and these may be eligible to have modal filters.

Members of the public raised the following questions:

 

1.    Are there any plans to properly address the problems with traffic and nuisance motorised vehicles in the town centre – for example, by reinstating and properly policing the rising bollards, and by encouraging a police presence to curtail the domination of the central triangle (Trinity Street, Market Hill and Sidney Street) by food delivery two-wheelers, going in all directions and parking on pavements?  (I am asking because I was recently in Dijon, which has taken a much more robust approach to their central pedestrianised area, and it is such a joy to walk and cycle in a city like that.)

 

The Chair suggested that this public question was referred to West Central Area Committee given the issues raised were more relevant to West Central Area Committee.

 

2.    Would like to discuss the unauthorised traveller encampment on Carisbrooke Road and what steps were being taken to remove this encampment and how to prevent this occurring in future.

 

The Chair commented that enquiries had been conducted to find out who the owner of the land was. The Council had some interest in the land as they had been maintaining it since 1993. Noted that 15 incidences relating to the encampment had been reported to the Streets and Open Spaces Team and that the North Area Police Sergeant had also been in touch with the Team to raise concerns.  Advice from Legal Services had been sought and detailed the procedure to follow to remove the unauthorised encampment.

 

Councillor Cox Condron advised that she was working with Councillor Healy to ensure that there were traveller stopping places.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones advised that the encampment had moved on and the Council had followed due process.

 

HRARA had a working group for Mayfield Green and worked with other stakeholders and were looking to submit an Environmental Improvement Programme application for the area.