Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from City Councillors Abbott, Gawthrope and Tunnacliffe, and County Councillor Sales.

 

Apologies were also noted from Pat Walsh (Balfour Beatty – General Manager) who was due to attend for item 13/13/NAC.

 

It was noted that Councillor Abbott had recently been unwell and the Committee asked that their best wishes be formally noted.

The Chair welcomed the public and explained the format of the meeting.  

 

No interests were declared.

‘Action List’ attached separately  

Minutes

 

Councillor Pitt requested that page 5 of the minutes be amended to read ‘Downham’s Lane Play Area’ (instead of Downs Play Area).

 

With this minor amendment the minutes of the 22 November 2012 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.  

 

Action List

 

An undated version of the Action was circulated.

 

In addition to this, Councillors gave the following updates:

 

Recycling Units: Councillor Pitt confirmed that he had again met with the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services to discuss the issue. City Services were actively working to address the problem and the public were urged to continuing reporting any issues so that they could be rectified as soon as possible.

 

Waiving of information submission requirements for small community groups making funding bids: Councillor Pitt confirmed that the Grants Manager would be reviewing the requirements for area committee grant submissions. This would be done as part of the process changes, which will bring administration of area committee grants back ‘in house’ from the Community Foundation.

 

Probation Service: Councillor Pitt confirmed that successful funding bids had resulted in some community service workers now being used in the south of the City. It was also noted that, due to tensions between the Probation Service and colleagues in Huntingdonshire, Cambridge might now benefit from increased availability of community service workers.

 

Campkin Road and St Kilda Avenue traffic concerns: Councillor Price confirmed that the City Council’s 20mph Project Officer would be installing automatic traffic counters to quantify the speeding problem through data capture.

 

With regard to developer contributions (minute number 12/66/NAC) the Chair confirmed that the following citywide projects had been approved by the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Recreation and would now progress to the project appraisal stage:

 

-         Logan’s Meadow Local Nature Reserve

-         St Andrew’s Church Hall extension

Including officer/member feedback on a registered public question relating to displacement/outsider parking.  

The committee received a verbal update form the Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant on crime and policing in the four wards.

 

1) Councillor Brierley: Asked whether the increase in the ‘other burglary’ figures (page 20 of the agenda) was as a result of a single group of offenders.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that, whilst it would be difficult to prove, he hoped that a number of recent arrests would result in the number of future offences dropping.

 

2) Councillor Wilkins: Asked for examples of the types of anti-social cycling offences for which tickets had been issued.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that tickets had been issued for offences such as jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling without lights and not responding to road signs. It was however noted that signage was sometimes confusing and inconsistent and this caused problems for both the cyclists and the police. Signage at Green Dragon Bridge was given as an example of this.

 

It was also noted that, with a view to improving safety, the police would rescind tickets issued for cycling without lights if people could prove they had subsequently purchased lights.

 

3) Councillor Wilkins: Asked if there was a way for the police to feed back to the County Council their specific concerns about signage.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that he would be happy to organise a walk around with Councillors so that problem areas could be highlighted.

 

4) Councillor Pitt: Commented that it was good to see the police monitoring anti-social cycling on Arbury Road and Milton Road, but suggested that Courtney Road should also be monitored.

 

This comment was noted.

 

5) Councillor Pitt: In light of the increased figures for burglary, enquired as to why cycle theft had been recommended as a priority instead.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that, whilst burglary was a higher priority, this was generally dealt with at a divisional level. As cycle theft was the number one crime across the whole city, it was felt more appropriate to have this as a neighbourhood priority.

 

6) Mr Sargeant: Asked if the new Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) would have an input into the setting of neighbourhood policing priorities.

 

The City Council’s Safer Communities Section Manager confirmed that the PCC would be attending the next meeting of the Community Safety Partnership to share his views on priorities for Cambridgeshire. It was also noted that he would be asked his views on how these fitted with the neighbourhood policing priorities. It was agreed that the Safer Communities Section Manager would provide further feedback at the next meeting of the North Area Committee.

 

7) Mr Shaw: Highlighted 2009/11 figure obtained via a Freedom of Information request that indicated that cycling was safest at night. In light of this he questioned why so much police effort was concentrated on cycling without lights.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant noted this comment, but confirmed that anti-social cycling and cycling without lights was a big issue in the City.

 

8) Mr Taylor: Raised further concern about confusing and incorrect signage, especially in the Milton Road area, and asked if the police were working with the Council to address this. 

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that the police did work with the Council on this issue. It was also noted that the incorrect signage at Green Dragon Bridge had now been rectified.

 

9) Mr Taylor: Asked if any tickets had been successfully reviewed via the court process.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that he was unaware of specific figures relating to this and noted that it would be a magistrate’s issue.

 

10) Mr Taylor: Commented that some of the issues raised about cycling on pavements could be related to complaints about the use of shared space, as appose to people actually cycling illegally.

 

This comment was noted.

 

11) Resident: Asked for a view on the reduction in police staffing levels and the current use of PCSO’s.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that he was unaware of current recruitment levels and therefore unable to comment. He did however acknowledge that PCSO’s were a valuable resource for the police.

 

12) Mr Davidson: Commented that on certain roads other road users bullied cyclists out of cycle lanes. In order to stay safe they were then forced to cycle on pavements and risk being ticketed by the police.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant appreciated the danger posed to cyclists and confirmed that the police were not ‘anti-cyclist’. It was however noted that many of the issues raised by the public related to anti-social cycling and it was important that the police address this.

 

Councillor Wilkins confirmed that the junction at Gilbert Road and Milton Road was due to be remodelling in order to make it safer for cyclists and address some of these issues.

 

13) Ms Dockerill: Raised concern about the amount of car users still using mobile phones.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that a number of offenders were currently going through the court system and the police were actively tacking this when they encountered it.

 

The Chair asked if the committee were in agreement with the three recommended police priorities, or whether they felt a need to retain anti-social driving on Fen Road as a priority.

 

Councillor Manning confirmed that the police work in this area had been excellent but questioned whether there needed to be sustained pressure in order to keep the problem from re-emerging. It was also noted that problems were now being experienced outside the Tesco store.

 

Councillor Kerr confirmed that illegal parking was proving to be a big issue outside the Tesco store and asked if the Fen Road problem had simply been displaced to a new area. It was also asked if the police would consider 4 priorities instead of three.

 

The Neighbourhood Policing Sergeant confirmed that the problems experienced outside Tesco did appear to be caused by the same small group of people. It was however noted that offenders soon become wise to police presence in this and the Fen Road area, and allocating this as a set priority may not be the most appropriate way to tackle it. The police were already very active in this area and it would be more effective for the police to continue to tackle this as part of their everyday work.

 

Councillor Manning and Kerr were happy with the suggested approach and were confident that the police would respond to the issues as part of their day to day activity. It was felt important however to enthasise to the public that this was still an important issue, regardless of it not being a set police priority. 

 

Councillor Wilkins suggested some additional wording on the anti-social cycling priority to emphasise the notion that the Council and the police would work together to address signage issues.

 

The committee agreed with this suggestion.

 

On a show of hands the following three Neighbourhood Priorities were agreed unanimously (12 votes to 0):

 

        i.             Arson preventative work to continue for the Nuffield Road area to support on-going intervention and investigative work.

      ii.            Preventative and enforcement work to reduce cycle theft.

    iii.            Anti-social cycling and cycling without lights – including liaison between the police and the Council to address any signage issues. 

 

The Chair noted that at the West/Central Area Committee on 10 January 2013 a police priority regarding enforcement of the 7.5t weight restrictions on Newmarket Road was discussed.

 

Inspector Poppit had responded that enforcing the restriction was a specialised task that would require additional resources. In order to evidence the need for such resources, he proposed that a traffic survey or a local lorry watch could be undertaken.

 

It was suggested that the North Area Committee could be invited to share the priority in order to include Victoria Road in any work undertaken.

 

The committee noted this, but did not allocate it as a police priority.

 

 

 

Introduction by officers followed by informal discussion and ‘questions and answer’ session.

Introduction by officers followed by informal discussion and ‘questions and answer’ session. 

The committee received a verbal presentation from the Project Delivery and Environment Manager.

 

The presentation covered the following points:

 

        i.            £400,000 had been allocated in the City Council’s budget to investigate the implementation of a 20mph speed limit on all residential streets in the City.

      ii.            The project would be delivered over a 2-3 year period with the aim of reducing pollution, noise and road accidents.

    iii.            If public consultation was positive, the project would be implementing in four phases:

-  Phase 1: North Area

-  Phase 2: East Area

-  Phase 3: South Area

-  Phase 4: West/Central Area

   iv.            A full report on the proposed consultation process would be brought to the North Area Committee on 21 March 2013. It was envisaged that the consultation would include local events, exhibitions and leaflet drops to residents.

     v.            Traffic surveys would be undertaken at 61 sites throughout the City and Councillors had been consulted on the specific locations.

   vi.            The results of the Phase 1 consultation would be brought back to the North Area Committee prior to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change making a final decision on implementation.

 vii.            A Project Board would be set up to provide a steer on various project related issues throughout the life of the project.

 

 

1) Resident: Raised concern that the cost of the new signage alone would be very high, and questioned how the changes would be implemented without causing traffic congestion.  

 

Councillor Ward (Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change) responded that the project was moving forward as a result of public demand. It was noted that undertaking a full programme would be more cost effective than tackling the problem in a piecemeal fashion. 

 

2) Resident: Questioned whether local residents would be represented on the Project Board.

 

The Project Delivery and Environment Manager confirmed that the Project Board had been set up as a management tool to help direct the project.

 

It was noted that a detailed report on the 20mph project had been taken to the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 15 January 2013 and was available on the City Council’s website.

 

Councillor Ward (Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change) confirmed that local residents would be able to have a valuable input through the consultation process.  Other consultees would include the taxi trade, local police, the bus trade and the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

 

3) Resident: Asked what the objective of a 20mph citywide limit was.

 

The Project Delivery and Environment Manager responded that the objective was to rationalise speed limits within the City and therefore make it less confusing for road users.

 

4) Mr Bond: Confirmed that Old Chesterton Resident’s Association had asked for a 20mph limit over 20 years ago and were therefore very supportive of this proposal.  It was however noted that, as the traffic artery roads may become congested, the project needed to be managed carefully.

 

Councillor Ward (Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change) noted the comments but hoped that a citywide 20mph limit may make more people confident to cycle on the roads and therefore result in less traffic congestion.

 

5) Resident: Questioned what would happen with strategic roads such as Gilbert Road, especially as these were located near to schools.

 

Councillor Ward (Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change) confirmed that all A and B roads would be outside of the 20mph limit, and C roads (of which Gilbert Road was one) would be subject to the consultation.

 

6) Mr Taylor: Asked if the traffic survey equipment would be brought by the Council or be hired in, and if the results would be publicly available.

 

The Project Delivery and Environment Manager confirmed that an external contractor would be undertaking the surveys at a cost of between £60-£100 per site. The results of the surveys would be published as part of the public consultation.

 

 

The Chair reminded the public that a more detailed item would be brought back to the North Area Committee on 21 March 2013.

 

Thursday 1 August 2013

Thursday 3 October 2013

Thursday 21 November 2013

Thursday 6 February 2014

Thursday 20 March 2014

Thursday 29 May 2014 

It was agreed that the proposed 2013/14 meeting dates would be agreed by Councillors outside of the meeting.