Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Dalzell, McQueen, Todd-Jones and County Councillors Manning and Richards.

Member	Item	Interest
Councillor Price	19/9/NAC	Trustee of Red Hen Project.
Councillor Sheil	19/5/NAC	Worked in adult social care.

 

County Councillor Scutt commented that the reference in the 13 December 2018 minutes removing her name from action point 18/63/NAC Q5 was due to the fact that the issue did not fall within Arbury Ward.

 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 13 December 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the corrections outlined by Councillor Scutt.

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=199&MId=3517&Ver=4

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

 

1.   The HRARA asked for North Area Committee to recommend that the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) directed the Project Manager for Histon Road and Officers that plans were put in place for air quality monitoring before, during and after construction of the Histon Road project and if necessary allocate additional budget for this purpose. It was also requested that the data be displayed and made easily available to the public.

 

The Project Manager (Milton and Histon Road) provided an email response which was read out at Committee. This stated that he planned to look into this request for both Milton and Histon Road.  He would need to assess any budgetary issues which would need to be approved by the GCP Executive Board so he could not commit to implement without the Board’s approval.

 

Action: County Councillor Scutt undertook to take this question to the GCP Board.

 

2.   What action would be taken to mitigate the damage to houses caused by vibrations from lorries driving down Histon Road.

 

The question was taken during agenda item ‘A14 diversion and HGVs on Histon Road’ the response is contained in 19/9/NAC.

 

 

3.   There were 4 street lights in the small estate of flats in Chesterton High Street. One had been out of action for nearly a year and another one was completely dead. He asked when the street lights would be repaired or replaced.

 

Action: Councillor Bird confirmed that she had also reported the issue and that she would follow this up.

 

4.   171 Arbury Road was closed today with no sign advising that the office was shut. The resident commented that it would be useful to have a sign by the office desk for tenants so they could get advance notice that the office was going to be closed otherwise people would attend the offices and find that they were closed.

 

The Head of Housing had been advised about residents concerns.

 

5.   Requested that North Area Committee recommended that GCP in cooperation with Highways directed officers in their planning for Histon Road to investigate and include a Geo-Fencing system in the final design.

 

The question was taken during agenda item ‘A14 diversion and HGVs on Histon Road’ the response is contained in 19/9/NAC.

 

6.   Asked whether the City Council could support the designation of Castle Mound and the adjacent open space as a village green.

 

County Councillor Scutt commented that an organisation had been set up called ‘Friends of Castle Mound’ to impress on the County Council that residents wanted to retain access to the monument. The Chair of the ‘Friends of Castle Mound’ had asked a question at the February 2019 City Council Full Council meeting and the Executive Councillor for Communities commented that the City Council was investigating the legal aspects but that it would need to be the County Council who would need to declare its status. She also commented that there was a petition regarding the Mound which would need 3000 signatures to trigger a Full Council debate at the County Council. She would circulate a link and ensure a paper petition was available.

 

Councillors Smart, Thittala and County Councillor Scutt discussed the relocation of the County Council offices to Alconbury and the impact that this would have on resident’s access to services. Councillor Sheil discussed the design of the building and that certain considerations had not been taken into account for example political group rooms and sufficient desk space for officers.

 

Action: County Councillors Meschini and Scutt to look into relocation of County Council offices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Representatives from the A14 Management Team, Highways and Traffic Management Officer to be in attendance.

The Committee received a presentation from the Stakeholder Director (A14 Integrated Delivery Team) Highways England representative (A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme)

 

The presentation outlined:

     i.        Good progress had been made on the project last summer and this winter so some of the roads may be able to be opened early.

    ii.        While the work was being undertaken there did have to be road closures and some overnight road closures but there was no other way to undertake the work, diversion routes had been put in place.

   iii.        Referred to diversion route; strategic traffic had to be diverted via a certain route.

  iv.        Noted that not all vehicles followed diversion signs / routes and they could end up following their satnav, unfortunately drivers did have a choice about what route they wanted to drive even though a strategic traffic diversion route had been put in place and despite conversations with the haulage industry.

 

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

 

1.   What action would be taken to mitigate the damage to houses caused by vibrations from lorries driving down Histon Road.

 

Other residents in the county had also been affected by diversion routes, he understood resident’s frustrations but they were not alone. A lot of work had been undertaken with haulage companies to try and keep strategic traffic on the strategic diversion routes. They were also working with the police, who had monitored the situation and helped but due to their resources this could not be done all the time.

 

2.   Requested that North Area Committee recommended that GCP in cooperation with Highways directed officers in their planning for Histon Road to investigate and include a Geo-Fencing system in the final design.

 

Commented that the Geo-fencing technology had some merit but that it would be difficult to compel haulage companies to use. Everyone had a right to drive where they wanted provided that they followed road regulations.

 

3.   A resident had to pad walls to stop their mirror shaking, the noise created by vehicles was horrendous. Had seen an Eddie Stobart lorry driving along Histon Road. Questioned whether diversion signs were turned down during the day.

 

Across the road network there were hundreds of signs out for directional reasons or diversions. Signs were only turned down at trigger points (ie: at the beginning and end of diversion routes). Asked for the resident to let them know where the issues were so that she could speak with the Traffic Team and target the areas that were causing day time confusion.

 

4.   Asked whether a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) had been considered or put in place.

 

There had been various road closures across the scheme, feedback suggested that Highways England could try to do something different. This was the only Highways England project that had a social media account. Wanted to assure residents that they were not ignoring them. Putting a weight restriction on a road was something that had been discussed with the County Council and the Police however the Police did not have the resources to be able to enforce the weight restriction. Highways England’s obligation was to use the roads most suitable to take traffic at night, they did not like using roads like the one in Kings Hedges and a physical closure had been considered. If a weight restriction was put on the road this would move the issue somewhere else.

 

5.   Commented did not like the assertion that drivers would contravene traffic regulations.

 

6.   Had spoken with a resident who lived 1 mile away from King Hedges and they could hear the noise created by the HGVs driving down Histon Road.

 

7.   Commented that they had been impressed with the traffic flow on A14 however said they did have an issue if someone was diverted on a 10 mile diversion it added to the drive time and drivers may have to stop because they run out of time and this might be why drivers cut through small roads but said that this was an issue with haulage companies.  

 

Highways England sent out notifications to the haulage industry when they were maintaining and building roads, and they passed this message on to their members. It was up to the haulage industry to deal with, but Highways England tried to keep them informed about diversions as much as they could do.

 

Had also spoken with freight transport and haulage companies to see whether there was anything else they could use to try and get messages to HGVs. Road haulage companies had developed an app which was accessible to European counterparts.  A number of drivers were owner-drivers it would be money out of their own pocket if they had to follow a diversion route, this may be why some HGVs did not follow diversion signage.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

       i.       Commented that there were weight restrictions on Gilbert Road and asked whether Highways England had any powers to take action or could they put in width restrictions.

 

Highways England had limited powers; they had a traffic officer service which managed traffic incidents until the police arrived.

 

    ii.        Lived on Victoria Road there was a TRO in place which was unenforced because the police did not have capacity to enforce it. Once HGVs were on Victoria Road it was too late for them to be able to turn around. Her property shakes when HGVs drive down the road. Questioned whse responsibility it was when damage was caused to properties.

 

With weight restrictions on roads unless there was a physical police presence it was difficult to enforce.  

 

   iii.        Asked which organisation had responsibilities for drivers on the roads.

 

The public highway was policed by Traffic Police Officers. As to whether drivers will follow particular routes this was dependent on the company and on the goods being delivered as to what routes may be chosen. He did not know whether hauliers advised their drivers which routes to use. 

Senior Planning Policy Officer to deliver a presentation with a question and answer session.

The Committee received a presentation from Matt Paterson, Planning Consultant with the Shared Planning Service for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. In addition, members of the Shared Planning Service also manned an exhibition at the venue on the consultation.

 

The presentation outlined:

     i.        The North East Cambridge Area Action Plan was currently out for consultation.

    ii.        There was an online interactive map system so members of the public could leave comments if they did not want to complete a full consultation response https://necaap.uk.engagementhq.com/.

   iii.        The Planning Policy Team were running drop-in events and had posters, leaflets and booklets available. Community groups had been putting information on their websites about the consultation.

  iv.        A consultation had been undertaken in 2014 but since then North Cambridge Station had been opened and an Ely to Cambridge transport study had been undertaken. The Council had also submitted a Housing Infrastructure Fund bid.

   v.        The purpose of the consultation was to establish the broad land use principles for the area and to begin to outline a shared aspiration and ambition for North East Cambridge as a place.  

  vi.        Transport, climate change, sustainability, employment, housing and supporting uses were also discussed.

 

Members of the public made the following comments in response to the presentation:

     i.        Queried the height of the buildings and asked if it was in a high-rise area.

    ii.        Noted that the railway line formed the boundary of the development.

   iii.        Queried access into Chesterton.

  iv.        Asked that houses were not located on the boundary of the highway.

   v.        Commented that there was no discussion about the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) project.

 

The Planning Consultant commented:

    i.          That infrastructure would need to be in place before houses were occupied.

  ii.          The development could be high in density but it depended what housing options were chosen.

 iii.          Talked about pedestrian and cycle access over the rail crossing.

iv.          Acknowledged there was an issue with the railway crossing and said he wanted to know what solutions Network Rail have for it.

  v.          It was unclear at the moment where the CAM would be delivered. The CAM project had a long build up period and the North East Cambridge site may need to be adapted if the CAM project was brought forward. 

 

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

     i.        Did not want the community the other side of Fen Road to be cut off and stated that there needed to be another route out of the development.

    ii.        Recognised that the development was in its early stages and was pleased that they would try and meet 40% affordable housing but he did not want viability to be used as an argument not to deliver 40% affordable housing.

   iii.        Wanted the provision of community facilities, doctors’ surgeries, pharmacies etc to be considered up front.

  iv.        Would need to work with local communities to ensure that there was a link between the new and existing communities.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer commented:

    i.          Lessons are being learnt from development at Orchard Park, Southern Fringe, CB1 and elsewhere around the wider social needs of new communities to ensure that they would be integrated within the community.

  ii.          Work was also being undertaken with the Science Park, schools in Arbury, and Cambridge Regional College.

 

The Committee received an oral presentation from Dave Sargent of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board. Details of the presentation can be found at:

 

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/b12450/Child%20Criminal%20Exploitation%20in%20Cambridgeshire%20and%20Peterborough%2007th-Mar-2019%2018.30%20North%20Area%20Comm.pdf?T=9

 

Members of the public made the following comments in response to the presentation:

     i.        There was a gang of children in the Lion Yard around 7pm who were making a lot of noise. They weren’t sure who to report the matter to.

    ii.        Asked when a county line was removed, how long would it take to be replaced.

   iii.        Commented that in order to reduce the county line problem, the profit that could be made from the sale of drugs needed to be removed.

  iv.        Asked whether any pressure was put on other Department’s at the County Council. 

 

Dave Sargent responded to questions as follows:

i.             The anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the Lion Yard could be reported to the Police via: https://www.cambs.police.uk/report/Report. They could also look at CCTV images. Car parks were causing concern at the moment for ASB.

ii.            Currently there were about 4 dedicated lines; the line was usually named after the person who set it up. In terms of replacement of a county line, the individuals who were reliant on the line need to be considered as they could look for alternative ways to purchase drugs. Children who are involved in a county line can be used to a certain lifestyle (e.g.: alcohol and drugs) and measures needed to be in place to support them when they were removed from a county line. Schools needed to be given enough information so that they can spot any warning signs. Vulnerable adults also needed to be supported.

iii.           The Local Safeguarding Children’s Board acted as a ‘critical friend’ to other Departments at the County Council. He spent a lot of time working with the Community Safety Partnerships. He tried to ensure that abandoned vehicles were removed within 8 hours.  

 

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Development Manager regarding Area Committee Community Grants.

 

Members considered applications for grants as set out in the Officer’s report. The Community Funding and Development Manager commented that £1500 had been able to be reallocated back to the North Area Committee allocation from the main grant budget.

 

Councillor Sargeant commented that Milton Road library had received £100,000 of grant funding from the city council and that there would be various opening events when the facility was finally completed. The library would have 2 community rooms and asked that North Area Committee looked to hold one of their meetings there in the future.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (unanimously):

 

To agree the proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 of the officers report and as summarised in the table below.

 

Ref	Organisation	Purpose	Award
N1	A Toys Life and Beyond CIC	Toy swap and recycling project	0
N2	Bermuda Community Room	37 winter teas and suppers	£450
N3	Brown's Field Adult Art Group (Chesterton Community Association)	30 art sessions	£800
N4	Cambridge Community Church	4 week Shine empowerment and 3 week follow up course	£900
N5	Cambridge Victoria Homes	Twice weekly exercise sessions	£350
N6	Chesterton Community Association	Summer trip for families and older people	£500
N7	Chesterton Festival Committee	Chesterton Festival Community Fun Day 2019	£2,500
N8	Friends of Histon Road Cemetery	Information and activities	£350
N9	Histon Road Area Residents’ Association	“A Community Remembers” community project	£1750
N10	Kings Hedges Brownies	Two trips	£375
N11	Kings Hedges Family Support Project (The)	Two weekly drop-in sessions	£4,000
N12	Kings Hedges Guides	Summer trip	£300
N13	Kings Hedges Rainbows	Day out at Milton Country Park	£100
N14	Meadows Centre Bowlers	Weekly 2 hour indoors bowls session	£500
N15	Meadows Children and Family Wing (The)	Play worker for older siblings at holiday drop in sessions	£4,000
N16	North Cambridge Community Partnership	Programme of community activities	£4,000
N17	Nuffield Road Allotment Society Limited	Poly tunnel	0
N18	Red Hen Project (The)	Weekly drop-in and 3 summer outings	£800
N19	Romsey Mill Trust	24 boxing sessions, 3 day trips and 40 weeks 1:1s for young people	£4,000
N20	YOPEY (Young Person of the Year)	Weekly befriending scheme at Langdon Care Home	0

 

 

 

 

The Committee received a report from the Enforcement Team Manager.

 

The report outlined an overview of Council’s Streets and Open Spaces, Environmental Health and Shared Waste service activity in North Area Committee area over the past six months.

 

The report provided open data on service performance so that city councillors and their constituents are informed of what service activity is happening in their area and had the opportunity to engage in and help to share this activity, including identifying specific local service requests / issues.

 

Members of the public raised the following issues:

 

1.   Referred to a picture of bags which needed to be removed at St Kilda Avenue.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             Had undertaken a Ward Walkabout and noted that hedges had been cut back and that extra bins had been put in place. Asked for more bins at Fen Road crossing.

ii.            Thanked the officers for the work undertaken and commented that they liked the new style of the report.

iii.           Asked if the list of needles contained in the public realm data could include the source of the needles (e.g. if they were removed from a residential property or if it was an outside source).

iv.          Commented that references to Arbury ward had crept in to Kings Hedges ward data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·       13 June 2019

·       5 September 2019

·       28 November 2019

·       27 February 2020

 

The following dates were agreed:

 

13 June 2019

5 September 2019

28 November 2019

27 February 2020

 

The Committee noted that it was Jonathan James’, (Head of Customer Services) last North Area Committee meeting and they expressed their thanks for his support as the Lead Officer for North Area Committee over a number of years.