Agenda and minutes

The North Area Committee Lead Officer assumed the Chair and invited nominations for the Chair.

 

Councillor Bird was proposed by Councillor Price, and seconded by Councillor Todd-Jones. 

 

On a show of hands, Councillor Bird was elected as Chair.  She assumed the Chair.

 

The Chair invited nominations for the Vice Chair.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones was proposed by Councillor Sheil and seconded by Councillor Sargeant. 

 

On a show of hands, Councillor Todd-Jones was elected as Vice-Chair.

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Thittala and McQueen and apologies for lateness were provided by Councillor Scutt.

The Chair welcomed new City Councillor Collis.

 

No declarations of interest were made.

 

The minutes of the meeting held on the 7 March 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

A member of the public raised an issue with the minutes of 17 March regarding page 15 Geofencing and TROs which the member of the public felt should have been added to the Committee Action Sheet.

 

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.

 

Action: Ask GCP Officers if they had considered a geo-fencing system in their final design for Histon Road Scheme.

 

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.

 

Action: Ask Highways, Highways England and the Police for a response to the query

 

Geofencing  - note following EU information which will be decided on shortly:

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/10102/2018/EN/SWD-2018-190-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF

Security Guidance for the European Commercial Road Freight Transport Sector ROADSEC Security Toolkit

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Land Transport Security

https://doverville.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mi0418018enn-en-road-comm-transport.pdf

 

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/documents/b12612/Committee%20Action%20Sheet%20-%20Post%20Committee%20meeting%2013th-Jun-2019%2018.30%20North%20Area%20Committee.pdf?T=9

 

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

 

1.   This related to a question raised some years ago, when a car crashed into the road sign on Histon Road by Warwick Road.   No action has been taken and the two iron supports are a potential safety issue.  The HRARA requested that a new sign showing HISTON ROAD be securely fastened to the iron supports.

 

Action: Councillor Scutt confirmed that she would follow this matter up.

 

2.   This related to item 18/73/NAC on the Committee Action Sheet ‘Chisholm Trail and Arbury Road update’, which detailed that Councillor Sargeant was to organise a meeting with residents regarding stage 3 of the Arbury Road scheme and queried if there was a stage 3 scheme and if there was a workshop in the Autumn.

 

Councillor Sargeant commented that currently this was not a GCP issue. It was worth getting on the table so if money did become available then the scheme would be ready to go. There was a meeting scheduled in October. There were groups in the city who had strong influences.  Officers wanted to hear from residents on Arbury Road and Hurst Park Estate. The plan was to get maps out and look at concerns and see what opportunities there were.

 

Councillor Manning commented that the County Council had a new officer protocol, where officers have to notify ward members when a meeting takes place. He was also arranging a meeting for Hurst Park Estate residents to see what residents wanted at the officer workshop and wanted as many ideas for Arbury Road as possible.

 

3.   Raised an issue about noise disturbance from 67a Milton Road, Cambridge Day Nursery. Commented that officers had made house calls and carried out noise testing both upstairs and downstairs in their property. Nothing had been done by Cambridge City Council, it was affecting the health of residents and they asked for the noise to stop at 3pm. The nursery was open from 8am to 6pm. They had no neighbours to support them. Had previously worked at Jesus Green crèche and was used to small children and their noise. Asked for help in relation to this issue. Commented that an Environmental Health Officer had not taken action. Referred to a Professor who said that noise pollution was detrimental to people’s health and that Cambridge had a lot of noise problems.

 

Councillor Sargeant commented that he was aware of the issue and had worked with council officers on the matter. Nothing illegal was taking place and there was no action that the City Council could take. The idea of a byelaw was interesting and he would take this idea away.

 

Action: Councillor Sargeant to investigate whether a byelaw could be introduced to respond to complaints regarding noise from Nursery.

 

Councillor Manning confirmed that he had looked into this with Councillor Sargeant and understood noise surveys had been carried out and that no rules had been broken, so it was limited what the councils could do.  

 

4.   Raised an issue regarding Hawkins and Campkin Road, expressed concerns that the present repair system did not stand up to the weight / number of vehicles using the local roads. And also queried why mini roundabouts had not been resurfaced when the rest of the road was resurfaced.

 

Action: Councillor Meschini commented that she would follow this matter up. Highways England were also being asked to contribute to the cost of repair works.

 

5.   Pothole and trebble utility covers on Histon Road just before the crossing by 2 Brownlow Road were loose and made an enormous sound when HGVs drove over them during the night, this could be up to 5-10 HGVs.  This had been reported to the City’s Open Spaces Team and they asked that North Area Committee approached the utility company on HRARA’s behalf.

 

Action: Councillor Scutt confirmed that she had undertaken a site visit with a County Officer and she would approach Anglian Water to follow up.

 

6.   Kings Hedges looked untidy, had photos to illustrate how untidy it looked.

 

Action: Councillor Meschini to follow up.

 

7.   Referred to proposals to build new houses / facilities and referred to the Council’s Open Space and Recreational Strategy 2011 and commented that Arbury had the lowest protected green space. Asked why the council was proposing to reduce the amount of public open space in this area rather than in other locations. Residents were strongly against this and expressed concerns about a precedent being set for taking public open space away.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones commented that the proposals were indicative proposals and were currently out for consultation. It was a balance against protecting green open space and other values. He would attend a resident’s meeting regarding this issue if one was set up.

 

Councillor Price commented that housing which was affordable for local people to live in was limited.  There was a limited amount of land in Cambridge which could be built on.  There were 2500 people in housing need in the city.  People who were adequately housed looked for further affordable housing to be built somewhere else.

 

8.   Referred to a skate ramp which had been condemned and asked what was being put in place to compensate for the loss of a valuable asset to children in the community.  Had an independent review of the equipment undertaken and the ramp could be repaired. Would be willing to put money forward to get the ramp brought back into use.    

 

Councillor Todd-Jones commented that the council was looking to replace and not repair the equipment, but would ask John Parrot for an update.

 

Councillor O’Reilly commented that the level of safety for childrens play equipment was very high and that repairs may be costly.

 

Action: Councillor Todd-Jones to make enquiries with John Parrot regarding the skate ramp.  

The Committee received a report from the Safer Neighbourhoods Inspector and Safer Communities Team regarding policing and safer neighbourhoods trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the last reporting period. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details). Previous local issues and engagement activity noted in the report were:

     i.        Criminality in and around East Chesterton

    ii.        County line drug dealing.

   iii.        Road safety

 

Members of the public (MOP) and Councillors asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.   MOP commented that surgeries with Jess Phillips were appreciated but understood that these were not going to be continued, DS Emms was going to look into.  Commented that no data had been included within the police report. Referred to ASB driving in East Chesterton. Was not happy with the Fen Road CCTV camera as did not think it was being checked. Had to get rapid response unit in Bramblefields by the pond because of drug dealing taking place and asked whether this area was checked.

 

A regional data system had been adopted and there were difficulties in producing data sets, the Police did not want to provide data which was inaccurate.  The CCTV camera on Fen Road was an addition to the City’s network; it was run under the Huntingdonshire District Council network. It was not a livestream camera. 

 

2.   Councillor Dalzell asked whether there was a timeline for when data could be produced.

 

Action: ASB Team to provide response regarding the CCTV camera at Fen Road and provision of data.

 

Action: DS Emms to look into whether surgeries with Jess Phillips were going to be continued.

 

Action:  The Chair to write to Police and Crime Commissioner to express dissatisfaction regarding not being able to get crime data for the North Area.

 

3.   MOP commented on the proposed move of Parkside police station to an edge of centre location. 

 

Commented that the proposed site for the relocation of the police station would make it easier for officers to get to Arbury and Kings Hedges and may mean that residents saw police officers more often. There would still be a police presence in the city centre but could not say where this would be or when the move would take place. The current building was not fit for purpose as it was built in 1967.

 

4.   MOP commented that they did not see Police Officers on the streets and they wanted to see them on the streets.  Asked if the Police had contact with Network Rail which had good CCTV cameras.

 

Had spoken with Network Rail, the point of their CCTV cameras was for the prevention of crime on the railway. They needed to work through the issues with the Fen Road CCTV camera so that it was effective.  Was confident that police officers were in the right places, they did not always have the resources to have officers on the streets.

 

5.   Councillor Richards commented about drugs being found on the streets and children (care leavers) going missing.

 

Operation Carmel was for street based drug dealing and had been successful with ‘cuckooing’ but this had moved drug dealing on to the streets. 2 week operations involved foot patrols and speaking with residents, overt and covert operations and trying to catch drug dealers in the act.

 

6.   Councillor Manning referred to the management and running of Midsummer Fair and noted the frustration around the CCTV was not due to the police but to the city council.

 

7.   Councillor Dalzell commented that street based drug dealing needed to be made as unprofitable as possible.

 

Commented that some funding was available from a Proceeds of Crime fund to try and divert young people away from crime.

 

8.   MOP referred to designing out crime in the planning process.

 

Noted that designing out crime referred to architectural design and not social design.

 

Referred residents to report issues to: CambridgeCityNorth@cambs.pnn.police.uk

 

9.   MOP referred to ASB in the garage area at Ferrars Way.

 

10. MOP referred to a kebab van parked at Hanson Court, which used to be parked outside St Lawrence’s school. Noted that people smoked substances around this area.

 

11. Councillor Scutt referred to an issue that she had been dealing with at McManus Estate.

 

The Committee were asked to nominate their local issues for focus over the coming months.

The following local issues were agreed (unanimously):

 

1. ASB and dangerous driving on Fen Road

2. Street based drug dealing

3. Youth and knife crime

 

 

The Committee received a presentation detailing progress following the ‘Better Choices Journeys’ consultation and an update on progress regarding Milton Road and Histon Road schemes delivered by GCP  Head of Communications and the Project Manager (Milton Road and Histon Road)

 

The Better Choices Journeys asked residents what they wanted out of a public transport system and asked people how they thought it should be funded. 

·        The results of the consultation indicated that bus transport provision needed to double and the quality of provision needed to improve. 

·        On average those aged between 29-54 years responded to the consultation.

·        73% of people who responded were travelling to work and half of those were travelling by car.

·        People wanted a reliable and frequent public transport system.

 

Histon Road scheme

·        Was at the detailed design stage and consultants had been compiling detailed drawings so that contractors could build the scheme, although there were more surveys due to be undertaken. Had been working with Skanska who had provided advice regarding the construction of the scheme.

·        Lots of work has been done on drainage, and the team is looking further at how to treat the ditch at the end of Histon Road.

·        Local Liaison Forum planned for 22 July. It is hoped to have a construction management plan in place and to bring the final landscape design to the forum.

·        Was currently drafting a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and aimed to publish this in July; this would be advertised in the press.

·        Construction planned to commence in late 2019.

 

Milton Road Scheme

·        Starting detailed design with WSP so surveys were yet to be done.

·        Looking to provide a regular update over the summer.

·        Had had detailed discussions with shop owners on Arbury Road.

·        Construction planned to start in Mid 2020.

 

1.  Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) the following statement was received at the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Executive Board Meeting from Peter Blake:  ‘Rest assured that the project team is very much aware.  This will be addressed during the detailed design phase when new TROs are raised’. Will these matters be added?

 

The project manager indicated that he had spoken with the Highways Team at County Council and assessed if there could be 20mph included with the current TRO which was being drafted, it would have to be demonstrated that the scheme was self-policing. The project manager was therefore of the opinion that the 20mph zone was a separate issue to the infrastructure project.  Once the project had been completed then the required assessment would be able to take place in order to consider whether the road was suitable for a 20mph zone 

 

Therefore the forthcoming TROs which were due to be published will not contain the 20mph zone.

 

2. Commented that the cycle path in Milton Road should be similar to the west side of Trumpington Road and asked how the cycle paths were going to be handled.

 

3. Asked what notifications would be sent out to local residents (Histon Road and Benson Road) and what would be put in place for residents who would lose parking, how would they get deliveries?

 

A construction plan had been drafted and he was meeting with the Street Work Team in the next week, they had strong views about the hours that they could work on the roads. In advance of construction, officers would need to be walking the streets and liaising with residents. Hedgerows and arrangements for access would also need to be discussed. There should always be a point of contacts for residents to contact with their concerns.

 

4. Asked whether discussions would take place with residents who lived off Histon Road?

 

The construction plan should set out the diversion route we expect to be taken and should try to direct people along the diversions.

 

Action: To look into the construction plan and diversion routes off Histon Road and what measures will be put in place to monitor routes taken.      

 

5. Reduced capacity of Milton and Histon Road if construction is undertaken at the same time.

 

Suggested that work started with Histon Road at A14 end and worked inwards, if work was undertaken in this order then in 6 months’ time works could start at Mitchams Corner. He needed to speak with the Street Work Officers to get their agreement.

 

6. Pollution and congestion charges could make it unaffordable for people to live in Cambridge.

 

Proposals were going to the GCP Executive Board on the 27 June, consideration did not need to be given to charges and how made sure that people could still get access that they needed. Proposals were due to go back to the GCP Board in November.

 

Councillor Price commented that he had been opposed to congestion charges he was aware of a number of people who had had to move away from Cambridge as they were unable to afford to live in the City. Commented that decent, regular, accessible and cheap public transport needed to be made available. This might need to be forward funded to offer a carrot to encourage people to use public transport.  

 

Councillor Scutt commented that at the GCP Board there was an undertaking given regarding the monitoring of pollution and biodiversity and asked when anything was going to be put in place? Queried whether the Milton Road project would include the shops on Arbury Road.

 

The Milton Road project was just dealing with the shops on Milton Road, the shops on Arbury Road would be picked up in the Arbury Road project which would link to Milton Road.  Consideration needed to be given as to whether the monitoring would be long term or short term and the benefits and negatives of this. There were already monitoring stations which monitored nitrogen dioxide levels (which was an industry standard) and gave a good indication of traffic levels.

 

Councillor Scutt commented that cameras should be set up to complement pollution monitoring before, during and after the construction of the GCP schemes.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones commented that mitigation measures should be considered for the roads off Histon Road to prevent ‘rat running’ and referred to Histon Road workshops and Local Liaison Forums (LLFs) also questioned whether Local Highway Improvement (LHI) Schemes could be used.