Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

Members of the committee are asked to declare any interests in the items on the agenda. In the case of any doubt, the advice of the Head of Legal should be sought before the meeting.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillors Avery, Ashwood and Blackhurst	15/89/SAC	Personal: Member of Trumpington Resident’s Association.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

 

15/78/SAC S106 Priority-Setting (3rd Round): South Area

The South Area Committee is recommended to:

 

2.1 [NO CHANGE] defer making a decision on the grant proposal for the Memorial and Meeting Hall on Cherry Hinton Road, to allow an updated application to be considered in the next S106 priority-setting round later in 2015;

 

Councillor Ashton asked for the minutes to note that when this item was discussed 2 February, the South Area Committee were not advised that this building is in Coleridge Ward (East Area). Councillor Ashton confirmed the location with the Urban Growth Project Manager. At 30 March South Area Committee, Councillor Ashton said that as this building was located in the East Area, and funding was limited in the South Area, East Area Committee should fund projects in their area.

 

15/72/SAC Declarations of Interest

Changed Cllr Pippas’ church reference to Cherry Hinton Baptist Church.

 

15/75/SAC Open Forum

“SAC (South Area Committee) Members felt it was unclear at this stage why City and County Councillors and Officers did not have the same understanding of what the consultation entailed and when it would close. SAC Members could follow this up after the meeting.” Moved to general committee comments, and not specifically attributed to a particular Councillor.

Committee Action Sheet from last meeting attached.

15/75/SAC Open Forum “Action Point: Councillor Blackhurst to clarify consultation process and response deadline regarding the Hills Road cycle scheme and in particular the loss of verges which it entails.

 

Also the impact of Planning application Ref 14/1691/S73: Fendon Road/Hills Road roundabout.”

 

Councillor Blackhurst contacted Mike Davies (County Council) and John Evans (City Council). Mr Davies provided a briefing note that was attached to the 30 March 2015 agenda pack. Mr Evans said he could accept late submissions on the day after South Area Committee (31 March 2015).

 

15/75/SAC Open Forum

Councillor Taylor said she had been asked to clarify with Balfour Beatty why they had started digging holes prior to street lighting consultation concluding. She talked to a Balfour Beatty Director, which led to a cessation, but work has reconvened.

 

15/76/SAC Policing & Safer Neighbourhoods “Action Point: Councillor Avery to liaise with Porson Road residents regarding traffic access, flow and parking safety concerns.”

 

Councillor Avery met residents who expressed safety concerns. Councillor Avery offered advice on how to pursue the matter further. Councillor Avery met Officers 3 March to view the street, and residents later the same day to look at solutions to concerns.

 

15/77/SAC Citywide 20 MPH Project - Phase 3 Consultation Responses

Councillor Avery expressed disappointment that the recommendation in the Officer’s report to 17 March 2015 Environment Committee did not convey the strength of feeling at South Area Committee regarding Cambridge 20mph Project - Phase 3 Implementation.

To include a verbal summary of points raised and how they will be followed up.

 

Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking.

1.    Ms Chapman raised the following queries:

                i.          Are there definite plans to repair the pavement in Blinco Grove from Baldock Way to St John’s car park entrance?

              ii.          Can churches apply for community grants to improve toilets for the disabled?

 

Councillors acknowledged the pavement was in a poor state of repair. There were similar situations across various wards, which had been reported by Councillors to the County Council. Councillor Ashton had talked to County Council Officers. The pavement condition was bad, but not sufficiently so to meet criteria when work would need to be undertaken. Repair work would have been undertaken in the past, but the County Council’s criteria had changed.

 

Councillor Taylor said that the County Council had not budgeted enough funding for repairs for the last municipal year. Officers would again be asked to look at work to see if it could be undertaken.

 

Councillor Moore said the city needed to have an appropriate environment to enable older and disabled people to move around. He would ask the City Council to accept a policy in future that older and disabled people have open access. There was European funding available for cities who did this. Councillor Moore suggested that residents reported their concerns to the County Council.

 

2.    Mr Douglas raised concern about litter and (discarded) needles being dropped in Long Road near Addenbrooke’s.

 

Councillor Pippas stated that litter and discarded needles in Luard Road had been raised as a Police and Safer Neighbourhoods concern at 2 February 2015 South Area Committee.

 

The Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) undertook to clear up litter and discarded needles in Luard Road.

 

3.    Mrs Blackhurst raised pedestrian/cyclist safety concerns about non-working street lighting on a section of the Park&Ride site, and on part of the ‘safe route’ to Trumpington Meadows Primary School near Foster Road/Shelford Road.

 

Councillor Blackhurst said there was competition for space between pedestrians and cyclists on the busway proper. The County Council had put up ‘be considerate’ signs to address this.

 

Councillor Blackhurst said Councillors had raised concerns with Officers regarding the lack of appropriate lighting since their inception in 2013. Residents had asked for the spur on the way to the village to be lit, as well as the busway, but this had not happened. Councillor Ashwood said that lighting for the spur was not included in current plans. Councillor Taylor said the County Environment and Economy Committee had initially deferred lighting on the busway (first application), then later agreed it if spur area (Park&Ride site) lighting was not included.

 

Councillor Blackhurst had contacted Balfour Beatty to discuss street lighting near Foster Road/Shelford Road, they said this needed to be taken up with County Officers.

 

4.    Ms Bainger raised the following concerns:

                i.          Safety of pedestrians when crossing from Church End to Teversham Drift.

              ii.          Flooding caused by broken pipework along the outside of Teversham Drift, opposite the cemetery in Church End. The footpath was also affected.

 

Councillor Ashton said the Highways Authority had not put in a mirror for people to use when crossing from Church End to Teversham Drift due to health and safety concerns, and because the area did not meet Highways Authority criteria for action to be taken. Shrubbery had been cut back on one side of the road to improve visibility, but not the other side.

 

Action Point: Councillor Ashton to liaise with Jean Bainger regarding her pedestrian safety concerns relating to crossing from Church End to Teversham Drift; after raising these with Highways Officers.

 

Councillor Crawford said she had received several letters from Ms Bainger about flooding caused by broken pipework along the outside of Teversham Drift. She had liaised with Andy Burnham (Highways Officer), the only action taken had been the cutting back of undergrowth. Councillor Crawford said she was discussing proposals with County Officers to reduce rat running in the area, information would be feedback to committee in future.

 

5.    Mr Beresford asked for clarification on whether the City Council had cut the policing budget by £51,000. He had received conflicting reports.

 

Councillor Blackhurst said the Liberal Democrat budget up to May 2014 included a grant for PCSOs. This had been dropped from the Labour budget post May 2014 as the number of PCSOs had reduced. Liberal Democrats had reinstated the grant in their February 2015 budget amendment, but this was not adopted by the Council.

 

Councillor Dryden said funding was included in the Labour budget, but had not been used by the Police, so was cut. Policing is the responsibility of the County Council, not the City Council, so funding was diverted to address domestic violence. The Council had to make the best use of its reduced budget. No complaints had been received from the Police regarding this, (so there should be no/minimal impact). Councillor Avery said that funding was not used for the purpose granted.

 

Councillor Ashton said the Police could raise extra funding through increasing council tax bills.

 

6.    Mr Blake asked how the Hills Road cycleway would improve safety over the Hills Road bridge, and the area adjacent to the Marque.

 

Councillor Moore said he was aware of certain areas of the city where accidents regularly occurred eg Long Road and Queen Edith’s Road joined Hills Road. He would follow these up.

 

The South Area Committee agreed that the Hills Road area was dangerous for cyclists. The current road layout was the best one so far that could be implemented. There were no formal plan to review the cycle lane layout on the Hills Road bridge. Officers could work up an outline scheme for further work if a budget was available. Central Government funding could be applied for. However, there had been too few accidents since the bridge was installed in 2011 to trigger action to be taken by the County Council. Councillors referenced paragraph 2.7 (P22 of the agenda pack) and suggested members of the public contact County Officers referenced in the report about safety concerns.

 

7.    Mr Bower made the following points:

                i.          The Cherry Hinton High Street consultation had closed although not all residents were aware of it.

              ii.          Queried why there was a shortfall in community grant funding for the Cherry Hinton Forum, but funding had been allocated to Trumpington Ward.

           iii.          There was a shortfall in funding for the Queen Edith’s (ward) newsletter.

 

Councillor Blackhurst said:

·       Cherry Hinton Forum had been allocated funding at the request of councillors.

·       Limited funding had been allocated to the Queen Edith’s (ward) newsletter due to running costs. The organiser was expected to use a number of funding sources (ie not just community grant funding) for their newsletter and website running costs.

Information report for Committee to note. There will be no discussion of this item.

The information report was noted.

Balfour Beatty representative to attend and explain the project in depth.

The Committee received a presentation from Balfour Beatty: Ed Baldwin (Interim Head of Client Liaison – Lighting Cambridgeshire) and Joshua Cooke.

 

The presentation outlined:

       i.          Street lighting would be undertaken through a private finance initiative (PFI). PFI is a way of creating "public–private partnerships" by funding public infrastructure projects with private capital.

     ii.          City street lighting was historically underfunded. The County Council had sought a PFI agreement as it did not have the budget for the upkeep of old expensive street lighting.

   iii.          The County Council was in competition with other authorities for funding.

   iv.          Work was being undertaken to replace 60,000 old lights, but Central Government required losing 10% of these in residential areas when replacing them with new lights.

    v.          Lights were protected in areas used by traffic, but not residential ones. The legal process set the criteria for this, not Balfour Beatty, it was not within their control.

   vi.          Balfour Beatty were in a 25 year maintenance contract for Cambridgeshire lighting.

 vii.          Street light operating times had changed from being on all night; to full power until 21:59, dim 22:00 – 23:59, then off 0:00 – 06:00. This was general policy now for local authorities to get a 46% energy reuse reduction and lower carbon emissions.

viii.          Concerns regarding the previous consultation process had been noted and were not expected to occur in future consultations. It was re-iterated that the restriction on the number of lights, was set out in the legal process, and not by Balfour Beatty.

 

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

       i.          Street lighting was an on-going issue.

     ii.          The times when lights would operate had changed without City Councillors’ knowledge. They and residents expected lights to be on all night, albeit dimmed 22:00 – 04:00. Requested details on when the change had occurred.

   iii.          Expressed concerns regarding:

·       Street lighting in Trumpington Park&Ride plus Cherry Hinton.

·       Crime levels would rise when lighting was switched off.

·       Residents had difficulty in contacting Balfour Beatty to report issues.

·       Residents’ drives being blocked by contractors during change over from old lights to new.

 

Action Point: Balfour Beatty representatives to liaise with South Area Committee Members post SAC 30/03/15 regarding issues raised in meeting.

 

In response to Members’ questions Mr Baldwin and Mr Cooke said the following:

       i.          There was no correlation between crime levels and hours of darkness. Dimming of lights was a general, but not national trend.

     ii.          Undertook to pass on study details showing there was no correlation between crime levels and hours of darkness.

   iii.          Undertook to find out if city street lighting hours matched, or were different from other areas of the country.

   iv.          Undertook to find out the impact of changes to lighting times on the number of reported accidents.

    v.          The overall number of street lights was being reduced by 10% in-line with the PFI agreement.

   vi.          The County Council made the decision to vary street light operating times, not Balfour Beatty.

 

Action Point: Balfour Beatty representatives and Councillor Crawford to check County Council’s discretion to vary times when street lights can be dimmed or turned off.

 

 vii.          The process for installing street lighting was as follows:

·       Team 1 plant the column.

·       Team 2 wires it up (for power)

 

It was more cost effective to have two separate teams undertaking the two different tasks. For example, only specialist contractors could undertake work on some steel wire frames. There could be some delay in work being undertaken between the two teams as the contractors worked to different timescale to Balfour Beatty.

 

viii.          Cherry Hinton street light columns had been installed in 2013 but not lit up due to undergrowth around the columns. Contractors were unable to undertake tree work. This was the responsibility of the Highways Authority, the City Council and residents.

   ix.          Noted Councillors’ concerns regarding the consultation process and their request for future Balfour Beatty letters to residents to include plans to show which lights would be moved or removed. These should be sent to residents in addition to details being published on the web as people may not be able to access it. The County Council contract with Balfour Beatty required lean (ie limited) consultation costs, but any action that could be undertaken within the project scope (ie resources available) would be done so.

    x.          Balfour Beatty phone lines were staffed 09:00 – 17:00 between Monday and Friday. The intention was to respond to residents within ten working days. Alternatively, contact could be made by letters or through the Balfour Beatty website.

   xi.          Lights could be turned on/off individually, but it was normal for them to be done so in groups.

 

Members of the public asked several questions as set out below.

 

1.       A member of the public asked if the number of street lights could be varied if there was no overall change to the project cost.

 

Mr Baldwin said this sometimes happened in rural areas where parish councils etc took on (budgetary) responsibility for street light maintenance, but was harder to do in urban areas. Councillor Taylor suggested a local highways improvement scheme could be used in urban areas.

2.       A member of the public asked why older model ‘bulb’ street lights were being introduced instead of more efficient LED ones.

 

Mr Baldwin said the cost of LED lights was prohibitive at the time the PFI contract was agreed, but had since fallen. It was not possible to amend the contract now.

 

Councillor Avery said he had experience of PFI contracts and offered to share this with interested Councillors. Changes to PFI contracts needed to be made through a bid for variation. This was a complex process due to the impact on costs.

Information report for Committee to note.

The information report was noted.

 

Councillor Ashton referred to concerns raised by Mr Bower in the Open Forum (15/84/SAC).

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement). She brought the report up to date by stating:

       i.          There was a typographical error on agenda P39: Two Zero used needles were found in Queen Edith’s near the Botanical Gardens. Six Five used needles were found within the Trumpington ward, which included two needles from The Fen Causeway, three from Porson Road and two from Rutherford Road. All needles were collected within the agreed response times.

     ii.          Due to a lack of resources it had not been possible to paint Nightingale Recreation Ground Pavilion at the same time as undertaking general maintenance.

 

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 South Area Committee. The report identifies the reactive and proactive service actions undertaken in the previous quarter, including the requested priority targets and reports back on the recommended issues and associated actions to be targeted in the following. It also includes key officer contacts for the reporting of waste and refuse and public realm issues.

 

The following were suggestions for members on what action could be considered for priority within the South Area for the quarter of April to June 2015:

 

Continuing priorities

1.    Early morning patrols for dog fouling on Bliss Way/Tenby Close, Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground, Godwin Close, Godwin Way, Gunhild Way and Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground.

2.    Deep cleanse of the Tins bridge to include removal of graffiti (pending ownership confirmation from the County Council)

3.    Enforcement targeted approach to areas where Addenbrookes site joins residential areas such as Hills Road and Red Cross Lane and to work with Addenbrooke’s to work towards the bus station area being cleaned up.

4.    Enforcement to work with the County Council, against utilities and companies that damage the verge on Mowbray and Fendon Road.

 

New suggested priorities

5.    Park deep cleanse, to include removal of graffiti, flyposting, litter, dog fouling, vegetation cut back and sweeping at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground, Holbrook Recreation Ground and Trumpington Recreation Ground -

6.    Enforcement work to investigate and enforce fly tipping and illegal waste disposal at the public recycling points in the South Area

7.    Enforcement joint working and patrols to deal with littering from students of Long Road Sixth Form in the areas of Long Road and Sedley Taylor Road.

 

The Committee asked the minutes to show their thanks to their thanks to the Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) and her team for work undertaken.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

       i.          Fast food outlets were responsible for cleaning up litter around their premises. Could Addenbrooke’s do so around their site?

     ii.          The kebab van had moved from Hulatt Road to Glebe Road. Requested it be removed.

   iii.          Cows fouling of pathways in Trumpington Ward could be a future priority.

   iv.          Bins sited near the bus stop in Belmont Road were inaccessible to disabled people.

    v.          People’s movements were impeded by free standing advert boards on the pavement. Some work was being undertaken in the city centre to address this, could it be rolled out across the city?

 

In response to Members’ questions the Operations Manager (Community Engagement and Enforcement) said the following:

       i.          The County Council were responsible for verge maintenance, the City Council undertook grass cutting.

     ii.          The Addenbrooke’s littering situation was different to fast food outlets as it was caused by staff/visitors not customers. It did not have a commercial interest to take action.

   iii.          Pocket ashtrays had been distributed when Officers visited the Addenbrooke’s site, to reduce littering.

   iv.          Most council bins incorporated ashtrays, the ones installed by Addenbrooke’s Hospital did not.

    v.          The County Council could seize/remove free standing advert boards on the pavement, the City Council could not. The City Council was looking at ways of undertaking joint accessibility work with the County Council to prevent people’s movements being impeded by free standing advert boards on the pavement. Details of this would be put on the City Council website.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to approve priorities for action as listed below:

 

Continuing priorities

1.    Early morning patrols for dog fouling on Bliss Way/Tenby Close, Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground, Godwin Close, Godwin Way, Gunhild Way and Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground.

2.    Deep cleanse of the Tins bridge to include removal of graffiti (pending ownership confirmation from the County Council)

3.    Enforcement targeted approach to areas where Addenbrookes site joins residential areas such as Hills Road and Red Cross Lane and to work with Addenbrooke’s to work towards the bus station area being cleaned up.

4.    Enforcement to work with the County Council, against utilities and companies that damage the verge on Mowbray and Fendon Road.

 

New priorities

5.    Park deep cleanse, to include removal of graffiti, flyposting, litter, dog fouling, vegetation cut back and sweeping at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground, Holbrook Recreation Ground and Trumpington Recreation Ground -

6.    Enforcement work to investigate and enforce fly tipping and illegal waste disposal at the public recycling points in the South Area

7.    Enforcement joint working and patrols to deal with littering from students of Long Road Sixth Form in the areas of Long Road and Sedley Taylor Road.

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

 

Members considered applications for grants as set out in the Officer’s report, and table below. The Community Funding and Development Manager responded to Member’s questions about individual projects and what funding aimed to achieve.

 

Ref	Organisation	Purpose	Award £
S1	Accordia Families Affordable Housing	Family summer trip	550
S2	Accordia Community & Residents Assoc	Free community sports event	150
S3	Accordia Community & Residents Assoc	Christmas party for all residents	150
S4	Accordia Community & Residents Assoc	Hosting costs of community website	0
S5	Animated Voices	Video project in Milton	0
S6	CAMS Music	Bursaries for Community Orchestra	0
S7	Cherry Hinton Festival Society	Annual Festival September 2015	4,640
S8	Cherry Hinton Football Club	Further improvement to playing surface	0
S9	Church End, Cherry Hinton WI	Centenary and silver anniversary event	200
S10	Denis Wilson Court Social Club	Trip, CCA, cream tea, Christmas  events	1,100
S11	Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall	4 Community Action Days	233
S12	GAP Learning CIC	2 budgeting and healthy eating courses	1,256
S13	Hanover and Princess Court	Outing, activities, event and drop ins	1,500
S14	Huxley Group, Centre at St Pauls	Day trip to Paradise Wildlife Park	353
S15	Queen Edith's Community Forum	Three editions of a community newsletter	1,500
S16	Queen Edith's Community Forum	Annual free Christmas event	250
S17	The Signal Box Community Centre	Public opening events	800
S18	The Signal Box Community Centre	IT peer support sessions	300
S19	The Signal Box Community Centre	Diverse Winter celebration events	400
S20	Trumpington Community Drama Group	Drama rehearsals, performance + trip	1,600
S21	Trumpington Trips project	4 trips	1,018
S22	Trumpington Youth Group project	2 night residential trip to Hunstanton	1,000

 

Budget available	£17,000
Total awards	£17,000
Budget remaining	£0

 

Members of the public made a number of statements, as set out below.

 

1        Mr Lawson spoke in favour of funding for projects S2, S3 and S4 Accordia Community & Residents Assoc. He expressed disappointment at the grants offered and said this could impact on the feasibility of undertaking projects ie not all may go ahead if the requested funding was not received.

 

The Community Funding and Development Manager said the amount of funding allocated to projects depended on a number of factors, including the information included in bids. Projects could apply for funding from more than one source. The City Council allocated funding to projects that met its criteria, and would signpost other sources if these were appropriate.

 

2.       Mr Bower spoke in favour of funding for the Queen Edith’s Community Forum newsletter.

 

Councillors Pippas and Sanders responded by speaking in favour of funding for the Queen Edith’s Community Forum newsletter and Christmas lights. Councillor Dryden said the Cherry Hinton Christmas lights were self funding by getting contributions one year to pay for the next year.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Community Funding and Development Manager said the following:

       i.          £5,000 of Area Committee Grant funding had been allocated to Cherry Hinton, just under £9,000 to Trumpington and £1,750 to Queen Edith’s.

     ii.          Projects were allocated funding on an individual basis, not by ward. Reiterated that projects had to meet criteria in order to be funded, other sources could be applied for too so total project costs were met.

   iii.          The grant budget was fixed. If Councillors wished more funding to be added to projects in Queen Edith’s ward etc, funding available for other projects would decrease.

   iv.          Officers tried to make the grant application as simple as possible for people making applications. Workshops were proposed in future to educate people on how to make effective bids.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (by 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to agree the proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report and summarised in the table above.

The Committee is asked to approve the following dates:

·       29 June 2015

·       5 Oct 2015

·       14 Dec 2015

·       29 Feb 2016

·       18 April 2016

The following dates were agreed:

·       29 June 2015

·       5 Oct 2015

·       14 Dec 2015

·       29 Feb 2016

·       18 April 2016

 

To note decisions taken by the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokesperson since the last meeting of the South Area Committee.

The record of decision was noted.

Councillor Ashwood spoke on behalf of the South Area Committee and Trumpington residents to thank Councillor Blackhurst and support for him from Mrs Blackhurst for his work as Committee Chair. Councillor Blackhurst would stand down at the May 2015 election.