Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Tucker and Ratcliffe.

 

Apologies were also received from Sergeant Misik.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Hipkin	14/75/WCAC	Personal: Regularly attends St Augustine’s Church and Hall.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2014.

Minutes of 29 October 2014 were approved and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment from Councillor Holland (additional wording underlined).

 

Minute item 14/64/WAC –

Citywide 20mph Project - Phase 3 Consultation

In response to public questions the 20 mph Project Manager said the following:

i. Officers were investigating the appropriateness of using flashing speed signs where needed.

ii. Success of the schemes would be determined by post implementation speed monitoring.

iii. The County Council were currently formally advertising the proposed 20mph for Victoria Road. Any objections would be considered by the County's Highways & Community Infrastructure (CHCI) Committee on 8 December. Such objections would need to be considered by the CHCI committee rather than the new Cambridge Joint Area Committee, since a decision to implement

would be contrary to current County Council policy.

14/29/WCAC: Coach Station Kiosk on Parkside Renewal of the temporary planning permission for a Coach Station Kiosk on Parkside.

Councillor Cearns report that coach transport to and from Cambridge would be discussed at a meeting of the Cambridge City Joint Area Committee, on 20 January 2015, 4.30pm, Shire Hall.    

 

A copy of the WCAC action sheet can be viewed at the following link.

 

http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=117&MId=2671&Ver=4

 

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

 

This item will include verbal Councillor update on the North/West City development/City Deal developments.

7.15pm

 

 

 

Richard Jennings: What revised arrangements will there be for the University Arms construction given the chaos last time?

 

Councillor Cearns advised this was being reviewed and discussions were taking place on the traffic lights and whether they should be temporary or permanent. Mistakes had been made regarding the location of the barriers in terms of access for pedestrians and cyclists on Parker’s Piece.

 

Councillor Cearns stated that he would like to invite the contractor and developers on a quarterly basis to WCAC meetings to provide regular updates on the development and to listen to any queries / concerns that members of the public had. (ACTION).

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed that the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places be invited to the next WCAC meeting to explain the criteria of her decision to allow the developer’s compound on Parker’s Piece. (ACTION).

 

A member of the public suggested that a County Councillor Highways Officer should also be invited to the meeting to explain why the current layout had been approved (ACTION).

 

Mary Wheater (Treasurer) Committee of Windsor Road Residents’ Association (WIRE): We believe that division of the s106 monies into separate categories (such as indoor and outdoor community facilities) needs reconsideration because it is inflexible and can result in failure to fund important facilities when there is excess money available under other categories.

 

Councillor Reid stated that she did not believe it was not possible to change the categories retrospectively. The system was in the process of being changed to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and she would enquire with Officers if there was any flexibility under CIL. A response would then be sent to the Committee of Windsor Road Residents (ACTION).

 

Mr Hallawell: The bollards in St John’s Street have been inoperable since May 2014. I have phoned the County Council and City Council on numerous occasions and have been given different responses on why they have been left down. One reason is to allow construction traffic into Trinity Lane for Trinity College but there does not seem to be any control.

Councillor Holland thanked Mr Hallawell for bringing the problem to the attention of the Committee. She had spoken with Officers on this matter but despite receiving reassurances that the bollards would be working by Christmas, this had not happened.

 

Councillor Cearns acknowledged there were problems with many of the electric bollards in the city which needed to be replaced but it was down to budget.

 

Councillor Smith suggested that when inviting a County Council Highways Officer to the next WCAC meeting that they were also asked to address this committee on the subject (ACTION).

 

Hester Wells: What is happening about the proposed cycle route between the West Cambridge site and the City centre?

 

Councillor Cantrill stated a decision had been taken to look at the route once again with a proposal to change traffic layout on the route along Grange Road, behind the University Rugby Ground, on to Cranmer Road and Sedgwick Avenue. This was to allow enough room for cyclists at Queen Road traffic lights and to ensure that they would be given priority. Currently there was an issue with a piece of land behind the University Rugby Ground with the land owner refusing to allocate the land until the local plan was determined. The University was still fully committed to the project.

 

Councillor Nethsingha confirmed that the project was still active and there were some issues which could be resolved to make the route more cycle friendly, such as improved signage.

 

John Lawton: Development work was currently taking place on the Fort of St George bridge. The Contractor’s large truck is parked close to the bridge while undertaking the work which has highlighted the fact that it is difficult for vehicles to deliver to the business without driving over the grass. The contractor’s delivery driver had advised that he could reverse his truck into the tarmaced area but was prevented from doing so by the two cars currently parked outside the public house. This was a long ongoing issue and a deed has been drawn up with Green King and the City Council but more could be done.

 

Councillor Reiner stated that she had addressed this issue on previous occasions with Officers and was assured enforcement would take place if required. She would be happy to raise the matter with the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places to ask what action had been planned and what was the strategy for enforcement as the deed would not resolve all the issues in the short term.

 

In conjunction Councillor Reiner advised that she would contact Officers to inform them that this item would be brought back to the next WCAC meeting in order to prepare a response (ACTION).

7.45pm

The Committee received a report from Sergeant Wood regarding Policing and Safer Neighbourhood Trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the West / Central Area Committee of the 4 September 2014. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted

 

Comments from members of the public:

 

John Lawton:

     i.        Would it be possible to break down the traffic offence report to show speeding offences, particularly 20mph offences in the central area.

    ii.        Action on 20mph enforcement on Maids Causeway was required.

   iii.        A local resident of Maids Causway, Mr Kellett had been speaking with HGV companies whose vehicles had been accessing Maids Causeway. Their response has been that they cannot stop their drivers using this route and enforcement should be actioned by the Police.

  iv.        Queuing was a separate issue in Maids Causeway particularly during and after the Christmas period. Vehicles were not permitted to remain stationary, do PCSOs have the power to request that drivers move on.

 

In response Sergeant Wood said the following:

     i.        A breakdown of speeding offences was not currently available. This information has been requested for future reference.

    ii.        With regards to 20mph enforcement on Maids Causeway, PCSOs do have the power to issue tickets and have been trained, however we are required by law to give a certain amount of leniency

   iii.        We are aware of this issue of HGVs and Officers have been appointed to liaise with Mr Kellett on this matter.

  iv.        Officers are asked to take a pragmatic approach on the matter of queuing.

 

Member of Public:

     i.        The Police have said that they are no longer responsible for speed cameras in the City. I would like the person who is responsible to attend a WCAC meeting and address why the speed cameras do not work when most needed, ie a Friday and Saturday night on many of the roads out of Cambridge.

 

Sergeant Wood replied that the County Council was responsible for speed cameras although the Police did have a mobile unit.

 

Colin Rosenstiel:

     i.        20mph enforcement has been mentioned in Maids Causeway but there were other problems in the City such as King Street and Emmanuel Street.

    ii.        With regards to car park queuing there had been an attempt to address this issue at the Grand Arcade, with signage in Pembroke Street, but this was ignored. The Police had a duty to keep the traffic moving and this should be a priority.

 

Sergeant Wood stated that over the festive period there had been an increase in traffic into the City and Officers had been on patrol. Officers had also been requested to patrol the areas mentioned at certain times but it was not possible to allocate Officers at all times to this issue.

 

Comments from the Committee

 

Councillor Holland:

     i.        Stated that she had reported a couple of near miss accidents on Huntingdon Road involving young children due to construction traffic parking on the grass verges.

 

The Safer Communities Section Manager confirmed that she had passed the information on the Sergeant Misik to investigate the matter further and who had sent Officers to the area and would report back on this issue.

 

Councillor Bick:

     i.        Noted the positives in the report.

    ii.        Remarked that residents had asked to address the problem of cycling in Portugal Place and would welcome enforcement in the area.

   iii.        Stated that noise issues in Sussex Street had been brought to his attention. 

 

Sergeant Wood noted the remarks on Portugal Place and stated that, Street Night Officers had been tasked to patrol Sussex Street and the surrounding areas encouraging people to move on, preferably to the Market Square.

 

The Safer Communities Section Manager advised that the pilot scheme for Sussex Street was progressing well and a report would be brought back to the Committee at a later date. 

 

Councillor Nethsingha:

     i.        Stated that Police should continue to be firm on the issue of over-ranking of the taxi ranks.

    ii.        Remarked that taxi drivers needed to be made aware of the cycle routes in the City.

   iii.        Noted an increase in the figures in burglary and theft in the Newnham area and asked if the Police could advise what action was being taken.

 

Sergeant Wood replied that the question regarding burglary and theft would be taken back to Sergeant Misik.

 

Inspector Johnson informed the Committee that this trend was reported in last quarter and has been addressed.

 

The Committee:

 

RESOLVED (unanimously) to prioritise the following:

 

     i.        Address alcohol related violent crime and ASB

    ii.        Tackle cycle theft

   iii.        Address a range of road safety issues, including parking, inconsiderate cycling, driving and speeding.

To receive a verbal update from County Councillor Cearns.

8.20pm

Councillor Cearns informed the Committee that partly in response to the sexual assaults that took place in November 2014, a petition had been signed by approximately 2000 people to look at whether additional lighting was required on green spaces.

 

As result of this petition Councillor Cearns had called a meeting of multi agencies, including the Police, representatives from Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council to look at what could be done on the subject of additional lighting.

 

It was agreed that Ward Councillors would look to identify areas that would benefit from additional lighting in conjunction with suggestions from members of the public. A second meeting would take place in late January, early February when a list of priorities would be assembled and funding sources investigated.

 

Ward Councillors should contact either Councillor Cearns or the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places with their suggestions and by the next WCAC there would be a shortlist for information (ACTION).

 

Comments from members of the public.

 

John Lawton:

       i.        Questioned if there would be a wider consultation as there should be an opportunity to object to some of the proposals.

 

Comments from the Committee.

 

Councillor Reiner:

       i.        Stated that she hoped the discussion would take place at a public meeting such as the WCAC as there would wider representation to consider the matter further. 

 

Councillor Nethsingha:

    i.        Suggested a shortlist of suggested open spaces should be brought back to the next WCAC for debate. 

 

Councillor Bick:

       i.        Acknowledged that not everyone agreed that open spaces require extra lighting. Any changes that would take place should only be a direct result of full consultation.

 

Councillor Cearns confirmed that any suggested priorities would go out for wider consultation. It should come to the next WCAC Committee.

 

It was suggested         that when inviting the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places to the next WCAC meeting to also advise that this item will be on the agenda for discussion (ACTION).         

8.30pm

The Committee received a report from the Public Realm Manager regarding environmental data which provided an overview of City Council Refuse and Environment and Streets and Open Spaces service activity relating to the geographical area served by the West/Central Area Committee.

 

Comments from members of the public.

 

Colin Rosenstiel:

     i.        Asked if the Officer could clarify the process for requesting bins.  A bin was required on Kings Street outside the take away premises.

 

 

Member of the public:

     i.        Enquired if foot-operated dog-fouling bins be installed as these were more hygienic.

 

Member of the public:

     i.        Noted that the area around Garratt Hostel Lane and Burrells Walk was full of fast food wrappers brought from the local food traders.

    ii.        Stated that rubbish was placed inside hedge rows along Burrells Walk.

   iii.        Requested that enforcement be used immediately.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

Councillor Reiner:

     i.        Stated it was important to ensure that work was not duplicated by the City Council and Cambridge BID.

    ii.        Stated that the scheduled Market ward blitz for June would not be a good time due to the nesting season.

   iii.        Observed the report gave the impression that one size fits all and questioned whether the proposals would meet the needs of all the wards across the City.

  iv.        Noted an increase in litter on rubbish and recycling days. Suggested that street cleaning could be done on the same day after the collection instead of to the suggested ward blitzes and that cleansing crews could follow refuse vehicles.

   v.        Asked for the evidence to the recommendations. 

 

Councillor Cantrill:

     i.        Was not aware of extensive illegal camping; this was a subject that needed to be dealt with sensitively. If people were camping during winter they were homeless and the City Council’s Outreach should be working to be bring them into the system.

    ii.        Noted that future Newnham ward blitzes had been scheduled in October. This would not be the best time of year as the foliage would be too high.  Residents Associations organised an annual ward blitz at the end of March, just before the foliage began to grow and the water table was low. Recommended that the City Council join the residents at this time of year. 

   iii.        Requested a dog bin between the pathway of Gough Way and Cranmer Road (further details to be provided to the Public Realm Manager).

  iv.        Reported incidents of when the rubbish had been collected and pink sacks had been left for a week.

 

 

Councillor Bick:

     i.        Remarked that Cambridge BID was a significant source of street cleaning in Market Ward and requested further information on the BID contract and how they would work with the City Council.

    ii.        Stated that residential areas of Fitzroy Street and Paradise Street required regular street cleaning not just an annual blitz.

 

Councillor Reid:

     i.        Welcomed the data but asked if future reports could it split by wards as there was a difference in behaviour between City centre and the rest of the wards.

    ii.        Requested further data on the bin locations for Grantchester Meadows car park and dog fouling in this area.

   iii.        Noted that the volume of litter in Grantchester Meadows car park was weather related and high demand for regular waste removal. 

  iv.        Asked if Ward Councillors could be fully briefed on the enforcement work the dog warden took when out on patrol.

 

Councillor Holland:

     i.        Asked whether the pink sacks would be removed along Huntingdon Road if bins were to be installed.

 

In response to the Committee’s comments the Public Realm Manager noted the following:

     i.        There was a problem of illegal camping on Sheep’s Green which required multi-agency working; she could assure Councillors that this was dealt with sensitively.

    ii.        The ward blitz programmes of works were set but noted the comments for future planning and would be willing to assist with blitzes arranged by local residents.

   iii.        A meeting had been arranged with the new Cambridge BID Manager and would seek clarification on the cleaning arrangements and how they would work with the Enforcement Team.

  iv.        Comments on Fitzroy Street and Paradise Street were noted and details would be brought back to the Committee on how the cleaning had been improved.

   v.        Would speak to the Operations Team regarding the bins at Grantchester Meadows as to who owns the bins.

  vi.        Confirmed that complaints had been received regarding dog fouling in Grantchester Meadows.

 vii.        Advised that there was a part time dog warden who would judge each situation on its own merits and on some occasions education rather than enforcement was the answer.

viii.        Would liaise with the take away shops on Kings Street to enquire if they could supply a bin.

  ix.        Would take away the requests for bins with foot pedals for future consideration.

   x.        The operations team should collect the pink sacks when the bins had been emptied. The matter would be addressed.

  xi.        Complaints had been received in the last six months concerning the issues covered in the recommendations being put forward to the Committee.

 xii.        Confirmed that evidence to would be supplied for future recommendations.

xiii.        Would look at the scheduling of the ward blitzes following advice from the Committee. 

xiv.        Day to day issues would still be dealt by the Operations Team and City Rangers.

 

The Committee:

 

Councillor Smith welcomed the report and proposed the following amendment to the priority iv, additional wording underlined:

 

iv.      Deep cleanse of Garrett Hostel Lane, from Queens Road to Trinity Lane, including Burrell’s Walk area, to include the removal of graffiti, illegal flyposting, dog fouling, vegetation cut back and sweeping.

 

Resolved unanimously to approve the additional wording to priority iv.

 

Councillor Holland proposed the following amendment to the recommendation iii, additional wording underlined.

 

iii.      Pressure wash and cleanse of the public recycling points at    Castle Park, Park Street, Adam and Eve Street, Lammas           Land, the runnels on Trumpington Street, Histon Road,      and the shops around Windsor Road.

 

Resolved unanimously to approve the additional wording to priority iii.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed that priority i be removed from the recommendations.

 

Resolved unanimously to remove priority i.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to agree the following amended and subsequently re-numbered priorities:

 

     i.        Enforcement and City Ranger patrols in the City Centre to address issues of illegally deposited trade waste

    ii.        Pressure wash and cleanse of the public recycling points at Castle Park, Park Street, Adam and Eve Street and Lammas Land, the runnells on Trumpington Street, Histon Road and the shops around Windsor Road

   iii.        Deep cleanse of Garret Hostel Lane, from Queens Road to Trinity Lane, including Burrell’s Walk area, to include the removal of graffiti, illegal flyposting, dog fouling, vegetation cut back and sweeping.

  iv.        Early morning dog warden patrols for dog fouling on Grantchester Street and Lammas Land

   v.        Enforcement and City Ranger monitoring of Milton’s Walk for domestic waste and fly tipping issues

Report attached separately.

 

9.00pm

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager regarding the S106 third round priority setting.

 

The report set the context that grant applications seeking devolved S106 funding for local outdoor sports or community facilities were being reported to the relevant area committees between now and mid-February. There had been one application for community facilities funding from West/Central Area - for a side extension to the main hall at St Augustine’s Church in Castle ward (Appendix C of the Officer’s report).

 

The report also explained that, whilst a grant application to support community use of new indoor sports facilities at King’s College School would be reported to a meeting of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January, there was also an opportunity for the WCAC to consider allocating devolved outdoor sports S106 funding, as the facility would offer local schools and community groups access to the existing outdoor sports facilities. (Appendix D of the Officer’s report).

 

In his introduction to the report, the officer clarified that:

i.     The Darwin Green development (mentioned in the application from St Augustine’s) would have its own two-storey community building. Whilst this could become managed by the community in due course, no decisions had yet been made about which group could do so. The suggestion in the committee report, that consideration of a further grant to St Augustine’s should be conditional on the applicant agreeing to run the community rooms at Darwin Green, was withdrawn.

ii.    Councillor Tucker had written to him to express his support for the St Augustine’s application.

iii.   S106 funding would be tapering off and running down in future.

iv.  The report for the Community Services Scrutiny Committee on 15 January 2015, published on 7 January, recommended a £75,000 indoor sports S106 grant to King’s College School for its visitor changing room improvements.

 

Comments from members of the public:

 

Mary Wheater (Treasurer) Committee of Windsor Road Residents’ Association (WIRE):

     i.        The maximum funds available should be allocated by the Committee to the St Augustine’s church hall side extension, with the remainder to be considered at the next WCAC meeting.

    ii.        There was a shortfall of community facilities in Castle ward.

   iii.        The facilities planned for Darwin Green were calculated on the number of new residents and did not take in to account the number of existing households.

  iv.        St Augustine’s had a good record of project delivery and delivered within budget. Without the grant allocation it would be difficult for the project to advance.

 

Richard Footitt, Representative of St Augustine’s:

     i.        Confirmed there had been two occasions when additional revenue funding for activities had been sought.

    ii.        Groups were encouraged to apply independently for their own funding.

 

Member of the public:

     i.        Asked what support King’s College School was already giving to the public.

    ii.        Enquired what facilities were going to be provided by the grant funding.

   iii.        Queried what specific commitment would King’s College School be prepared to make to the public.

 

 

 

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

Councillor Smith gave the Committee more details of the e-mail received from Councillor Tucker expressing support for the St Augustine’s application. He suggested that the application be awarded in two tranches from the maximum funds available with the remainder committed from 2015 funding.  This would enable St Augustine’s to proceed with their fund raising activities in a positive manner

 

Councillor Hipkin:

i.             Supported the recommendation sent by Councillor Tucker.

ii.             Indicated that the present improvements at St Augustine’s had provided a first rate community facility which currently could not meet demand. The grant to provide a side extension would allow the space to be divided and met those demands. 

 iii.          Advised that the facilities were used by community groups across the City.

iv.          Reminded the Committee that funding awarded to St Augustine’s for present improvement work had been completed within twelve months and therefore completion of the extension could be guaranteed.

v.             Stated that by supporting the application from King’s College School would give the Committee access to a major project that would allow them to place recommendations on community access.

 

Councillor Smith:

     i.        Suggested that the St Augustine’s application should be considered on merit and queried why the Officer had recommended that this should be deferred.

 

Councillor Reiner:

     i.        Enquired why there was no reference to Rouse Ball Pavilion which had been discussed at the last meeting.

    ii.        Stated it was difficult to make a decision on the two applications when not all the projects had been listed.

   iii.        Noted if funding was to be agreed for King’s College School, it should be widely advertised that the facility would be available to the public.

  iv.        Stated that it was essential be clear as to what the community groups and organisations would receive from King’s College School and the grant should be conditional to the community agreement.

 

 

 

Councillor Bick:

     i.        Expressed disappointment that there was no application from a state school to consider.

    ii.        Commented on the funding for St Augustine’s as a disproportionate resource for one institution and queried whether future requests for revenue activity would cease.

 

Councillor Reid:

     i.        Expressed the importance of the approval of the community use agreement for access to King’s College School’s outdoor and indoor sports facilities by the Committee. 

    ii.        Stated that it would not be unreasonable to request how King’s College School currently met the Charity Commission regulations on private schools making their facilities available for community use.

 

Councillor Holland:

     i.        Stated there was a need for community facilities in the Castle Ward Area.

    ii.        There should be no condition on grant funding for St Augustine’s relating to community facilities on Darwin Green.

 

Officer’s comments:

 

     i.        The two project proposals referenced in the report related to applications for grant-funding local projects primarily benefitting the Area as part of the current (third) S106 priority-setting round. Funding for the Rouse Ball Pavilion had been allocated from S106 strategic funding (for projects that would benefit more than one area of the city) as part of the first two S106 priority-setting rounds.

    ii.        Officers had recommended that consideration of the St Augustine’s application should be deferred until the next (fourth) S106 priority-setting round later in 2015 because the grant requested was greater than the amount currently available in the Area’s devolved S106 funds for community facilities.

   iii.        It would be possible for the Area Committee to decide to allocate the devolved community facilities contributions currently available to the St Augustine’s application, albeit that this was smaller than the full amount requested. The Area Committee just needed to be aware that this would reduce the amount of funding that could be available to local proposals for community facilities improvements, from any of the wards in the Area, in the next priority-setting round. One particular proposal being developed by a local organisation was mentioned as an example.

  iv.        Community access to King’s College School would be primarily for community groups, organisations and sports clubs rather than individual members of the public.

   v.        King’s College would be subject to a community use agreement.

  vi.        Confirmed that a project appraisal for the visitor changing facilities for King’s College School (including details of the community use agreement) would be agreed by Area Committee’s Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokes (for the outdoor sports grant) and the Community Services Scrutiny Committee (for the indoor sports grant, assuming that the recommendation in the Community Services Scrutiny Committee report on 15 January 2015 was agreed by the Executive Councillor).

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed that the current funds available (at least £75,000) were allocated to St Augustine’s Church towards a side extension to its main hall. When future funding became available the application would be considered further with other proposals received.

 

6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention in favour of this proposal.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed that the grant application for £50,000 to King’s College School be approved subject to the following:

     i.        Should be linked to the approval of the Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation of £75,000 indoor sports grant towards the visitor changing rooms (to enable access to King’s College School’s indoor sports facilities). This would be considered at a meeting of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee scheduled on 15 January 2015.

    ii.        Project appraisal approval to be agreed by WCAC Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes.

   iii.        Approval of a community use agreement for access to the school’s outdoor and indoor sports facilities, to be agreed by WCAC Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes

 

6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention in favour of these proposals.

 

The Committee

 

     i.        Resolved (6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to allocate all the devolved community facilities S106 contributions currently available to the West Central Area (at least £75,000) to St Augustine’s Church towards a side extension to its main hall. When further devolved S106 funding becomes available in future S106 priority-setting rounds, the application would further be considered along with other proposals received.

 

    ii.        Resolved (6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention) to allocate £50,000 of devolved outdoor sports S106 funding as a grant towards the development of visitor changing rooms at King’s College School’s new sports centre subject to the following:

·     Approval of the Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation of a £75,000 indoor sports grant towards the visitor changing rooms (to enable access to King’s College School’s indoor sports facilities) to be considered at a meeting of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee scheduled on 15 January 2015.

·     Approval of a project appraisal to be agreed by WCAC Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes.

·         

·     Approval of a community use agreement for access to the school’s outdoor and indoor sports facilities, to be agreed by WCAC Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes.</AI9>

<AI10>

     i.        16 members of public:  2 left after open forum, 1 arrived later for the last item.

    ii.        1 member of the press.

   iii.        2 officers for running the Committee (Lead Officer and Committee Manager)

  iv.        4 officers in connection with presenting reports

   v.        2 police officers in connection with presenting reports

  vi.        6 City Cllrs

 vii.        2 County Cllrs

viii.        1 contractor for PA system