Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Nethsingha, Reiner and Tucker.

No declarations of interest were declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 07 January 2015.

 

Minutes of 7 January 2015 were approved and signed by the Chair.

14/61/WCAC: University Arms Hotel Development.

 

Councillor Cearns reported that the original contractors were no longer on site. Engagement was needed during the new tendering process to address particular issues such as the traffic management plan as there was more that the County Council could have asked for.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places confirmed that as the County Council Highways department had signed off many of the traffic management issues, these would be addressed by the consideration of the planning committee but there would be constraints. Communication was needed between the new contractors, the City Council and County Council.

 

The City Council’s Head of Property Services advised that no date had been set by Mclarens when the new contractors would be appointed. When the appointments had been made conversations would begin with the University Arms and the contractors regarding a number of issues such as safety issues.

 

14/74/WCAC: Parking on Midsummer Common (outside the Fort St George public house).

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places advised that there had been a change in management at the public house would be given the opportunity to address the issue with officers.

 

The Streets and Open Space Asset Manager explained that a dialogue had been established with Green King who had given reassurances they had instructed the new tenant to park on their own premises. Officers from the City Council Enforcement Team had been monitoring the situation over the last few months and the number of recorded incidents was low but there were still some.

 

Members of the public had also sent in photographs to show that vehicles were still not being parked in the allocated spaces. 

 

The gate would remain open while the work continued on the bridge. The gate should become fully automated to close during the evenings when the work had been completed as the traffic flow would have decreased.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places acknowledged that concerns had also been raised regarding vehicles parking at Midsummer House. While the two businesses should not be treated differently, historically there had been a difference in the legality regarding parking at the two premises.

 

The Streets and Open Space Asset Manager advised that the parking space outside for Midsummer House was specifically for disabled patrons.

 

Councillor Cearns advised that the Executive Councillor acknowledged that the issues could increase in the summer months and had requested a strategy for enforcement be put into place. 

 

Councillor Bick asked why the Council was gathering pictures and what would be done regarding enforcement if and when required.

 

The Streets and Open Space Asset Manager responded that Green King had a right of access over the Common to access their property. The reason for the request for photographs was to ensure the deed of grant was being acted upon reasonably. If this was not case the deed could be removed, thereby removing access to the Common.

 

John Lawton asked why the gate was being left open at night if the mechanics of the gate could be explained.

 

The Streets and Open Space Asset Manager provided a detailed response to the working of the gate. The gate had been permanently left open to allow the construction traffic to go through. Instructions had been given that the gate must be closed every night. When work to the Fort St George Bridge had been completed the automated system to open and close the gate would be fully operational. 

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places advised that she would prefer a zero tolerance to any breech of the deed but evidence must be gathered in the first instance.

 

 

 

14/75/WCAC S106 priority-setting (3rd round): West/Central Area

 

Councillor Reid reminded the Committee that  approval to the grant application to King’s College School had been subject to the community use agreement for access to the school’s outdoor and indoor sports facilities, which was to be agreed by WCAC Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes. She asked if the relevant Officer could be reminded and an update provided (ACTION).

 

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

 

7.40pm

 

Richard Taylor: What is the situation with the fencing around the play area on Jesus Green? In the same area towards Midsummer Common there is a gate that has been put on the wrong way round. 

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places confirmed that more fencing would be installed the following month. The reason for the delay of installation had been to coordinate this with additional work in the area and the volume of work that had been taking place on the Green.

 

A replacement gate on Midsummer Common had been ordered and should also be installed in May 2015.

 

Bev Nicolson: The Tour de France bunting has been hanging off a sign on St John's Street since July last year. I have reported it several times, the last being on Fix My Street after which I had what sounded like a promising email exchange with Chris Zair and Neil Jones. It's still there. Do we know when it might come down finally?

 

Andy Fisher, IHMC and Events Manager, Cambridgeshire County Council, explained that he had given the exact location of the bunting to Chris Zair and Neil Jones who advised that this would be removed on Friday 13 March 2015.

 

Bev Nicolson:  There's a pothole on St Andrew's Street opposite John Lewis. Not the previous one, another further south of the resurfaced area. It seems to be doing something similar to the last one though. (It gets patch fixed, it lasts for a while, then fails again).

 

The IHMC and Events Manager advised that he had also reported this to the relevant officers but could not say when or what work would be undertaken.

 

Colin Rosenstiel: When would the white lines be added to St Andrew’s Street and Downing Street which were removed when the first reported potholes were fixed?

 

The IHMC and Events Manager replied that he would report this back to officers at the County Council.

 

Tim Brown: There are still many cyclists who cycle down St John’s Street, Trinity Street, Market Street, Sydney Street and Green Street in the wrong direction. Clearer signage and enforcement are required.

 

Councillor Smith advised that policing priorities set by the West / Central Area Committee included addressing inconsiderate cycling and that the Police would be present at the next committee meeting to provide an update. She then requested that the IHMC and Events Manager raise the issue of signage in the City Centre with County Council Officers.

 

Councillor Ratcliffe requested signage on Petty Curry be added to the list.

 

The IHMC and Events Manager agreed to speak with the Officers.

 

Councillor Cearns advised that the signage issue had been looked at in the past but there was a difficulty to try and balance the amount of signs, the street furniture and not to detract from the surroundings buildings. City Council officers did not support signs painted on the roads. The Police could be encouraged to carry out enforcement and he would speak to Sergeant Wood on this issue (ACTION).

 

John Lawton suggested that temporary signs be used during term times only.

 

Anthony Carpen: How regularly do West / Central Councillors talk to their local PCSOs, share information and use the same online platforms?

 

Councillor Cearns, Holland and Ratcliffe all advised that they had regular contact with the Police and PCSO’s, via e-mail and face to face.

 

Councillor Hipkin suggested that Mr Carpen speak with the Police and Crime Commissioner on how to engage PCSO’s with both the City and County Council.

 

Councillor Smith reminded those present that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Outreach Worker would be at the next West/ Central Committee Meeting. 

 

Antony Carpen: How can Councillors work with the Student Unions to ensure developers engage with them at design stage to ensure that student accommodation is affordable?

 

Councillor Reid suggested that the student unions could be engaged through the consultation process on student accommodation planning applications.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places confirmed that regular meetings did take place between Executive Councillors and both Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin University Student Unions. But the suggestion to engage Student Unions at pre-planning stage would be taken back to the relevant Officers.

 

Antony Carpen: Would like to inform the Committee of the ‘Be the Change’ Campaign which aims to facilitate the creation of ideas to bring Cambridge together while engaging young people to make change

Andy Fisher, Manager of the Integrated Highways Management Centre, Cambridgeshire County Council, will be present to discuss traffic calming in the City.  Amongst the issues will be:

 

·        St Johns Street traffic bollards.

 

8.10pm

 

                                                                            

The Chair welcomed Andy Fisher, IHMC and Events Manager, Cambridgeshire County Council who was present to answer questions on traffic calming in Cambridge City.

 

Comments from the public:

 

Mr Halliwell: When would the bollards at St John’s Street be fully operational?

 

The IHMC and Events Manager apologised for the length of time it had taken. Many factors had been outside the control of the City Council.  The bollards would be working from Friday 13 March.

 

The St John's bollard worked differently to others in the City, because people such as blue badge holders could get through using an electronic card. However, the company which made the cards stopped manufacturing them the previous year which meant new cards could not have been issued.

 

Work had been ongoing to improve the system, but the bollard had been left down during this period.

 

Member of the public: Have the County Council considered enforcement measures instead of the bollards which would also generate income?

 

The IHMC and Events Manager confirmed that there would be scope for discussion but this was not on any future agendas.

 

Colin Rosenstiel: The bollards in Emmanuel Street seem be switched off every weekend, why is this?

 

The IHMC and Events Manager replied that it was not every weekend but there were special circumstances when they would be down. Examples were to allow National Express Coaches to go through if there were road works or when events were on.

 

Colin Rosenstiel: What has happened to the proposal to reduce the volume of heavy goods vehicles through Kings Street?

 

The IHMC and Events Manager advised that the possibility of signage was being considered rather than enforcement. Further information would be sent to the Committee on this matter (ACTION).

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

Councillor Holland: Would it not have been possible to monitor the amount of vehicles that were passing through the St John’s Street while the bollards had been down?

 

The IHMC and Events Manager confirmed that he had asked the question at the start of the project with the parking enforcement team. Due to limit staff resource and the financial cost this had not been possible.

 

Councillor Holland: How many vehicles had access cards through to the City Centre?

 

The IHMC and Events Manager replied approximately 250.

 

Committee Manager Note: Councillor Hipkin gave apologies and left the meeting.

 

Report attached separately.

 

8.30pm

The Committee received a report from Alistair Wilson, Streets and Open Space Asset Manager.

 

The report explained that the project had been initiated to consider and respond to public concerns and opinions, relating to community safety and the lighting of key pedestrian and cycle routes across City Centre open spaces. A project group consisting of key stakeholders had met and proposed the following pedestrian and cycle routes for further consideration:

 

•        Drift Way to Trumpington Road (Coe Fen) – Newnham/ Trumpington;

•        Maids Causeway to Victoria Avenue and Cutter Ferry Bridge to Maids           Causeway (Midsummer  Common) – Market;

•        Jesus Green lock to Lower Park Street (Jesus Green) – Market;

•        Footpath from New Square to bus stop kiosk/toilets and rear   of Kings Street properties (Christ’s Pieces) – Market.

 

For lighting projects at Parker’s Piece and Lammas Land two different lighting treatments were used and these would be considered to be the options for new sites in future:

 

•        To provide traditional overhead lighting columns on the park   to spread light on the central routes and on a radius          immediately surrounding each column.

 

•        To define the key routes on the park but keep light pollution to a       minimum. Solar stud installations had proved very successful in     achieving this.

 

The Committee were advised that the report was intended for information only and no recommendations for approval were required at this stage.

 

Comments from the public:

 

Colin Rosenstiel: The lights on the footpath from New Square to bus stop kiosk/toilets and rear of King Street properties (Christ’s Pieces) in Market Ward have recently been upgraded so what changes could be wanted?

 

Councillor Cearns responded that this had been identified as an area of concern by the public as there were some areas which were not lit and perhaps additional lighting could be installed.

 

The Committee were reminded that the list had been put together in response to the petition and the sexual attacks on Christ’s Pieces. If any schemes went forward there would be full costing and consultation. A collective approach had been taken while recognising that ‘one size does not fit all’.

 

Dick Baxter: The City Council has long had a policy to leave Midsummer Common unlit in order to discourage movements across the area at night. The style of lighting should be taken into consideration and the policy consistent.

Some areas should be left dark. There are good environmental reasons to restrict lighting. The Wildlife Trust had surveyed the area and found that bats use the Common and its surroundings for foraging and potentially roosting.

 

Member of the public: Safety is an issue and should be a priority on Parker’s Piece and Midsummer Common.

 

John Lawton: Evidence-based justification for lights as well as public opinion was required. If lights were installed in one area the level of crime should be measured and compared before installation. The style of lights should be in keeping with their environment. If the lights are too bright the shadows are darker.

 

Anthony Carpen: Could glow in the dark pavements be considered which would assist the public to see where they are going? The issue of lighting should be looked at by the City as whole and look City wide to map the public concerns.

 

Member of the Public: There are a couple of glow in the dark pathways in Cambridge which do not work well. The light is very dull and fades over a period of time.

 

Member of the public: Flood lights in certain area of the City can cause problems as they are too bright, particularly for cyclists.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

Councillor Reid: Would like the entire Coe Fen cycle way to be considered up to Fen Causeway.

 

Councillor Cantrill: Would like to see the remainder of the approach to Gough Road completed.

 

Councillor Holland: Could solar studs be installed in Histon Road Recreation

8.55pm

The Committee received a report from John Richards, Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces.

 

The report outlined the outcomes of the Cambridge 20mph Project Phase 3 (South and West/ Central) public consultation and requested that West/Central Area provided recommendations to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport on how the project should be progressed. 

 

The recommendations were as follows:

 

i.        To note the consultations outcomes.

ii.       To provide comments and recommendations to the Executive Councillor           for Planning and Transport (Councilllor Kevin Blencowe) and the           Environment Scrutiny Committee at which a final decision on potential         implementation of the project will be made, specifically:

•        Whether to introduce a 20mph limit on unclassified         roads in the West /           Central phase area.

•        Whether to introduce a 20mph limit on all / none/ some   of the main          roads within the West/Central phase area.

 

Comments from the public: 

 

Pauline Goyal-Rutsaert (following statement was read out):

 

“An essential principle for consultation by public bodies is that sufficient information should be made available to stakeholders in order to enable them to make informed comments and decisions.

“I consider that insufficient information has been made available to residents to make an informed decision on the Citywide 20mph consultation, severely hampering the reliability of this consultation exercise.

“The reason is simple: the information to make an informed decision is not available. Based on my interaction with the project team and the documents made available to me, the costs and benefits of this project have not been assessed in any reasonable manner; no analysis of unintended consequences has been carried out.

“What I read in these documents is that the project is based on a list of arguments, borrowed from a campaign by a lobbying group. I am upset to realise that such a project has been the object of no reasonable analysis of costs, benefits and unintended consequence. To me it shows a lack of professionalism. To put together an initial reasonable cost benefit analysis, using existing literature, is not costly and should have been budgeted for.

To read that this project was voted unanimously by the councillors in the absence of any initial cost benefit analysis makes me wonder.

“In the consultation letter sent to residents, the same list of argument has been to a great extent reproduced – with any cost aspects removed. I am of the view that residents deserve objective information, including the pros and the cons as well as the unknown factors of this project. It is only on that basis that the outcome of the consultation exercise is meaningful.

I could mention several facts that residents should have been told about and that might have helped them make an informed decision. Here are a couple:

-        The impact on airborne pollution is not clear-cut because two factors play in opposite directions (less speeding and           breaking is good, lower gear is bad);

-        The value of lost time might get passed onto customers by     trade          driving a lot in residential areas (taxis, delivery vans, courier);

-        Other cities have recorded limited reduction in speed after similar    schemes – and these are often not significant from a statistic point of view;

-        The Department of Transport does not encourage the adoption of   20mph and encourage alternative options to be considered first;

-        Various parts of the UK police force do not consider this as an         effective           measure.

“Based on the above, I consider that the outcome of the consultation on 20mph cannot be considered as representative of what the residents would have decided had they received this information. I hope that the committee will take this statement into account and reconsider.”

 

The Chair thanked Dr Goyal-Rutsaert for her comments and advised the West / Central Area was not responsible for the consultation but had been asked to make recommendations based on a decision that had been taken by full Council.

 

John Lawton: The project has to be put into place to determine the outcome and not just rely on evidence based reports. Maids Causeway was a 20mph pilot scheme approximately four years ago and continues today. Hopefully lessons have been learnt from this arrangement.

 

Member of the public: 30km speed limits had been wide spread in Europe for a number of years resulting in lower accident rates involving children. How can you compare the cost of a life in road accident terms to the cost of implementing the scheme?

 

Colin Rosenstiel: Would the speed camera still be in use for 20mph enforcement on Victoria Avenue should the proposal be agreed.

 

The Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces advised the camera was not approved by the Department of Transport for 20mph enforcement and therefore would be removed.

 

John Lawton: What is the difference between a speed camera and a safety camera? What type of enforcement camera could be used?

 

The Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces reiterated that the camera was not type approved for 20mph. Average speed cameras would be able to measure the 20mph limit but the process for approval and installation was costly and time consuming. 

 

There was no difference between a speed and safety camera. The City Council had no control over the cameras in the City. It was the Police and the County Council who determined the location of the cameras. It would not be economical to leave the camera on Victoria Avenue as no revenue would be generated to cover the cost of the camera if this was to become a 20mph limit.

 

Colin Rosenstiel: What was the outcome from the North Area Committee on Chesterton Road and Victoria Road?

 

It was confirmed that Chesterton Road was left at 30mph and Victoria Road 20mph.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

Councillor Reid: The North Newnham Residents’ Association has asked if the issue of signage could be raised and the impact of street clutter. Is there a budget for the removal of redundant signs in the areas highlighted in the Officers report?

 

The Environment, Streets and Open Spaces Project Leader responded that there would be a minimum installation of new signs while taking the opportunity to consolidate existing 20mph signage. Redundant signs would be removed.

 

Councillor Cantrill: Welcomed the 20mph limit for Grantchester Road and asked if the Officer could also provide an update on the installation of traffic calming measures.

 

The Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces advised that the work would start in late 2015.

 

Councillor Cearns: Welcome the project but would reluctantly suggest that Victoria Avenue is left out as it could not be enforced. The Police would be asked to stretch their resources further to enforce this.

 

Councillor Bick: Would be best to keep enforcement on Victoria Avenue and could be looked at again when the redevelopment of Mitcham’s Corner had been completed.

 

The Committee:

 

Under the City Council’s constitution County Councillor Cearns did not vote on this item.

 

Councillor Cearns stated that as joint committee there should be joint decision making powers. The Chair requested that the voting rights be looked at by the relevant City Council Committee (ACTION).

 

i.        Resolved unanimously to introduce a 20mph limit on    unclassified roads in the West / Central phase area.

ii.       Resolved (4 Votes to 0, with 2 abstention) not to introduce a         20mph limit on Victoria Avenue, subject to retaining the   speed camera.

iii.      Resolved unanimously to introduce a 20mph limit on    Grantchester Road.

iv.      Resolved unanimously to introduce a 20mph limit on    Castle Street.

 

The Committee is asked to agree the following meeting dates: 

16 July 2015

30 September  2015

03 December 2015

11 February 2016

19 May 2016

Members are asked to contact the Committee Manager in advance of the meeting with any comments regarding the above dates.

9.25pm

 

The following meeting dates were agreed:

 

·        30 September  2015

·        03 December 2015

·        11 February 2016

 

The Committee requested the July 2015 and May 2016 dates be brought forward. These dates would be agreed at the next meeting.

i.        15 members of the public

ii.       9 Councillors

iii.      3 City Officers

iv.      1 County Officer

v.       1 press.