Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from City Councillors Owers and Johnson and County Councillor Whitehead.

 

Apologies for lateness were received from City Councillor Herbert

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor C Smart	15/35/EAC	Close to Cllr Pippas who is a member of congregation of application for Church on Chesterton Road
Councillor Smith	15/40/EAC	Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Councillor Baigent	15/40/EAC	Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
	15/37/EAC	Lives opposite the exit of the Ridgeons Cromwell Road site.
County Councillor Kavangh	15/40/EAC	Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Councillor Benstead	15/32/EAC	Work in construction

 

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

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2015 were approved as a correct record.

The Chair confirmed that the actions arising out of the East Area Committee meeting on the 2 July 2015 had been completed for those members that were present at the meeting.   

1.   Margaret Cranmer asked whether heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) could be banned from Tenison Road and also asked in relation to taxis and air pollution whether scientific data for Tenison Road could be made publicly available.

 

ACTION: Councillor Walsh to raise issue of traffic calming measures including banning HGV vehicles from Tenison Road.

 

ACTION: Councillor Roberts to arrange for Officers to call Ms Cranmer to discuss scientific readings for Tenison Road.

 

Councillor Benstead confirmed that he had attended a meeting with the taxi trade and the issue of air pollution had been discussed.  The trade were looking at electric taxis and had looked to see where they could plug in to re-charge their vehicle.  A further issue that had to be considered was that new taxi vehicles had to be wheelchair accessible and there were not many electric wheelchair accessible vehicles that were available.

 

2.   Mr Grout requested that there were no more sky scrapers in Cambridge and asked that buildings were limited to 7 storeys in height.

 

Councillor Benstead commented that Cambridge was a developing City and it would stagnate if it did not grow, Cambridge therefore needed to be open minded about development and consider building upwards rather than outwards for development. 

 

Councillor Blencowe referred Mr Grout to the City Council’s Cambridge Skyline Guidance, which provided guidance for the development of tall buildings.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement.

 

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 East Area Committee.  The report identified the reactive and proactive service actions undertaken in the previous quarter, including the requested priority targets, and reported back on the recommended issues and associated actions. It also included 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 East Area for the quarter of October to December 2015. Additions were shown underlined.

 

Continuing priorities:

     i.        Enforcement patrols to tackle fly tipping at Ekin Road, Riverside and St Matthews Estate

    ii.        Early morning, daytime and weekend patrols for dog fouling at the following locations:

-      Romsey Recreation Ground

-      Petersfield Recreation Ground

-      Cannon Green

-      St Thomas’s Square and Road

-      Ravensworth Garden play areas

-      Coldhams Common

-      Thorpe Way play area

   iii.        Enforcement patrols to deal with the litter issues at Cambridge Leisure Park at Clifton Road including liaison and educational visits with nearby schools and colleges.

  iv.        Enforcement work to tackle bins on streets in the Romsey and Petersfield areas.

 

New suggested priorities:

   v.        Park deep cleanse to include removal of graffiti, flyposting, litter, dog fouling, vegetation cut back and sweeping at Jack Warren Green play area, Great Eastern play area, Shenstone House play area and Ravensworth Garden play area 

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

    i.          Litter bins had been requested in Wycliffe and Brook Road.

  ii.          Confirmed that the priorities were in addition to the services usually undertaken by the Council.

 iii.          Thanked Officers for the work undertaken at the Abbey Road and Elizabeth Way roundabouts.

iv.          Dog bins had been requested in Romsey ward and questioned why these could not be provided.

  v.          Questioned the frequency that weeds were cleared.

vi.          Raised the issue of fly tipping in main walkways in Petersfield.

 

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

    i.          An amount of work had been undertaken at the Elizabeth Way roundabout through the Community Pay Back Team and the City Council would be undertaking further work in the upcoming months.

  ii.          Some of the locations proposed for dog bins in Romsey were not feasible locations.

 iii.          The frequency that weeding was undertaken would be passed to the relevant Operations Manager to respond to members.

 

ACTION: Operations Manager to email frequency that weeding is undertaken to Members.  

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (nem con) to approve the continuing and new suggested priorities for action as amended above.

 

The Committee received a report from the Senior Engineer regarding minor / local highways improvement programme 2016-17. The report required the Committee to consider the bids and determine a priority list for up to 8 projects to be further considered by the Cambridge Joint Area Committee and its nominated assessment panel.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             As a starting point 5 schemes did not appear to be eligible these being 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

ii.            Requested an explanation from the Officer as to why schemes were not eligible.

iii.           Questioned where the decision had been taken so that only 8 schemes could be put forward by each Area Committee for consideration by the County Council. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Engineer answered:

 

     i.                It was the County Council’s policy for residential parking schemes that the residents themselves would need to meet the full costs of the project as the residents were the main direct beneficiaries.  The County Council were currently reviewing their parking management policy and it was anticipated that this would be completed in late 2016.

    ii.                The decision to allow only 8 applications was a political decision that Officers lead on.  Decisions would be made by the Highway and Community Committee and the Cambridge Joint Area Committee.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (nem con) to recommend Local Highway Improvement Schemes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 to the Cambridge Joint Area Committee and its nominated assessment panel for adoption.

 

 

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager regarding S106 priority-setting and devolved decision-making.

 

He clarified two issues.  The first was that a word had been missed from paragraph 4.4b in the officer’s report, which should read as follows: (missing word, underlined below).

 

b. the Area Committee is invited to prioritise which of the three other proposals (for formalising the BMX track on Coldham’s Common and / or improving the play areas at Ditton Fields or Dudley Road) to prioritise, using the appropriate devolved s106 contribution types.

 

The second was that an alternative approach had been suggested since the publication of the report.  Rather than prioritising improvements at Ditton Fields OR Dudley Road play area (because there was less than £50,000 s106 play area funding available for Abbey Ward), the area committee was given the option of carrying out improvements to BOTH Ditton Fields and Dudley Road play areas, but at lower levels than those suggested in the report.  This might allow Ditton Fields play area to receive about £18,000 play area funding for play equipment for small children plus around £7000 of informal open space contributions for landscaping improvements.  This would then allow Dudley Road play area to receive around £30,000 of play area funding with around £10,000 of informal open space funding for landscaping.

 

Members of the public made the following statements in support of the Dudley Road and the Ditton Fields s106 funding applications.

 

1.   Mr Smallwood spoke in favour of the Dudley Road s106 funding application and he stated that he would support both Dudley Road and Ditton Fields getting better facilities.  Several items of equipment had been removed from the play area and the wood bark needed to be replaced.  There were a lot of weeds which had grown in the play area; it was not a nice play area for children under 5 to play in.

 

2.   Ms Cox (supported by a number of local children and another local resident) spoke in favour of the Ditton Fields play area s106 funding application.  There was support for both Ditton Fields and Dudley Road play areas sharing the funding available.  Ditton Fields did not have much play equipment for small children, who needed their own space away from ball games played by older children.  There was a sense of community at Ditton Fields.  Ms Cox was happy to share ideas to get children interested and involved in the design of the park so that they would want to look after it and use it in the future.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             Asked the Officer whether there would be sufficient s106 funding so that good facilities at both Dudley Road and Ditton Fields play areas could be provided.

 

This was confirmed by the Development Manager (Streets & Open Spaces).  The Urban Growth Project Manager also pointed out that if further devolved play area and informal open space contributions were received in Abbey ward prior to project implementation, these could be added to the budgets for the play area improvement projects. 

 

Resolved (unanimously):

 

    i.                   Noted that (a) Petersfield Area Community Trust was not in a position to take up the offer of a £48,600 grant to convert Sturton Street Chapel and Hall into a community centre and that (b) the allocation was cancelled and released back into the devolved s106 community facilities fund for other local community facility projects in East Area.

  ii.                   Contributed £25,000 of devolved s106 community facilities funds to a grant to refurbish the Memorial Hall and Church Hall on Cherry Hinton Road, subject to a project appraisal and community use agreement.

 iii.                   Agreed, subject to project appraisal and community use agreement to use funds from appropriate devolved s106 contributions from East Area to:

-      Formalise the BMX track on Coldham’s Common (around £85,000)

-      Improve Ditton Fields play area (at least £25,000)

-      Improve Dudley Road play area (at least £40,000).  

• Cambridge Airport Consultative Committee

Resolved that Councillor Hart be the representative on the Cambridge Airport Consultative Committee for the ensuing year.

The Committee received a report from the Urban Design and Conservation Manager regarding the Ridgeon’s Cromwell Road Draft Planning and Development Brief Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  The guide had been produced to help guide the redevelopment of the site for housing.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             Expressed concern at the impact of 245 homes on education and health provision.  A review had been undertaken by the County Council on education provision in 2010 which stated that there was sufficient provision however in Romsey ward though there was an issue with early year’s provision.

ii.            Questioned why a public drop-in session had not been undertaken near to Romsey ward.

iii.           The Chisholm Trail skirted the bottom of the development and questioned why cycle provision was limited.

iv.          Questioned whether the cycle path could follow the railway line.   

 

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Design and Conservation Manager answered:

          i.             Early year’s provision and community space provision could be secured through the outline planning application.

         ii.             Confirmed that a public drop-in session on the proposed development could be held.

       iii.             There were no dedicated cycle routes through the development but this could be considered with the County Council.

       iv.             Confirmed that as the development was already close to the railway line there may not be sufficient room for a cycle path at this position.

 

Resolved (unanimously):

 

       i.                To note and receive the report for information.

 

The Committee received an oral report from Sir Graham Bright the Police and Crime Commissioner.

 

Sir Graham Bright the Police and Crime Commissioner made the following points:

i.             A Speedwatch service had been set up around Cambridge as there was an issue with motorists complying with the 20mph speed limit.  The Police would issue tickets where appropriate and any money that was collected from fines would be spent on road safety projects. 

ii.            There were issues with cycling and cycle theft on East Road, a stolen bike was retrieved from Mill Road.  Currently there was a campaign to educate people on the dangers of cycling without lights as this not only put the cyclist in danger but also other road users.

iii.           The Police would like to see as many lights on in the City as possible, the risk to road users and pedestrians needed to be measured and considered.

iv.          A Victim Hub had been established to help support victims of crime to recover and cope with their experiences.  The Hub had three psychiatric nurses and it was hoped that people would take advantage of this service.  The Victim Hub was the first set up in the Country and other Counties were using this idea.   

v.           The number of frontline Police Officers had been kept constant and the public said that they feel reassured when they saw Police Officers around Cambridge.

vi.          Concerns surrounding domestic abuse remained, however there had been an increase in reporting incidents and all Officers had received special training in this area.

vii.         Requested that any suspicions regarding human trafficking were reported to the Police.  

viii.       A Cyber Crime Unit has been set up in Cambridgeshire, and a lot of work has been done with children in schools to educate them about cyber crimes.

 

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

 

1.        Mr Woodburn asked whether the speed cameras in Cambridge were dependant on film which had to be taken away to be processed.  Mr Woodburn also stated that he thought it would be better to install more high tech cameras which might be expensive to purchase but would cost less money to maintain.  The enforcement of the 20mph speed limit would be easier to enforce if had modern speed cameras.

 

Sir Graham Bright said that road traffic was organised on a three county basis and was led by Bedfordshire.  The speed cameras were digital cameras and they flashed what was seen straight through to a control room.

 

The speed cameras in Cambridge were due to be replaced with upgraded pieces of equipment.  Sir Graham Bright also asked that hot spot speeding areas were reported to the Police so that tickets could be issued, portable cameras could also be used in problem areas.  

 

2.     Mr Gawthrope asked about the 101 non-emergency telephone number and stated that when he had phoned the telephone number he gave up due to the length of time he waited for the call to be answered. 

 

Sir Graham Bright stated that he had had a meeting about the 101 non-emergency telephone service 3 days prior to the Committee meeting.  He also stated that there was a target to answer calls within 30 seconds, with a further target of an initial pick up within 5-9 seconds.  It was also confirmed that authorisation had been given to recruit extra staff for the 101 service, 7 new members of staff had been recruited however it took 8-9 weeks to fully train staff members.     

 

3. Mrs Cranmer asked whether mobile speed cameras required street lights to be lit so that the speed cameras could work effectively.

 

Sir Graham Bright said that he did not know the technical details but would find an answer.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             Pleased to hear that a Cyber Crime Unit had been set up.

ii.            Questioned what percentage of funds would be received from speeding tickets and how this would be used.

iii.           Requested clear data on domestic violence as domestic violence covered a multitude of crimes.

iv.          Questioned what was being done about bad parking on the pavement.

v.           Questioned whether there had been a freeze on the recruitment of Police Community Support Officers (PSCOs) and whether there was a threat to the number of Police Officers on the beat as budgets were to be cut for the Police.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Police and Crime Commissioner answered:

          i.             Emphasized that Members of the public needed to report domestic violence crime to the Police.

         ii.             Confirmed that cash received from ticketing for speeding crimes was collected on a three county basis being Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.  A reasonable sum of money would be received back for Cambridgeshire and the money would be put towards road safety.

       iii.             If someone parked in such a way to cause an obstruction then the Police can take action.

       iv.             The numbers of PCSOs had been reduced however there were more Police Officers than when he came into office.  Currently the Police had a balanced budget for this year and the next year, further work had been put into joint working with Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire in order to make further savings. 

 

 

The Committee received a report from the Safer Communities Manager regarding the County Council’s street lighting proposals. 

 

The Strategic Projects Manager (Assets and Commissioning) Cambridgeshire County Council also attended the meeting to respond to questions.  A document was also made available at the meeting which provided contact details for the County Council’s street lighting consultation proposals. 

 

A Member of the public made the following statement regarding the County Council’s street lighting application:

 

1.   Ms Nathan asked a) what the County Council were doing to inform the public of the proposals to switch off and further dim street lights, b) what the County Council were doing to make people aware of the consultation and how they could participate, c) asked how people would know that other formats for the consultation documentation were available if people were not online and d) asked if responses were overwhelmingly negative what difference this would make to the County Council’s plans.

 

The Strategic Projects Manager (Assets and Commissioning) Cambridgeshire County Council said the consultation had been published in the Cambridge Evening Newspaper, however he would speak with colleagues to ask that a link from the street light consultation webpage was put on the Council’s main web page.  A consultation with Parish, City and District Council’s had ended in September 2015.  The public consultation ran until the 11 December 2015.  The Highways Committee would consider the decision in January 2016.  The provision of paper based consultation documents in libraries was a good idea and this would be reported back to colleagues.    

 

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             Asked whether the street lighting would be turned off at the Carter cycle bridge.

ii.            Asked for the definition of a major traffic route.

iii.           Asked what the County Council would do if a negative response was received.

iv.          Expressed concern that the roads to the Station would be dark as this was a major route; the street lights could be dimmed 20-30 minutes after the last train and would need to come on 20-30 minutes before the first train of the day.

v.           Questioned how realistic the projected saving figure was.

vi.          Requested that the risk assessments undertaken to determine whether street lights could be dimmed or turned off were published with the methodology also published.

vii.         Requested the message was taken back to the County Council that Cambridge was different to the rest of the County as it ran 24 hours a day.  The City had 2 major universities and had a very busy city centre which would retain the street lighting, however under the proposals when people returned home the areas they returned to would not be lit.  

 

In response to member’s questions, the Strategic Projects Manager (Assets and Commissioning) Cambridgeshire County Council said the following:

i.             The lights which formed part of the Carter bridge structure were owned by the people that owned the bridge.  A risk assessment would be undertaken on each and every road taking conflict areas into consideration, street lights would not be switched off on main traffic routes.  Areas where the Police commented that street lights should not be turned off would also be taken into consideration.

ii.            A major traffic route was defined by the road hierarchy, for example Mill Road was a major traffic route but link roads that come off Mill Road would not be defined as such.

iii.           The County Council needed to make substantial savings (£41 million), if savings could not be made from the street lighting budget then savings would need to come from other areas.

iv.          Some of the projected savings were due to be realised from the PFI (Private Finance Initiative) contract, which was still being carried out.

 

 

 

The Committee received a report from the Team Leader Cycling Projects Cambridgeshire County Council regarding the Abbey Chesterton Bridge.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             The route would link all 4 wards of East Area, questioned the routing on Ditton Meadows and how the route would traverse the meadows without affecting the character of the area.

ii.            Questioned who owned the land surrounding the Abbey Chesterton Bridge and also whether this would affect the ability to deliver the bridge. 

iii.           Commented that this was an exciting project and hoped that something as progressive as this project became exemplary.

 

In response to member’s questions, the Team Leader Cycling Projects Cambridgeshire County Council said the following:

       i.                The Bridge was not just a piece of transport infrastructure and there was scope for planting, ponds etc.

     ii.                The land where the bridge was proposed to be constructed was owned by private landowners who were all supportive of the project.

 

   

The Committee received a report from the Team Leader Cycling Projects Cambridgeshire County Council regarding the Access from the Rail Station to Cambridge Leisure Park feasibility study.

 

Members of the public made the following statements regarding the feasibility study for access from the Rail Station to Cambridge Leisure Park:

 

1.   Mr Gawthrope stated that the multi-storey car park site could be used more effectively as it was virtually empty all the time. 

 

2.   A member of the public asked if any funding was available to improve the signage to highlight the short cut to Hills Road.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

i.             Commented that the item should come back to East Area committee for consideration once the Local Plan had been approved as there was the potential to be able to deliver a bridge.

 

Resolved (nem con):

 

       i.                That the item should come back to East Area committee for consideration once Cambridge City’s Local Plan had been approved.

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

The decision was noted.

As Councillor Owers had resigned as Vice-Chair, Councillor Baigent proposed and Councillor Roberts seconded, the nomination of Councillor Smith as Vice-Chair.

 

Resolved that Councillor Smith be Vice-Chair for the remainder of the civic year.