Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Dryden.

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
Councillor Ashton	15/121/SAC	Personal and Prejudicial: Chairman of Cherry Hinton Resident’s Association (making an s106 bid).   Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote after speaking as a member of the public on recommendation 2.5.
Councillor Avery	15/121/SAC	Personal: Lives in Accordia Estate.
Councillor Avery	15/121/SAC	Personal and Prejudicial: Provided assistance to the Hobson Conduit Bridge group (making an s106 bid) in a personal capacity.   Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote after speaking as a member of the public on recommendation 2.3.
Councillor McPherson	15/121/SAC	Personal: Member of Cherry Hinton Resident’s Association (making an s106 bid).   Withdrew from meeting Chair for recommendation 2.5.
Councillor Pippas	15/121/SAC	Personal and Prejudicial: President of the Fundraising Committee for the Greek Community of St Athanasios and member of the Greek Orthodox Community (making an s106 bid).   Withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote after speaking as a member of the public on recommendation 2.4.
Councillor Taylor	15/121/SAC	Personal: Member of Friends of Rock Road Library.

 

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Committee Action Sheet from last meeting attached.

Matters arising from the 5 October 2015 meeting were reviewed under the relevant 14 December agenda headings.

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

1.    Mr Woodburn queried when the 20 mph limit would come into effect on Cherry Hinton Road (11 December 2015 was the expected implementation date). He also asked for a new speed camera to be installed to enforce 20 mph limit roundels (signs) when they were put in place.

 

ACTION POINT: Head of Streets and Open Spaces to respond to Mr Woodburn’s question about when the 20 mph limit would come into effect on Cherry Hinton Road.

 

2.    A member of the public was concerned that 20 acres may be lost from the Queen Edith’s green belt as highlighted in the consultation process on the Local Plan.

 

Councillor Moore responded:

                 i.          Recommended that residents responded to the consultation.

               ii.          The area of land was within the remit of South Cambridgeshire District Council, so South Cambridgeshire Councillors should be made aware of (resident/consultation) comments.

             iii.          There was a need to preserve the nature reserve and fauna therein.

             iv.          Took issue with the land being included in the Local Plan as a possible site for development.

 

3.    Mr Douglas asked if:

                i.          The passageway between Long Road and Addenbrooke’s Hospital could be tidied up.

              ii.          Steps could be put into the bank between Long Road and the guided busway, to stop people sliding down the bank and going through a break in the fence, as a shortcut instead of using the underpass.

 

Councillor Moore said he had raised this issue with Cycling Officers, who had noted the suggestion. Councillor Moore said he would follow this up with Cycling Officers.

 

4.    Mr Parker raised the following issues:

                i.          Expressed grave concern that cyclists rode on the pavement in Trumpington Road. Specifically in the Porson Road area near the golf course.

              ii.          There had been various collisions between cyclists and pedestrians.

           iii.          Pedestrians faced anti-social behaviour when remonstrating with cyclists.

            iv.          This was a citywide issue.

              v.          The issue had been reported to the City Council, Police and Police Commissioner. Limited short term responses had been implemented, but cyclists continued to ride on pavements.

 

South Area Committee (SAC) Councillors responded:

                 i.          People should not cycle on the pavement. This area was for pedestrians only. Bicycles should be ridden on cycleways.

               ii.          Signage was unclear in the Trumpington area to show where the pavement could be shared by cyclists and pedestrians, and where it was for pedestrian use only. Some members of the public thought signage was clear, others did not.

 

Councillor Moore said:

                 i.          The City Council had adopted an open access policy.

               ii.          Cycling on the pavement caused significant problems for people with mobility and sensory impairments.

             iii.          Addressing the issue started with clearer signage, but further action was required.

 

Councillor Ashwood said she had liaised with Mike Davies (Team Leader - Cycling Projects Major Infrastructure Delivery, County Council) who had advised that signage could show where people may cycle, but not where shared pavement cycleways ended. SAC agreed to raise this issue with the Team Leader - Cycling Projects later in the meeting (minute number 15/119/SAC).

 

5.    Mrs Slatter raised the following issues:

                i.          Trumpington had high levels of housing but too few stops to get a good bus service near people’s houses.

              ii.          There was also a lack of pick up points that could be shared with other transport such as mini buses.

 

Councillor Crawford responded that she was aware the County Council was likely to cut bus subsidies, so this may impact on future services. Councillor Ashton added that Cherry Hinton had various bus stops, but not many bus services, the two things were not linked.

 

ACTION: Councillor McPherson to write to Andy Campbell (Stagecoach) and Heidi Allen MP to make them aware of issues raised at South Area Committee regarding bus stops and services. Also to invite them to a future meeting.

The Committee received a report from Police Sergeant Horton regarding the policing and safer neighbourhoods trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the Committee on 29 June 2015. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details). Previous priorities and engagement activity noted in the report were:

       i.          Target the supply of controlled drugs (Class A).

     ii.          Target road safety by addressing anti-social cycling and speeding.

   iii.          Management of the Cambridge Lakes

 

Councillor McPherson referred to the Committee Action Sheet:

 

ACTION	LEAD OFFICER/MEMBER	PROGRESS
PCSO Bailley to liaise with Enforcement Officers regarding the issuing of parking tickets in the area of Headington Drive and Fulbourn Road. Councillors Crawford and McPherson to also monitor the situation in conjunction with the Highways Authority.	Councillors Crawford and McPherson. PCSO Bailley	Councillor Crawford liaised with Evan Locklin to request a mirror and double yellow lines, but these would not be forthcoming. She undertook to follow this up.   PCSO Bailley said no further issues had been reported.

 

Members of the public raised the following policing issues:

       i.          Burglaries in Cherry Hinton where the majority of victims were part of the Asian community.

     ii.          Cycling on the pavement in the Trumpington area (also a citywide issue).

 

The Committee discussed the following policing issues:

       i.          Inconsiderate parking and associated anti-social behaviour (ASB) by parents collecting children from schools. Referred to areas monitored as listed in P27-28 of the agenda pack and asked for the Homerton Children’s Centre to be included. SAC stated the Police should focus on enforcement more than education due to repeated offending.

     ii.          A growing conflict between cars, bikes and pedestrians.

   iii.          Cyclists riding at night without lights. Asked the Police to continue enforcement action in areas already monitored (eg Hills Road), and also to look at other areas such as Mill Road and Trumpington.

   iv.          Rising levels of burglary and violent crime. Particularly burglaries in Queen Edith’s.

    v.          Inconsiderate parking by contractors in Queen Edith’s and associated ASB. This exacerbated existing parking and traffic flow issues.

   vi.          Signposted https://www.immobilise.com/ as a website where people could register property identification details to help with recovery if it was stolen.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Police Sergeant said the following:

       i.          A number of people had been arrested for burglary, as reported in the Cambridge News. Crime levels were now expected to fall. Signposted Operation Hunter which was designed to combat burglaries.

     ii.          A Detective Chief Inspector had responded to the letter regarding burglaries forwarded by the Mayor from a member of the public.

   iii.          Police were tackling cycling on the pavement across the city.

   iv.          Referred to answers in SAC 29 June 2015 regarding how violent crime statistics were reported, and why the current format was used. Domestic abuse was included in the figures, which impacted on trends as people were more willing to report incidents.

    v.          There had only been one reported incident of inconsiderate parking by contractors in Queen Edith’s. Requested details be sent to the Police for PCSOs to follow up.

 

Members of the public suggested the Highway Code could be better publicised through:

                 i.          Bikeability courses for school children.

               ii.          Leaflet and cycleway map handouts could be provided with rented bikes.

 

SAC discussed the issue of cycling on pavements:

       i.          Cambridge had a high population turn over due to the number of students attracted to the city. The population could change by 25% each year.

     ii.          The Police had visited language schools to pass on Highway Code information.

   iii.          Councillor Sanders suggested that a small laminated safer cycling poster could be tied to rental bike handle bars and people sign to say they have read it (as per vehicle rental disclaimers).

   iv.          Councillor Taylor said the County Council were looking to provide information for vulnerable road users. She would be happy to pass on any cycle safety information the Police may care to provide, suggesting it was in a multi-language and pictorial format for easy reference.

 

Councillor McPherson proposed the following issues could be addressed by citywide priorities:

·       Violent crime.

·       Burglaries in the South Area (as part of Operation Hunter).

 

Councillor McPherson formally proposed to add the following priorities to the Officer’s recommendation:

·       Enforcement action against inconsiderate/illegal parking around schools the city. Also speeding.

·       Enforcement action against cycling on the pavement around the city. Also cycling at night without lights.

 

The additional priorities were unanimously agreed.

 

The following priorities were unanimously agreed:

       i.          Continue to target the supply of controlled drugs (Class A).

     ii.          Enforcement action against inconsiderate/illegal parking around schools the city. Also speeding.

   iii.          Enforcement action against cycling on the pavement around the city. Also cycling at night without lights.

This will be an opportunity for County Officers to report back on actions taken to address concerns raised by members of the public 5 October 2015

The Committee received an information report from the Communications and Engagement Officer (Cambridgeshire County Council).

 

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

       i.          Raised concerns that costs would be transferred from the County Council to the NHS. If the County Council tried to reduce costs by switching off lights, people may have accidents in the dark and so require hospital treatment, thus impacting on the NHS budget.

     ii.          Cost transfer concerns were raised with Sir Graham Bright, but no action was taken. Asked for a study to be undertaken to measure cost transfers between public sector budgets.

   iii.          Concern that the County Council had changed its original proposal setting out which areas would be lit or unlit.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Communications and Engagement Officer said the following:

       i.          The County Council needed to switch off a number of street lights in order to make savings. Areas of the city that were unlit would be treated the same as unlit rural areas.

     ii.          Personal circumstances were not factored into lighting proposals. The County Council provided street lighting, not lighting for the areas between streets and people’s homes. Therefore lighting could vary between different residential areas and sections of transport links. The County Council/Highways Authority were only obliged to light obstructions on the highway.

   iii.          The issue of cost transfer between public sector budgets would be looked at in liaison with partner organisations. Lighting would be reviewed if issues arose.

   iv.          Consultation on lighting proposals was now finished. The County Council would make a decision regarding street lighting in 2016. The decision would be fed back to all Area Committees.

 

The Communications and Engagement Officer undertook to respond to the following questions after the meeting:

       i.          Councillor Sanders: The trips and falls particularly to elderly/vulnerable residents and the impact on the County Council’s insurance indemnity.

     ii.          Councillor Pippas: Why can’t every second alternative light be switched off instead of a blanket switch off?

   iii.          Councillor O’Connell: How much is the City Council predicted to save as part of the County’s £272,000 overall annual saving?

   iv.          Councillor Ashwood mentioned investigating the placement of 100 new columns in Girton but then removing a much higher proportion in the residential areas.

    v.          Councillor McPherson queried about lighting and the guided busway.

 

ACTION: Communications and Engagement Officer to respond to SAC questions after the meeting.

 

Councillor McPherson, speaking as SAC Chair, thanked the Communications and Engagement Officer for attending, particularly as this was her second week in post. Tom Blackburne-Maze (County Council Head of Assets and Commissioning) had been invited to attend, so Councillor McPherson would ask for a response from him post meeting regarding issues raised.

This will be an opportunity for Skanska/County Officers to report back on actions taken to address concerns raised by members of the public 5 October 2015.

 

Also attached is an information note from Bob Menzies (Service Director, Strategy & Development) in response to ‘Issues raised at South Area Committee regarding the bridleway alongside the Guided Busway’ from the 5 October Open Forum.

Councillor McPherson referred to the 5 October 2015 Committee Action Sheet.

 

ACTION	LEAD OFFICER/MEMBER	PROGRESS
Councillor McPherson to write to Graham Hughes (County Council Executive Director of Economy, Transport & Environment) to make him aware of issues raised at South Area Committee regarding the Guided Busway maintenance path that is now used as a cycleway.	Councillor McPherson	Cllr McPherson contacted Graham Hughes. Joel Carré also contacted Clare Rankin (Cycling and Walking Officer) so she was aware of the issues raised and had the opportunity to provide any further information. A response has been received from Bob Menzies Service Director, Strategy & Development (agenda pack P39 – 40).
Skanska representatives to monitor and take enforcement action regarding the following contractor actions: ·       Leaving vehicle engines running when stationary. ·       Parking on verges. ·       Use of pedestrian friendly barriers ie ones that did not pose a trip hazard.   Skanska representatives to attend next South Area Committee and give general work progress feedback.	Skanska representatives	Mike Davies liaised with Skanska representatives regarding attendance 14 December 2015 SAC to feedback on issues (agenda pack P35 – 38).
Councillor McPherson invited Mike Davies (Team Leader - Cycling Projects Major Infrastructure Delivery) back to the next meeting to report on Hills Road cycle way progress.	Councillor McPherson	Mike Davies to attend 14 December 2015 SAC to feedback on issues (agenda pack P35 – 38).

 

The Committee received an information report from the Team Leader (Cycling Projects), Cambridgeshire County Council regarding:

       i.          Hills Road Traffic and Safety Scheme.

     ii.          City Deal - Cross City Cycling Improvements.

   iii.          Cherry Hinton High Street.

   iv.          The Tins.

    v.          Queen Edith’s Way and Cherry Hinton Road.

   vi.          Trumpington Road.

 

The Committee received an information report from the Scheme Delivery Manager (Skanska) regarding the Hills Road Traffic and Safety Scheme:

       i.          The project was meant to finish in March 2016, but would now take until the summer.

     ii.          Issues raised at the 5 October SAC meeting regarding the Addenbrooke’s to city centre side of the Hills Road cycleway had been noted. The intention was to learn from them avoid the same issues during work on the city centre to Addenbrooke’s side of the Hills Road cycleway. Skanska was dependent on work by some of its partners (eg UK Power) to implement this.

 

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

       i.          Requested that road user safety be considered when undertaking work. For example, an uneven road surface and blocked pavements caused safety concerns, particularly for sensory/mobility impaired people.

     ii.          Referred to issues raised earlier in SAC (minute items 15/116/SAC and 15/117/SAC) regarding unclear signage on the Trumpington cycleway, and asked if this could be improved through measures such as painting information (eg end of cycleway) on the cycleway/shared pavement.

 

The Delivery Manager (Skanska) said the following in response to questions from Councillors:

       i.          Skanska was working with CamSight to address safety concerns. For example, by moving bus stop locations (to make them more accessible) and investigating ways to keep people informed of obstacles.

     ii.          Contractor induction information covered how staff could monitor potential hazards, assist passers-by, and erect warnings using high contrast markings (to make them more obvious).

 

The Team Leader (Cycling Projects) said the following in response to questions from Councillors:

       i.          The build period for the Trumpington Road scheme should be confirmed in January 2016.

     ii.          There were many shared use paths in the city, and various issues associated with them as pedestrians/cyclists were unsure where people could/not cycle. This cross-city issue needed a thorough review to address, but the County Council was unlikely to be able to do so due to declining staff and resource levels. The current focus of infrastructure work was on major projects where funding could be bid for (eg from Central Government) to implement this. It may be possible to address cycleway information issues through maintenance work.

   iii.          The Cambridge Cycling Campaign gave out Highway Code information at Fresher Fairs and language schools to try and improve cycle safety in the city.

   iv.          There was a joint City and County Council project team to co-ordinate 20 MPH, public realm and cycleway work in Cherry Hinton. The intention was to limit disruption to residents.

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 South 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 South Area for the January to March 2016:

 

Continuing priorities

 

Number	Priority details
1	Early morning, daytime and weekend patrols for dog fouling on Bliss Way/Tenby Close, Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground, and Cherry Hinton Hall.
2	Enforcement targeted approach to areas where Addenbrookes site joins residential areas such as Hills Road and Red Cross Lane and to work with Addenbrookes to work towards the bus station area being cleaned up.
3	Enforcement to work with the County Council, against utilities and companies that damage the verge on Mowbray and Fendon Road.
4	Enforcement action against nuisance vehicles being repaired at Arran Close.
5	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.

 

New suggested priorities

 

Number	Priority details
6	Deep cleanse, to include removal of graffiti, flyposting, litter, dog fouling, vegetation cut back and sweeping at Limekiln Road, Cherry Hinton Hall car park and New Bit.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

       i.          Painting bollards in south area wards with white paint so they were less of a trip hazard. For example:

a.    Hulatt Road – Wulfstan Way near the block of flats.

b.    Hulatt Road – Mowbray Road.

     ii.          Putting in a waiting area for the northern bus stop on Wulfstan Way so people did not block the pavement.

   iii.          Tidying litter in Hills Road/Long Road and Baldock Way.

   iv.          More frequent emptying of the recycling bin and site on Colville Road as it regularly overflows.

    v.          Clearing of leaf mould, litter and general tidy up in Teversham Drift.

   vi.          Changing the time from 07:45 for removal of leaf mould on Brooklands Avenue. The service was valued, the time was inconvenient.

 

ACTION POINT: The Committee asked the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement to investigate if the following actions were possible:

        i.          Painting ‘no cycling’ signs on the pavement (to check with County Council).

      ii.          Investigate the status of the vehicle (cannot guarantee removal) of motor home parked in Church End since early 2015.

 

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

       i.          Daventry Council had implemented a Public Space Protection Order that allowed the Council to fine people who take a dog for a walk without at least one bag to collect poo. This was implemented on a basis of evidenced need. Cambridge City Council did not have a similar Public Space Protection Order at present, but did provide bag poo bags and was currently trialling a dispenser. Other measures to reduce dog fouling would be reviewed in future.

     ii.          The Operations Manager was looking for suggestions of activities that could be considered for community pay back. She would liaise with the County Council if any of these fell within their area of responsibility. Gunhild play area equipment and fencing maintenance were suggested.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor McPherson formally proposed adding the following additional recommendation 7 to those in the Officer’s report:

 

Clearing of leaf mould, litter and general tidy up in Teversham Drift.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this additional recommendation.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to approve priorities for action as amended above.

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

 

The report explained that the council ran its latest S106 bidding round between June and August 2015. Proposals were invited for projects that could help mitigate the impact of development in Cambridge through funding from generic, off-site developer contributions. The report set out details of twelve proposals for local projects in South Area, of which eleven were recommended for S106 funding. Whilst the other proposal (for the next phase of the Cherry Hinton community hub) was not yet ready to be considered, the report recommended ring-fencing some local S106 funding for improved community facilities in Cherry Hinton.

 

The report also highlighted that the S106 funding available for devolved decision-making was tapering off and running down. Even though South Area had more devolved funds than any other area, it faced particular pressures caused by significant variations in availability between wards. Care had been taken to ensure the each ward could get as much benefit as possible from available S106 contributions.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager drew attention to the following clarifications and updates:

       i.          The devolved funding availability figures in Table 1 on agenda page 68 were rounded to the nearest £25,000.

     ii.          The report (including recommendation 2.1e) should make clear that the community facilities grant proposal at St Paul’s Primary School is for a multi-purpose community space outside of school hours.

   iii.          Queen Edith Medical Practice staff had contacted the Council to offer strong support for the three applications for S106 developer funds for projects at Nightingale Park.

   iv.          There was a typographical error in paragraph 4.28 of the report regarding Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground. The recommended figure should be £25,000 as per recommendation 2.1f.

 

4.28   Officer comments: There are elements of this proposal that are eligible for S106 funding and which can be taken forward.

a.  This would be for a scheme focussed on: improved access; path improvements, landscaping and a new pond. It is recommended that £20,000 £25,000 of devolved informal open space contributions should be allocated for these works.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Growth Project Manager said the following:

       i.          There was sufficient devolved S106 funding available for the Area Committee to make the S106 allocations set out in report recommendations 2.1 – 2.5.

     ii.          The proposal for a £127,000 grant for the next phase of the development of Cherry Hinton community hub at Cherry Hinton library was not yet ready to be considered. This was because of both the limited levels of devolved S106 community facilities funding left available from developments in and around Cherry Hinton (currently £10,000) and the need for greater clarity about the details of the next phase of the Cherry Hinton community hub project, its costs, project management, viability and timescales. Attention was drawn to footnote 13 and paragraphs 4.10 – 4.13 of the report.

   iii.          Recommendation 2.5 referred to ear-marking at least £10,000 of devolved community facilities S106 contributions to improved community facilities in Cherry Hinton. This was on the expectation that other devolved community facilities S106 contributions, which had been agreed but were still awaited from developments in and around Cherry Hinton, would be added to the earmarked allocation once received.

   iv.          Confirmation that the grant applications for community facility improvements at Rock Road and Cherry Hinton libraries had been considered consistently, even though the recommendations were different. The recommendations in these two cases reflected differences in the levels of grant requested, the availability of community facilities S106 funding available in/around Queen Edith’s and Cherry Hinton wards and the clarity of the specific project proposals.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved:

       i.          (Unanimously) to allocate devolved S106 funding to the following local project proposals, subject to (as appropriate) project appraisal and community use agreement:

A.   up to £200,000 (outdoor sports contributions) to phase 2 of refurbishment of pavilion at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground, which is in addition to the £100,000 already allocated for phase 1;

B.   up to £203,000 more (up to £170k outdoor sports and around £33k community facilities) for the new pavilion at Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground, in addition to the existing £200,000 already earmarked (and now allocated) for the project;

C.   a community facilities grant of up to £45,000 to improve community facilities at the Lutheran Church on Shaftesbury Road;

D.   a community facilities grant of up to £16,000 to improve the community room facilities at Rock Road library;

E.   a community facilities grant of up to £40,000 for a multi-purpose community space at St Paul’s Primary School;

F.    £25,000 (informal open space) for a community green space on the former bowling green at Nightingale Avenue Rec Ground;

G.  around £25,000 (£15k play areas and £10k informal open space) to improve Reilly Way play area, Cherry Hinton;

H.   around £60,000 (£35k play areas and £25k informal open space) to upgrade Nightingale Avenue Rec play area;

I.      up to £15,000 (play areas contributions) to provide junior ‘fit kit’ equipment at the Accordia development.

     ii.          (Unanimously) to de-allocate an existing, devolved S106 funding (£20,000 of informal open space contributions) for an adult trim trail at the Accordia development, given that junior ‘fit kit’ is now proposed for that site.

 

Councillor Avery withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote after speaking as a member of the public on recommendation 2.3. He returned for recommendations 2.4 and 2.5.

 

   iii.          (By 7 votes to 0) to allocate devolved informal open space S106 contributions to a grant of up to £35,000 for a footbridge across Hobson’s Brook at the Accordia development, subject to project appraisal, planning approval and agreement to transfer the asset to the city council.

 

Councillor Pippas withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote after speaking as a member of the public on recommendation 2.4. He returned for recommendation 2.5.

 

   iv.          (By 7 votes to 0) to contribute £25,000 of devolved community facilities S106 contributions towards a £150k grant to the Greek Orthodox Community, to refurbish the Memorial Hall and church hall on Cherry Hinton Road, subject to project appraisal and community use agreement.

 

Councillor Ashton asked for it to be minuted that the Church Community Facilities Cherry Hinton Road/Hartington Grove lies in the East Area, and at a time when South Area 106 funds are unable to meet their own Area requests, it was difficult to see why SAC should match East funding of £40,000.

 

If funding was given the principle will have been set, so he hoped that in future consideration will also be given to funding from the central pot and transferred from other Wards to enable Community projects to be funded.

 

Councillor Ashton withdrew from discussion and room, and did not vote after speaking as a member of the public on recommendation 2.5. He returned after the vote on recommendation 2.5.

 

Councillor McPherson withdrew from acting as the meeting Chair for recommendation 2.5 and did not vote. Councillor Meftah took the Chair for this vote.

 

    v.          (By 6 votes to 0) to earmark at least £10,000 of devolved community facilities S106 contributions to improved community facilities in Cherry Hinton, although the proposal for the next phase of the development of the Cherry Hinton community hub is not yet ready to be considered.