Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Meeting Room - CHVLC - Cherry Hinton Village Leisure Centre, Colville Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, CB1 9EJ. View directions
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Dryden. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2015. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2015 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Matters and Actions Arising from the Minutes PDF 56 KB Committee Action Sheet from last meeting attached. Minutes: Matters arising from the 5 October 2015 meeting were reviewed under the relevant 14 December agenda headings. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Open Forum Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking. Minutes: 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Policing & Safer Neighbourhoods - SAC 14 Dec 2015 PDF 397 KB Minutes: 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:
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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
County Council - Street Lighting Proposal SAC PDF 115 KB 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 Minutes: 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Cycling Projects Update - SAC PDF 60 KB 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. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor McPherson referred to the 5 October 2015 Committee Action
Sheet.
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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Re-Ordering of Agenda 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Environmental Data Reports - SAC PDF 4 MB Minutes: 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
New suggested priorities
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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
S106 Priority-Setting: South Area Project Proposals PDF 226 KB Minutes: 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 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. |