Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Wesley Methodist Church, Christ's Pieces, Cambridge, CB1 1LG
Contact: Claire Tunnicliffe Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Reid and Gehring as they were both in Paris for the Local Government Association regarding climate change talks. |
|
Re-ordering of the Agenda Minutes: Under paragraph 4.2.1 pf the Council Procedure Rules, the
Mayor 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. |
|
Matters and Actions arising from the Minutes PDF 60 KB Minutes: 15/105/WCAC: Heavy
goods vehicles on Huntingdon Road: To write to Cambridgeshire Constabulary
supporting the need for action, highlighting the distress this issue has caused
to residents and stressing the need of enforcement. Councillor Cantrill informed the Committee that he had written a letter
to the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Hertfordshire
Constabulary supporting the need for action. Councillor Holland updated the Committee to advise that Sonia Hanson,
Traffic Manager, Cambridgeshire County Council, was working with Bedfordshire Police
to look at these issues on Huntingdon Road.
15/115/WCAC: Parking on Midsummer
Common: To arrange a meeting with residents, Councillor Bick, Alistair Wilson
and Jane Connell (Principal Solicitor) to discuss this matter further. Councillor Bick advised that a meeting had taken place on 27th
October with the relevant Officers and members of the public. A number of
actions had been raised as an outcome of the meeting which would be shared with
the publication of the minutes for this meeting. These actions had been minuted by the Alistair Wilson, Open Space Manager, Cambridge City Council (ACTION). |
|
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: No declarations of interest were declared. |
|
Open Forum Refer to the ‘Information for the Public’ section for rules on speaking Minutes: Richard
Taylor: Would like to bring to the public’s attention how out of date the
information on the Jesus Green Association notice board is, with information on
display dated November 2014. Councillor Cantrill advised that this was not
a City Council notice board but this would be brought to the attention of the
Jesus Green Association (ACTION). Mr Hallaway: As a disabled (blind) person does Cambridgeshire
County Council have any plans to install a pedestrian crossing with audible
signals across St Andrews Street? Councillor Cearns stated that a proposal had been accepted for funding
for a feasibility study under the Local Highways Improvement Scheme but as yet
no work had been undertaken. This matter would be followed up with the relevant
Officers and an update given at the next meeting. There was an ongoing
issue of staff capacity to deliver the schemes that received funding approval. Bev
Nicolson: A notice went up ages ago about the zebra crossing on Albion Row but
no work has been done yet. When is it due to be installed? Councillor Hipkin informed the Committee that
the Officer responsible for the delivery of the project had left the County
Council and there had been problems finding any paper trail. A new survey would
be undertaken to determine if a zebra crossing would be required. Tim
Brown: When will the Police seriously enforce the one-way cycle ways in the City. I am appalled at how the law is being flouted. Councillor Cantrill replied that at the last
meeting of the West Central Area Committee that the Police priority of Traffic
Junction Enforcement (which included cyclists) had been set. An update would be
given by the Police at the next meeting when this matter could be discussed
further. Bev
Nicolson: What has happened to the progress on Chestnut House? (Corner of Huntingdon Road and Histon
Road.) Going past it, it's clear it hasn't been completed yet as the
windows have not been finished, nor is the facing to
the lower half of the building. Councillor Hipkin responded that the facing
material on the ground floor was not of an appropriate quality when it was
first put on the building so it had been removed and had left ‘glue
scars’. The windows had not been
completed as they were associated with the facing material problem. The issue
was being looked at by the City Council’s Enforcement Team. Bev
Nicolson: I note the committee is asked
to recommend funding to shore up the sides of the
paths on Parker's Piece. It's been very noticeable in the past year that the
grass gets churned up quite badly, so will reinforcement help to reduce that? Councillor Bick advised that the question
highlighted a broader problem on Parker’s Piece with the grass becoming churned
up due to the impact of the large events that took place on the Piece. One such
event was the ice rink that was installed each year over the Christmas period,
known as the ‘North Pole Experience’. Residents were encouraged to give
feedback on this event. It was important to ensure that a balance was met so
that the Piece could be enjoyed by those who used the ice rink and those who
used the Piece all the year round. Councillor Gillespie supported the points
raised by Councillor Bick and highlighted damage had also been caused on the
Piece by the Student’s Fresher’s Fair. Councillor Cearns stated that there seemed to
be an encroachment on what was acceptable and that care was required to limit
any damage. Additional funding had been allocated from Cambridgeshire County
Council for repairs to the paths. Member
of the public: At the top of the Queens
Road Site of the ‘Backs’ at the entrance to Trinity College, a temporary car
park had been put in during the construction work but this now seemed to have
become permanent When would the car park
be taken down? Councillor Nethsingha advised that she would
investigate this matter and report back at the next meeting (ACTION). Councillor
Holt: Please could we have a co-ordinated set of seats / benches across the
city for elderly people who come into the City on the bus but need a ‘sit down’
before they go home. Councillor Cantrill advised that as part of
the City Council’s Environmental Improvement Scheme additional seating had been
installed in the Newnham Ward approximately one year ago. This idea could be
put forward for the next round of bids for funding under this scheme. Councillor
Holland: Wished to bring to the Committee’s attention that a cyclist who had a
collision with a coach on Trumpington Road had very
sadly passed away. Coaches should not be permitted into the City. Councillors echoed the concerns of Councillor
Holland and welcomed comments from Councillor Bick that this was a bigger issue
with an urgent need to bring forward an improved traffic management plan for
coaches/ buses/ large vehicles and tourists, which would be evaluated by the
City Deal. However there would always be a need for coaches and buses into the
City but improved safe cycle routes were also needed. It was also suggested
that tourist coaches should be made to use the Park and Ride sites. |
|
Cambourne to Cambridge Bus Priority Proposals To welcome Bob Menzies, (Service Director, Strategy & Development) & Ashley Heller (Team Leader) from Cambridgeshire County Council. A presentation will be given on the Cambourne to Cambridge Bus Priority Proposals. Minutes: The Chair welcomed Ashley Heller, Team Leader, Transport Projects, Cambridgeshire County Council who gave a presentation on the Cambourne to Cambridge Bus Priority Proposals, advising the consultation had now finished. Mr Heller described the route into Cambridge down Madingley Road as ‘unreliable’ and advised with further
economic development the unreliability would increase. The modelling data showed that there was
significant congestion starting at Madingley Mulch,
which would get worse if nothing was done. The Park & Ride will encourage
car drivers to access the City in buses and help to reduce the congestion along
the route. The Committee were
then shown the six options that had been put forward for consultation and the
business case explained. Comments from the Committee: i. Specified that the environmental impact of the scheme had been ignored. ii. Stated that the proposals could not be described as visionary. iii. Proposal should be put forward with solutions; it was not good enough to say that any scheme taken forward would need to be mitigated. iv. Disappointed that there had been no feedback from the consultation given at the meeting. v. Public engagement was important and further engagement should be encouraged when looking at the preferred schemes. vi. Important to look at the way that ideas were presented to the public and have a design that people could be inspired by. vii. Enquired if the bus lane shown on some of the proposals were for a guided bus or a standard bus. viii. Questioned if there were any consideration of a small shuttle bus service. ix. Asked what form of energy the buses would be using. In response to
comments from the public and the Committee the Team Leader, Transport Projects, responded with the
following: i.
The
project was very early in the process in engagement with the public and would
be developed. ii.
Further
technical work would then be undertaken derived from the consultation and
reported back to the City Deal in September followed by further public
consultation. iii.
Confirmed
that if alternative modes of transports were put forward for consideration this
would be looked at but had to be realistic in what could be delivered iv.
Advised
that due to the size of the City and the fairly low density of population this
had to be taken into account and a bus way system would be the most efficient. v.
Buses
were seen as the way forward to cut congestion in the City, fewer vehicles
would reduce traffic pollution. vi.
To use
smaller shuttle buses would mean an increase in the number of buses of that
size to bring people into the City. vii.
The first fully electric double-decker bus would
be soon be in service to trial in London as transport authorities try to reduce
the capital’s air pollution levels which was being looked at with interest.
Councillor Cantrill thanked Ashely Heller for
his time and looked forward to the results of the first phase public
consultation. |
|
S106 Priority-Setting: West/Central Area Project Proposals PDF 80 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager regarding the local
project proposals received during the S106 bidding round between June to 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. Comments from the
public: i.
Queried if the reinforcing of the grass edges to
paths across Parker’s Piece would be successful long term; this was a large amount
of expenditure (up to £75,000) for this project. Comments from the
Committee:
i.
Requested if an update could be given on the Histon Road public art project.
ii.
Highlighted the success of St Augustine’s Community
Centre and the installation of a new kitchen at St Mark’s funded by S106
devolved funding, which had helped to increase usage of both buildings.
iii.
Noted how successful the installation of the solar
studs on Lammas Land had been for a small amount of S106 funding. iv.
Suggested a trim trail on Grantchester
Road as part of the devolved outdoor sports contribution which would be
considered at the next West Central Area Committee.
v.
Noted the proposals for the hockey pitches at the
University of Cambridge Sports Ground on Wilberforce Road would be reported to the Community Services Scrutiny
Committee in March 2016 and questioned if planning permission was required
before S106 could be requested.
vi.
Expressed disappointment there had been no discussion with Ward
Councillors regarding the possible work on Parker’s Piece due to the
possibility of additional street furniture, ie the
new fences/fenceline extensions on the land. vii.
Enquired why cycling safety on Storey’s Way had not been included in the
report. viii.
Asked why Shelley Row play area had been included in the
recommendations. In response to
comments from the public and the Committee the Urban Growth Project Manager
responded with the following:
i.
Page 22 of the agenda pack, appendix B, referred to
the Histon Road public art project with installation
expected in Winter 2015/16 (ie, between December
2015-February 2016).
ii.
Paths on Parker’s Piece would be re-layed by the County Council, with a new drainage system
being introduced which had proved successful on Midsummer Common.
iii.
Projects could be put forward for S106 funding
before any planning permission needed was secured. Officers would expect the
issue of planning permission to be addressed at the project appraisal stage (so
S106 funding could not be confirmed and the appraisal would not be approved
unless the necessary planning permission had been secured. iv.
With regards to the proposal to reinforce the grass
edges to paths across Parker’s Piece, Councillors had not been consulted yet as
this was currently a proposal, which was being reported to the Area Committee
for consideration. If the Area Committee
wished to select the proposal as one of its S106 local project priorities,
there would be further opportunities for consultation as part of the project
appraisal process.
v.
The cycling safety project on Storey’s Way had been
considered by the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in October 2015, but
was not prioritised by the Executive Councillor. There were no S106 public realm contributions
from the West Central Area. This was a highways issue and officers had drawn
the proposal to the attention of colleagues at Cambridgeshire County Council. vi.
Improvements to Shelley Row play area had been
recommended to make use of S106 play area contributions from Castle ward before
a May 2017 expiry date. The council’s recent play area audit had shown that,
whilst the play area had scored highly (74%) for its location, its play value
rating (37%) was low. In comparison, Histon Road
Recreation Ground already had a high play value of 91%. The Committee: Resolved unanimously agreed to:
i.
Prioritise the following local project proposals
for the use of devolved S106 contributions from the West/Central Area, subject
to project appraisal and community use agreement (where appropriate): a. up
to £45,000 outdoor sports S106 funding for an upgraded tennis court on Lammas
Land; b. up to £1,500 informal open
space S106 funding for a bench on the green at Warwick Road, subject to Cambridgeshire County Council consent; c. up to £1,500 informal open
space S106 funding for a bench next to Coton footpath
(near its junction with Wilberforce Road), subject to land-owner consent; d. up
to £75,000 informal open space S106 funding for reinforcing grass edges to
paths across Parker’s Piece; e. £35,000
play area S106 funding and up to £15,000 informal open space S106 funding for
improvements to Shelley Row play area; f. £10,000
play area S106 funding and up to £5,000 informal open space S106 funding for
added play equipment, benches and landscaping at Christ’s Pieces play area.
ii.
Consider a follow-up report to the West/Central
Area Committee in February 2016, setting out proposals to enable any
outstanding devolved S106 contributions with expiry dates in 2017 to be used on
time. Committee Managers Note: County Councillors Nethsingha and Cearns did not take part in the vote. |
|
Histon and Milton Road Proposals To welcome Richard
Preston (Project Manager, Major Infrastructure Delivery) from Cambridgeshire
County Council. A presentation will be given on the Histon and
Milton proposals which aim to improve bus, cycling and walking trips
through the remodelling of the highway which would have significant
implications for streetscape, local traffic movements and parking. Minutes: The Chair welcomed Bob Menzies, Cambridgeshire County Council (Service
Director, Strategy & Development) and Richard Preston (Project Manager,
Major Infrastructure Delivery) who gave a presentation on the upgrade of Milton
Road and Histon Road which would see bus, cycling and
walking improvements. The Service Director gave an overview of the City Deal decision making
process and which local authorities were involved including the University of
Cambridge and how the schemes would be taken forward. As part of the City Deal
funding this would allow new
public transport infrastructure in and around the City but would require the
development and implementation of the schemes quickly. The Project Delivery Manager
explained the detail of the scheme and process. It was reiterated that none of the proposals put
forward for Histon Road and Milton had been approved,
but approval had been given to go to public consultation. The following
objectives were then explained: •
Comprehensive priority for buses in both directions
wherever practicable. •
Additional capacity for sustainable trips to employment/education sites •
Increased bus patronage and
new services •
Safer and more convenient
routes for cycling and walking, segregated
where practical and possible •
Maintain or reduce general
traffic levels •
Enhance the environment,
streetscape and air quality. Below are some of the questions / statements
that were put forward by members of the public and the Committee. Comments from the public:
i.
Queried if the consultation meetings would be open to
the public that had been planned with Councillors and stakeholders; who were
the stakeholders as local residents had not been invited to take part.
ii.
Asked if there was still time for members of the
public to have input on the consultation before it went public. iii.
Questioned if the full tree condition surveys would be
published as part of the additional information before the public consultation
took place. iv.
Asked
what would be the impact on closing some of the proposed junctions and having
an outside bus lane.
v.
Would the use of the new train station in the North of
the City be promoted encouraging people to take the train rather than the bus. vi.
Asked where was the evidence to show that the traffic
lights system required changing. vii.
Queried what was the issue trying to be solved; it
appeared to be an engineering problem but the problem was much bigger such as
traffic management problems and the consultation process did not allow for
broader comments. viii.
Would have an environmental impact with the loss of
trees and increase in traffic pollution. ix.
Issues raised by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign had
been ignored; there had been no design input from the people who understood
cycling; the design of the junctions was of concern.
x.
The design appeared to accommodate more traffic on the
highways and would have been better to have a solution that limits the traffic. xi.
Additional lanes could increase risk to cyclists. xii.
The junction close to Arbury Junction was narrow and
unsure if this could accommodate additional traffic lane. xiii.
There has been a significant lack of public
information on the proposals. xiv.
Noted that there were currently dropped kerbs for
residents to enter their properties and asked how this would be managed. xv.
Resident’s gardens would have to be reduced in size to
allow Milton Road to be widened. xvi.
The proposals appeared to support the new residential
developments outside of the City. xvii.
There was not enough time for the public to consider
these proposals and the consultation period should be extended. xviii.
Information on the website was hard to understand and
would take time to digest. Comments from the Committee: i.
The introduction of additional lanes on Milton Lane
would not have a positive impact on reducing the amount of traffic into the
City and needs to be readdressed. ii.
Plans showed that the cyclists would have to go past
allocated parking spaces. iii.
Stated that a Dutch style road layout would give
cyclists much more safety especially at junctions and should be considered
further. iv.
Asked for the consultation and questionnaire to be put
into a language that would easily be understood by all members of the public
and not full of technical terminology. v.
Lack of information on process. vi.
Suggested that residents formed a residents
association which would be recognised as a relevant stakeholder in this
process. In response to
comments from the public and the Committee the Urban Growth Project Manager responded
with the following: i.
It had been the decision of the City Deal Executive
Board to take the consultation forward. ii.
Two briefings would take place the following week with
a session for Councillors consisting of City, District, Ward, County and South
Cambridgeshire, to ensure that they understood the process that was being
undertaken. iii.
Stakeholders consisted of resident groups and the
Cambridge Cycling Campaign group that would be able to share the information
further afield; it had not been logistically possible to invite all residents
to the briefings. iv.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign Group would continue to be
involved in the process. v.
There would be a series of public events which residents could attend, printed material would be
distributed and information could be found on the following website: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/ vi.
All comments and
suggestions would be noted. vii.
Tree condition survey would be published by the time
public consultation started. viii.
The designs were currently ideas and further detailed
work was required to determine how the junctions would work. ix.
Would want members of the public to put forward all
views and ideas, the consultation did allow for the basis of the scheme to be
challenged and taken back to the Executive Board. There was space on the
consultation that allowed members of the public to put forward different ideas.
x.
The key elements on the local plan and the City Deal
were to protect the green belt around the city whilst ensuring sustainable
growth in an organised way. xi.
Enterprise Zones had been announced in Northstowe and Cambourne outside
of the City and part of the City Deal strategy was to encourage businesses to
locate outside of the City. xii.
If the consultation highlighted that there is a
traffic management issue there would have to be a different agenda. xiii.
The proposals were not intended to accommodate extra
capacity but to improve the flow of traffic. xiv.
Would continue to work closely with the Cambridge Cycling
Campaign. xv.
Opportunities for open spaces had been identified on
Milton Road but the space could be used for other uses. xvi.
Ideas
for Milton Road / Elizabeth Way junction had been passed to consultants for
further consideration. Councillor Cantrill thanked both Bob Menzies and
Richard Preston for their time. He then
encouraged residents to attend City Deal meetings such as the ‘City Deal
Executive Board’ which was open to the public and where residents could
register to speak at the meetings and listen to the debate. Further information
could be found at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/ Councillor Cantrill concluded that it may be beneficial
to arrange a public meeting chaired by City Councillor Lewis Herbert, as Chair
of the City Deal Board and residents (diary permitting) to discuss the
proposals further (ACTION). |
|
Record of Attendance Minutes:
i.
43 members of the public
ii.
9 Councillors
iii.
5 City Officers
iv.
3 Cambridgeshire County Officers |