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 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Change to published agenda order Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used her
discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the
reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda. |
|||||||||||||||||
Welcome, Introduction and Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Dryden and County Councillors
Jones and Taylor. |
|||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||
Minutes: The Committee noted a correction to the minutes as tabled and published to the website. The minutes were then agreed and signed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||||||
Matters and Actions Arising from the Minutes PDF 108 KB Minutes: The Committee noted the progress with matters detailed in the action sheet from the meeting of the 2nd October 2017. |
|||||||||||||||||
Open Forum Minutes: Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set
out below. 1. Councillor
Ashton on behalf of a resident of Queen Edith’s Ward. What action can be taken
regarding continuing verge damage done by parked cars? Councillor Pippas supported action on this
matter. John
Richards, Project Manager, outlined the legal position regarding enforcement
action. A.
City bye
laws were in place in some locations but had proven difficult for the Council
to enforce effectively. B.
Road
Traffic Regulation Orders were another possibility; whereby enforcement would
be undertaken by the County Council Civil Enforcement team. The
Chair requested a briefing note on possible options for enforcement. Action:
John Richards 1. Sam Davies Building
contractors working on Hills Road had caused considerable damage. Building
consent had required them to be considerate contractors. Nick Kester: Acting Enforcement Team Manager undertook to pass on the information but suggested that follow up action was limited. Action: Nick Kester The Officers and Members made the following comments in response to the above: Nick
Kester: Acting Enforcement Team Manager. If a vehicle is
parked on a grass verge the enforcement team would write to the registered
keeper. However, it was often difficult to establish who was driving a vehicle
at the time. Members of the public can report vehicles but are often reluctant
to pursue the matter as a formal statement and an appearance in court as a
witness might also be needed. Councillor
McPherson suggested that photographic evidence should be enough to trigger an
official letter if not a prosecution. Councillor Pippas
stated that some problems occur when dropped kerbs fail to align with
driveways. Councillor Ashton suggested that working with contractors to encourage them to reinstate verges on completion of building works had achieved results. 2. Chris Rand Installation of resident parking in the Morley Road area had produced a
knock on effect in the neighbouring areas. Can lessons learnt here be applied
to future scheme? The Committee agreed that this was a County Council issue and outside the remit of this meeting. County Councillor present noted the comment. 3. Kerry Galloway A
new ramped access to the Cambridge Assessment Centre will bring cyclists into
conflict with Trumpington Road (access to station) cycle path. Councillor Avery agreed that the cycle path was not wide enough. Overhanging trees presented an additional hazard. Councillor Adey undertook to visit the site. Action
Councillor Adey 4. Resident on behalf of Rev Karin Voth Harman of St Andrew's Is
there any update on the provision of new schools for the growth areas? Councillor Ashton reported that current provision was adequate and the proposed new school would not be needed for some years. The allocated land would be held until such time as there was a demonstrated need. No decisions had been made regarding who would be managing the school. 5. Question on behalf of residents Councillor
Page-Croft stated that volunteers working in Nightingale Recreation Ground had
reported the footpaths as being in a poor condition. Hey were becoming unsafe
and needed resurfacing. Joel Carré: Head of Environmental Services undertook to investigate this matter. Action: Joel Carré |
|||||||||||||||||
Environmental Report - SAC PDF 2 MB Minutes: The Committee
received a report from the Acting Enforcement Team Manager. 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. Acting
Enforcement Team Manager responded to members of the public and Councillors as follows: 1. Hilary Lawson Brooklands
Avenue was suffering from a high level of litter. There was no bin near the bus
stop and litter was being stuffed into hedges or over fences. A. Officers would look into installing a bin at the bus stop. Action
Nick Kester 2. Sam Davies Questioned the details in the Officer’s report and suggested that the location of the needle find was not in the South Area. A. Officers would investigate the location of the needle find. Action
Nick Kester 3. Pamela Douglas Thanked
the team for their work in dealing with a litter and anti-social behaviour in
her area. A. Aware of the issues and pleased that some success had been achieved. Stated that it was difficult to deal with bins left on the street as this was a Civic Offence. Placing stickers on offending bins had achieved good results. 4. Kerry Galloway Litter
in Trumpington was on the increase in line with the population growth in the
area. A. It was suggested that members of the public informed their local councillor of any issues and these would then be passed on to the relevant department for action. The Committee discussed the following issues: Councillor Pippas Are Estate Agents
permitted to install for sale boards on the footpaths? A. Yes, if they were directing the public to new developments. Councillor Pippas Can additional litter
bins be installed at Atkins Corner? A. Officers would investigate this matter. Action Nick
Kester Councillor McPherson Why can’t under 18
year olds be issues with a fixed penalty notice for litter dropping? A. Council policy does not allow Enforcement Officers to do this. Councillor O’Connell thanked the Officer for the detailed report. She questioned the number of litter bins that South Area had available following the removal of a bin from Shelford Road and requested a dog waste bin for the area around Byron’s Pool. Members of the public were invited to submit their suggestions for the location of litter and dog waste bins. The Committee Resolved unanimously to approve the following priorities for action.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Environmental Improvement Programme 2017-18 PDF 251 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee received a report from the Senior Engineer and Project Leader
regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP) for South area. The
report outlined progress of existing schemes and new suggested schemes for
2017/18. The officer was pleased to report that there was sufficient funding
available within South area to cover all of the potential new EIP Schemes. This
was aided by the fact that projects S1, S2 and S3 as listed in the report were
under consideration by the County Council as Local Highways Improvements and
therefore did not require any allocation of EIP funds. The following questions were asked regarding
the report: 1. Sam Davies Spending money on verge
repairs is not a good use of limited funding unless the verges could be
protected after the repair. The
officer agreed that this was a valid point. Most recent work to improve verges
had achieved limited results. Newer, and more robust, products were likely to
be needed in locations experiencing regular and heavy parking. Traffic
Regulation Orders had proven successful in some locations. In addition, pressures
on parking spaces resulted in local residents having very mixed views on the
value of highway verges. 2. Councillor Crawford Asked for more
information regarding EIP Scheme S3. Local
Highway Improvement funding had been requested from the County Council for this
scheme. If successful, it is anticipated that the City Council would need to
meet the financial contribution required through the Minor Highways Improvement
budget, to compliment County Council funding. 3. Councillor McPherson Granta Park staff would benefit from the provision of
additional cycle parking as requested in (S1), could they be approach to
request they part fund the project? Officers
agreed this was a good idea and would suggest it to the County Council. Action John Richards The Committee
suggested that key dates in the diary needed to be considered when arranging
for works to be undertaken. The Hills Road War Memorial needed to be looking
its best for the Centenary events. The Committee Resolved (unanimously) to: i.
Note progress, and delays where
experienced, in delivering the identified programme
of projects since 2011-12 ii.
Support the allocation of
£4,500 in 2017-18 towards the provision of 26 summer hanging baskets along
Cherry Hinton High Street iii.
Note the allocation of
remaining EIP funding available in 2017-18 to further project applications iv.
Approve
the EIP schemes S4 to S6 set out in
Appendix A of the Officer’s report for
implementation, subject to them being viable, obtaining consents as necessary,
positive consultation and final approval by Capital Programme
Board and Ward Councillors where required. v.
Support a further application
invitation round early in 2018. |
|||||||||||||||||
Footbridge across Hobson's Brook PDF 576 KB Minutes: The Committee received a report from John Richards,
Senior Engineer and James Ogle, Project
Officer regarding the Footbridge across Hobson’s Brook. This report outlined recommendations that required
Committee determination in relation to the potential introduction of a
pedestrian footbridge across Hobson’s Brook near Kingfisher Way. It outlined a range
of benefits for the City Council in delivering the project rather than the grant
applicant, Accordia Bridge Group. It then sought a
decision from the Area Committee on whether to proceed with the project and
support the additional funding required. The Officers
reminded the Committee that the planning consent had already been approved and
the report was focussed on the decisions to be made in relation to the use of
s106 funding. A number of written
comments both in support (6) and objection (1) to the proposal had been
received prior to the Committee. The Committee noted
a slight amendment to recommendation 2.2 as follows (additional wording in
bold): Support the prioritisation of up to an additional £25,000 s106
funding contribution needed to deliver the project (see 4.4 and 5.1). Officers responded to the following questions and comments regarding the
report: 1.
Kerry
Galloway Had
protection of wildlife on the Accordia side of the Brook
been considered? Officers considered the improved through route and better access to Empty common would be an overall improvement with little impact on wildlife. 2. Ian Cray The
City Ecologist had made no comment on this matter and better access should
encourage increased walking. 3. Professor Raymond Goldstein
i.
Dr
Pesci and I have been leading the opposition to this bridge for the past seven
years and we ask you to reject this proposal and stop the bridge project. City
Council planners appear to not understand the basic legal issues surrounding
the land on which the bridge would sit, from the validity of the Trinity
Covenant which forbids any bridges in the area to the issue of who even owns
the land itself.
ii.
Errors
and omissions in the original planning applications were offences punishable by
fines of up to £5,000 this was ignored by planners.
iii.
The
Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 year vision that was sent out for consultation,
details the unique ecological character of the corridor, calling it a resource
of national importance and uniqueness, particularly for the wildlife found
there.
iv.
One
of the original stated reasons for the bridge was to give greater access to the
area by Accordia residents. Chief among those areas was
Clare Wood. Clare Wood is no longer accessible. Clare College was forced to
close off the wood to protect itself from liability arising explicitly from the
bridge.
v.
Raised
concerns about the use of the Hobsons Brook Corridor by people walking their
dogs, which can despoil the area and drive away wildlife. There are nearly 1000
residents in Accordia, and a very large number of
them have dogs.
vi.
A
member of the Hobson’s Conduit Trust has stated that he was very concerned
about this bridge and was in complete sympathy with my objections.
vii.
The
draft 10 year vision document discusses the fact that with climate change there
will be more frequent flooding of the very area that the bridge would sit, and
yet in order to allow the bridge to fit in the extremely tight area now
envisaged, the city planners waived national rules about the clearance under
such bridges to allow it to fit.
viii.
A
fourth point about ecology is the fact, pointed out in objections raised by
BENERA residents, that there is already a serious problem with parking
congestion on their side of the brook, and the likelihood is that the bridge
would simply become a thoroughfare for people parking in the BENERA area.
Cambridge Assessment Centre will soon open, with something like 3,000 employees
and fewer than 200 parking spaces.
ix.
The
bridge was designed to be accessible to wheelchairs, but the path on the other
side often floods in the winter and is likely to do so more in the future due
to climate change (as stated in the consultation document).
x.
Regarding
the need to move the bridge location in light of Clare’s refusal to grant
permission page 13, Q8, Appendix C document within the report says, “This can
be overcome by moving the bridge a few metres north onto land wholly owned by
City Council.” This was a false statement. The City and the University of
Cambridge are joint leaseholders of the land under a deed dating to 1610.
xi.
The
author of the report, told me that there were certain legal issues and “risks”
that the City Council was investigating regarding the bridge. What are the
legal issues that are still outstanding? What risks were being considered?
xii.
A
simple study using Google maps would show that the presence of the bridge in
its proposed location would save perhaps 80 meters of walking for the typical
person traversing from the BENERA area up to Brooklands Avenue at the edge of Accordia. So, does the council plan to spend more than
£50,000 of public money and risk the fragile ecology of the corridor simply to
save less than one minute’s walking time? Project Officer stated that the report was accurate and the risks associated with the project low. The Council either owns the land to both sides of the proposed bridge site or in the case of the 6ft strip are joint leaseholders. Two legal agreements are required to enable build of the bridge to commence. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report: Councillor Moore: Planning applications could be granted regardless of who owned the land. Agreeing funding and planning would not necessarily ensure that the bridge would be build. Councillor Adey: Welcomed the opportunity to hear public views and to discuss the ‘value for money’ of the project. Councillor Ashton: Other well used paths support sensitive wildlife without any noticeable impact he cited the example of Snakey Path (pathway connecting Romsey to Cherry Hinton) Councillor Pippas: The majority of residents would benefit from the proposal. Officers confirmed that the decision on the current bridge proposals is not expected to have any impact on the Hobson’s Conduit Trust Vision Document and therefore is not relevant to the decision before the Committee. The decision before the Committee was the approval of additional funding. The spend to-date had been around £5,500 on legal fees. The Committee Resolved (unanimously) to: i. Note and support the delivery arrangements now proposed as outlined in the report. ii. Support the prioritisation of up to an additional £25,000 s106 funding contribution needed to deliver the project iii. Note that progress was also subject to obtaining necessary consents. |
|||||||||||||||||
South Area Committee Dates 2018/19 Proposed South Area Committee Dates for the municipal year 2018-19: 4th June 2018 10th September 2018 14th January 2019 8th April 2019 Venues will be agreed later. Minutes: The following
dates were agreed unanimously: 4th June 2018 10th September 2018 14th January 2019 8th April 2019 |
|||||||||||||||||
Cumulative Impact Area Briefing Note for Area Committees PDF 31 KB Minutes: The Committee noted the Cumulative Impact Area Briefing Note |