Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Hart.

No declarations were declared.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2017 were signed as a correct record by the Chair.

The Action Sheet was noted and an updated copy could be viewed at the following link under ‘Committee Action Sheet’.

 

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=147&MId=3361&Ver=4

 

 

The Committee is asked to agree the following meeting dates for the municipal year 2018/19; the venue will be the Cherry Trees Day Centre:

 

·        12/07/18

·        11/10/18

·        10/01/19

·        04/04/19

 

Members are asked to contact the Committee Manager in advance of the meeting with any comments regarding the above dates.

The following dates were agreed unanimously:

 

·        12/07/18

·        11/10/18

·        10/01/19

·        04/04/19*

 

*The date was agreed if it did not fall in the school holidays; Cambridgeshire County Website shows that the Easter break starts on Monday 8 April 2019.

 

https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/children-and-families/schools-&-learning/school-term-dates-&-closures/school-term-dates-2018/2019/

 

 

The Committee received a report from Sergeant Jim Stevenson regarding the policing and safer neighbourhoods’ trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the East Area Committee on 20 July 2017. 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.        County lines issues

ii.       Responding to street life ASB issues in Mill Road; and

iii.      Road safety in known hot spot areas

 

There were six recommendations which the Committee had been asked to make their recommendations for focus over the coming months:

i.        Coleridge Rec. ASB

ii.       Dwelling burglary

iii.      County line drug dealing

iv.      Road safety

v.       Safeguarding young people

vi.      Mill Road ASB

 

Lynda Kilkelly, Safer Communities Section Manager informed the Committee that a number of injunctions had been served on those individuals who had been identified as causing difficulties; the street life working team would in the first instance offer continued support and only when the behaviour did not change, enforcement action would be taken.

 

In response to the questions and comments from members of the public and the committee, Sergeant Stevenson, Safer Neighbourhoods Inspector Rogerson and the Safer Communities Section Manager said the following:

 

i.        Would advise members of the public to feed information          concerning illegal activity onto the Police web portal. The           information was then assessed / graded on a weekly basis        with the Prevent Team who identified problem areas           geographically and action to be undertaken. This could be      arranging high visibility patrols to deter illegal activities such           as drug dealing.

ii.       While it may be perceived there was a gap in communication between reporting illegal activity (such as drug dealing), and      the Police taking action; the information delivered to the central intelligence unit or the prevent team was anonymous.           Therefore the individual would not receive any update as        Officers simply did not know who had supplied the    information. This was to negate the risk to the individual to        be identified by those carrying out the criminal activity. 

iii.      Agreed to speak with the ICT team to add an additional category of ‘pavement parking’ underneath the vehicle    heading of the web portal and enquire if photographs could          be submitted by the public.

iv.      Publicity of the Cambridge Street Aid Initiative was          constantly being expanded but there was a resource issue;     to contact every retail unit to request if they would put up a     poster in the window was very time consuming. A plan was     in place to continue to publicise the Initiative and have        locations across the City which would allow an electronic     donation to be made. There were also plans for an App to be     developed. To date a total of £23,000 had been donated with          £17,000 of grants allocated.

v.       Would be happy for Councillors to distribute fliers providing     advice about Cambridge Street Aid.

vi.      Street Aid was promoted by the Police when visiting       universities, residential schools and at the language schools    as part of the Community Safety Crime Prevention          presentation.

vii.     Noted the comments that Mill Road should not be seen as      two separate areas regarding the proposal to reduce the     Cumulative Impact Area (removal of Romsey Road).        However this had been instigated by the results of new data   analysis of what had been taking place in the area. It would     be the decision of the Cambridge City Council Licensing          Committee to determine if the proposal should be approved   or rejected.

viii.    Could not comment on the two tragic deaths of cyclists which           occurred in November and December 2017 as these were       on-going investigations; one was at a junction and the        preliminary investigation would indicate that speed was not a           factor for the second accident.

ix.      Partnership working was required to look at speed           enforcement, road and cycle safety and education; a       separate meeting with East Area Committee members would take place to discuss this further. 

x.       Would look at the work of the County Wide Road Safety          Partnership and how this could be enhanced locally by the     Police.

xi.      The Police would not ignore those people smoking cannabis in public as this was an illegal activity. However by the time the Police arrived after an incidence had been reported it was more than likely that the activity had ceased. 

xii.     Shop lifting was a national problem often seen as a        victimless crime and career criminals had realised that they were given a shorter prison sentence for this crime.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to approve the following four priorities:

 

i.        Coleridge Rec:  Anti-Social Behaviour

ii.       County line drug dealing – focusing on Godesdone Road and          Stanley Road in the Riverside Area.

iii.      Road Safety

iv.      Mill Road: Anti-Social Behaviour.

Tony Eva: On 29 November 2012 the East Area Committee (EAC) agreed that "where there exists a civic or community interest, EAC would strive to ensure that all such buildings are made cycle friendly by providing adequate free and safe cycle parking by December 2013.

 

Five years on from that agreement, I think it's fair to say that progress has been disappointingly slow. Yet I was told recently by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign Officer that there is progress being made in the background. So could councillors share with us what could be a good news story?

 

Councillor Johnson advised that a review of cycling parking at community centres and other public buildings had carried out by the former City Council Cycle and Walking Officer; the findings had been made available to the Cycle and Walking Steering Group and the information would assist in determining the future spending and where that funding would come from. Of the 107 community facilities in Cambridge, only 8 were owned by the City Council. 

 

Councillor Baigent advised work was being done with the County Council to look at the possibility of placing cycle racks on double yellow lines at the end of side roads which ran into Mill Road at the Romsey end.

 

Councillor Blencowe acknowledged that progress was slow but the communities’ facilities study referenced by Councillor Johnson, had produced a phased programme of works. The position of the City Council Cycle and Walking Officer was vacant and needed to be filled in order to take any work forward.

 

Georgie Deards: At an area meeting in 2016, a group of councillors attend a walk around Tiverton Close to look at the area; they saw gardens not attended to, bins not taken in and left on the foot paths and dumped rubbish. No action has been taken and the area has rough sleepers and drug use as the large overgrown shrubs make for good hiding places. Could Councillors meet on site to take a look.

 

Councillor Moore advised that she would be happy to meet with both Mrs Deards and Mrs Griffiths to arrange a Ward Walk About to look at the issues raised and would organise this at the end of the meeting.

 

Councillor Herbert advised of the Community Clear Up Day which was taking place on 24^th March and would make sure the problem area of Tiverton Close would be included.

 

Janet Griffiths: Could the Committee advise when the public toilets on Silver Street will be refurbished. The project had been going on for a number of years?

 

Councillor Smith stated a budget proposal had been forward for 2018/19 and architectural drawings were currently being drawn up. 

 

Margaret Cranmer: Last July another Tenison Road resident told this Committee that vans and other vehicles had been driving onto the extended pavement outside No’s 102-108 Tenison Road. This is a continued problem. Please can we have bollards, a bench or a planter to stop those vehicles parking on the pavement?

 

Councillor Jones replied that she would investigate what appropriate action could be taken (ACTION).

 

Richard Wood:  At previous East Area Committees, namely 6 April and 20 July 2017, it is minuted that Al Storer and Margaret Cranmer raised the problem of footway and cycle-path obstruction by vehicles outside Perne Road Co-op and along Mill Road.

 

The police representative(s) correctly pointed out that, with de-criminalised (civil-penalty) parking enforcement in Cambridge this was a matter for the civil authorities – in this instance the Cambridgeshire County Council’s highway department.

 

Will members of this committee commit to pressing the Highways Department to use their power to introduce a traffic regulation order banning all pavement and verge parking, other than in authorised marked bays (eg in Romsey side streets).

 

This would enable civil penalty tickets to be issued by the County’s civil enforcement officers (traffic wardens) and be self-financing under the principle that the offender pays the cost of enforcement.

 

Will members please seek advice from Councillor Ed Murphy, Labour and Co-op councillor for Ravensthorpe, Peterborough who successfully achieved cross-party support for the implementation of a similar traffic regulation order in the Peterborough unitary authority where fortunately, the Cambridgeshire County Council’s remit does not run.

 

Councillor Barnett advised that this question had been addressed at the start of the meeting when Councillor Jones provided an update on the Traffic Regulation Order.

 

Mr James Wood: Whilst there has been some activity on the derelict land and buildings (47-59 Perowne Street), recently this has ceased. Some clearance of undergrowth, and of vegetation on the exterior, has taken place. Despite the new gates, the site would remain vulnerable to unauthorised access via the adjacent crumbling low fences.

 

There remain a number of undressed hazards associated with this site, including:

·        Loose clay tiles on the roof of the former premises of AC Bloye, Tuff Accountant, which – if they do not, felicitously, collapse inwardly to the site, may slide onto passing pedestrians;

·        The potential fire hazard of a 3-4 meters-high stack of used motor tyres in a collapsed roofless building close to the Ditchburn Place boundary wall; and

·        Derelict garages which are unsafe to enter and my well contact other flammable items;

·        Deteriorating brick piers in the Perowne Street boundary wall.

 

Could the Councillors advise what improvements, cosmetic, public safety-related or otherwise the owners have agreed to undertake, and in what timescale?

 

Councillor Robertson stated that a S215 Untidy Land Notice had been served upon the owners in July 2017, which came into effect of August 2017 which the owners had six months to comply. A site visit would be undertaken by Officers next month (February 2018). To date the required works had not been carried out and further enforcement action would be undertaken after the six months had expired if required.

 

James Woodburn: It would appear that the Coroner Court had relocated from Cambridge to Huntingdon. It was important that deaths in Cambridge should be dealt with by Cambridgeshire County Council or Cambridge City Council. It would not be unreasonable to ask the Coroner to come to Cambridge and use one of the empty court buildings.

 

Councillor Barnett thanked Mr Woodburn for his comments butthis matter is outside the gift of the East Area Committee and therefore no action could be carried forward.

 

The following question was not answered in the meeting but the response below sent via e-mail.

 

Nicky Massey: Given that there is continued uncertainty in regards to the football ground with Cambridge United development plans, can you outline what progress you have made to help relieve the residents parking problems on match day.

 

Councillor Johnson advised that as ward councillor, I have put in a request for additional waiting restrictions in the form of double yellow lines at the Ditton Fields junction with Newmarket Road and for the existing double yellow lines at the Whitehill Road junction with Newmarket Road to be extended. These requests will be considered next month by the County Council's panel who assess applications for funding from their Local Highway Improvement programme.

 

To receive an update on the Mill Road Depot development.

 

This will be followed by a question and answer session which members of the public are invited to participate.

The Chair welcomed Fiona Bryant, Strategic Director, Cambridge City Council, who gave a presentation to the Committee on Mill Road Depot development.

 

The development was a joint venture set up by Cambridge City Council and Hill Investment Partnership. The purpose of the partnership was to help increase the amount of affordable housing within Cambridge. Currently there were plans for 180 to 190 homes on this site, 94 of which would be social rented homes, a further 20 homes at sub market level rents. There would be a mix of housing and apartments on site and the proposal would also include basement car parking for 101 car parking with lift access, 541 cycle spaces (all sheffield stands), new areas of public highway, areas of open space to be maintained by the Council, pump station, accessible dwellings and provision along the entire eastern boundary for the Chisholm Trail in the form of a 6 metre wide strip of land.

 

The garages along Hooper Street would be retained and excluded from the development.

 

The YMCA had proposed to relocate to the front of the site and the Council planned to provide community provision in this area of the development, including a children’s play area.  The City Council was working with local community groups to look at the design for the proposed community facilities.

 

In response to questions from members of the public and the committee, the Strategic Director and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following:

 

i.        Some of the houses on the site would have garages      alongside; it was possible that in the long term those garages        could be converted into living accommodation.

ii.       The overall percentage of car parking on site had been reduced from 0.8 to 0.65 per dwelling which the Council      believed was a good balance.

iii.      The majority of parking spaces on site were in the basement, a space which was already available and therefore it was felt      a good use of the space.  This also negated the issue of   residents parking in the surrounding areas.

iv.      The development encouraged the use of the electric cars       with the installation of electrical charging points.

The Committee received a report from the Senior Engineer (Streets and Open Spaces) regarding the Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The report outlined progress of existing schemes within the east area and outlined decisions needed around future spending priorities.

 

Existing Schemes: Progress

The Senior Engineer referred to progress on approved schemes as set out in his report.

 

New Schemes That Require Decisions

Members considered a number of 2017/18 schemes put forward for approval.

 

In response to questions and comments the Senior Engineer (Streets and Open Spaces) said the following:

 

i.        The cost for providing hanging baskets had already been spent in 2017, subject to area committee approval the cost would be met by the Environmental Improvement Programme Scheme via a recharge.

ii.       Between 10-15% of the cost incurred in providing hanging baskets was in the provision of the basket and the plants; the remainder of the cost was the servicing, though the cost would fluctuate dependent on the weather. Efforts had been made in recent years to conserve water through the type of baskets that had been purchased.

iii.      Stated items 11 and 35 were linked.

iv.      Would investigate why the highway outside of the Post Office on Mill Road had not been improved.

v.       Acknowledged the Executive Councillor’s for Planning Policy and Transport approval to undertake a feasibility study to investigate the potential for introducing screening of the Elizabeth Way Bridge from Abbey Road (E2).

 

The Committee:

 

i.        Resolved unanimously to:

          Note progress, and delays where experienced, in delivering    the identified programme of projects since 2011-12.

 

ii.       Resolved unanimously to:

iii.      Support the allocation of £10,890 in 2017/18 and 2018/19       towards the provision of 66 summer hanging baskets along      Mill Road, subject to 2018/19 budget approval.

 

iv.      Resolved unanimously to:

          Continue with the following schemes as outlined in 5.4 of the Officer report which are as follows:

(11) – Garlic Row / Stanley Road access restrictions (£4,000) –       formal Road Safety Audit needed from County Council, in   order to inform further consideration of viability for funding          through EIP.

(32) - Mill Road footway grants (£5,300) – continue to offer      opportunity to part-fund selective improvements to private          shop frontages where supported by traders.

(35) - Oyster Row / Garlic Row access restriction (£23,500) – formal Road Safety Audit needed from County Council, in   order to inform further consideration of viability for funding      through EIP.

 

v.       Resolved unanimously to:

          Stop the following scheme as outlined in 5.4 of the Officer’s    report which is as follows:

(36) - Riverside parking management (£12,500) – no longer    needed in light    of developing County Council residents’   parking area proposals.

 

iv.      Resolved unanimously to:

          Support the allocation of up to £3,000 funding towards the      cost of a feasibility study to investigate the potential for      introducing screening of the Elizabeth Way Bridge from         Abbey Road (E2).

 

v.       Resolved unanimously to:

          Approve the allocation of remaining EIP funding available in   2017-18 to           projects E3 – E11 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.

 

vi.      Resolved (8 votes to 2) to:

          Not to consider a further application invitation round early in    2018.