environment committee

6 March 2001

10.00am – 2.00pm

 

 

Present:  Councillors Harrison (Chair), Bagnall, Blencowe, Douglas, Durrant, Howarth, Knowles, Slatter, White, Woodford

 

 

FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE COUNCIL

 

01/h/20           Minutes

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2001 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to the corrections set out below:

 

In minute 01/h/15, the two references  to ‘East Chesterton Ward Councillors’ should have read ‘West Chesterton Ward Councillors’.

 

In minute 01/h/12, Councillor Douglas should be recorded as having abstained from voting.

 

01/h/21           Apologies

 

There were no apologies for absence.

 

01/h/22           MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE

 

It was noted that Councillor Blencowe has replaced Councillor Mbaya on the Committee.

 

01/h/23           Declarations of Interest

 

There were no declarations of interest.

 

01/h/24           Public Question TIME

 

Mrs Macbeth-Hornett asked whether the Committee was concerned about the negative impact of pollution arising from the proximity of Marshall’s Airport to the residential area. The Head of Environmental Health and Waste Strategy  responded that the control available to local authorities was currently limited to airborne noise. Noise generated at ground level could be dealt with by the planning process and the Environmental  Protection Act powers. Noise from aircraft in flight could only be dealt with informally; the Civil Aviation Authority had powers to act but their overriding priority was safety rather than environmental pollution.

 

Further legislation was expected on safety issues at planned new airports which might have some relevance to the situation at Marshall’s. The Director of Environment and Planning said that Marshall’s had demonstrated its willingness to co-operate with both the City and South Cambs District Councils via a joint Committee of which the Chair was a member. A voluntary code of practice had been agreed with Marshall’s.

 

The Chair said that members and public would be kept informed of developments and she was sympathetic to the problems reported by residents in that area.

 

01/h/25           sIGNIFICANT VARIANCES 2000/2001 AND CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS

 

The Committee had considered the revenue budget for the next financial year, 2001/02, with revisions to the budget for the current year, 2000/01. City Board and the Council had considered them as part of the budget setting strategy following the announcement of the final Government Settlement  which had been significantly better than anticipated in the 2000 July Medium term forecast.  City Board had approved a General Fund projection which included items that were treated as specific funds for the purpose of the budget process. These had been allocated to relevant spending committees and the report presented the latest position for this committee’s 2000/01 Revised and 2001/02 Original Budgets. An information bulletin had been circulated separately giving an overview of the bids and savings.  Any new or changed circumstances including significant variances or requirements to carry forward budgets were set out in the report.

 

In relation to the Public Transport Subsidy, only £22,000 had been spent in the current year, and proposals for dealing with the remainder of the budget were noted. Members suggested that advertising of the availability of the late night bus service should be reviewed with consideration being given to broadening the approach and ensuring the publication of timetables.

 

Resolved that Members seek approval from City Board to carry forward an estimated total of £220,640 budgets, detailed in Appendix A, from 2000/01 into 2001/02.

(Action by: Director of Finance – David Horspool)

 

01/h/26           ENVIRONMENT PLAN

 

The report by the Director of Environment and Planning set out a proposal for an Environment Plan for the City Council. This was intended to reflect the Corporate Strategy on concern for the environment and would implement actions and mainstream sustainability in the Council.

 

The Plan would further develop the Local Agenda 21 Strategy, making it sufficiently robust to feed into the Community Strategy for Cambridge and helping to provide environmental well-being in accordance with Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000.  It would also provide a framework and action plan for the Council’s own internal environmental performance as well as influencing external policy and the actions of individuals and organisations.

 

Members commented on the need to prioritise projects in the background to the Plan, take into account the impact of the e-government proposals, and develop the theme of the influence of sustainability on planning policies.

 

Resolved to

 

1)         approve the Environment Plan Stage 1, as shown in Appendix 1 of the report, taking into account members’ comments at the meeting, and to instruct the Environmental Strategy Group to develop detailed actions, in consultation with all Departments, to develop the Environment Plan Stage 2.

 

2)         submit Environment Plan Stage 2 to Environment Committee for approval.

 

3)         sign up to the ‘Making a Corporate Commitment Campaign (MACC2)’ and to complete a Declaration of Commitment as shown in Appendix 3 of the report.

 

4)         report back to Environment Committee on a six monthly basis with progress in meeting the actions contained in the Environment Plan.

 

(Action by: Director of  Environment and Planning – Graham Magee)

 

01/h/27           DEPARTMENTAL PROJECT BASED WORK PROGRAMME

 

This report summarised the Environment and Planning Department’s work programme taking into account the recent pressures affecting the delivery of the service. The Director of Environment and Planning put forward recommendations for action to assist in the overall management of the work programme within the report.

 

Resolved that the Director of Environment and Planning be authorised to:

 

1)                 compile a select list of consultants to assist in the preparation of feasibility studies and other works, to be carried out in the medium to longer term, and to invite quotations from a minimum of three suitable consultants for any work which might be required in the short term as necessary to ensure the work programme can be met.

 

2)                 appoint additional staff to enable the work programme to be delivered on the basis that all costs can be recovered from fee income.

 

3)                 appoint a s.106 project manager, initially on a 3 year contract, to be funded from financial contributions (both existing and proposed) in the s.106 cost centre.

(Action by Director of Environment and Planning – Andy Thompson)

 

01/h/28           ECONOMIC POLICY STATEMENT YEAR 2 REVIEW – YEAR 3 PROGRAMME

 

The report by the Director of Environment and Planning sought to ensure that the Council provides continued support for appropriate development activities in the local economy, by adopting the year three (2001/02) programme.

 

Resolved to:

 

1)                 note the actions taken against the strategic objectives in the Year Two Programme; and

 

2)                 adopt the Year Three Programme set out in the report.

 

(Action by Director of Environment and Planning – Simon Meecham)

 

01/h/29           HOUSING DESIGN GUIDANCE

 

The report by the Director of Environment and Planning presented a Housing Design Guide, associated research and the results of the public consultation exercise. It recommended that the guidance be adopted, with amendments, as supplementary planning guidance to the Cambridge Local Plan (1996).

 

National planning policy towards housing development had been rapidly evolving over the last two years and there was an increased emphasis on the reuse of urban land, good design, minimising car parking and building at appropriate densities. This had resulted in the publication of guidance towards these goals. Paragraph 55 of Planning Policy Guidance 3 on Housing had stated that local authorities should develop a vision for the types of residential environments they wish to see in their areas. The vision should be drawn up in consultation with the local community and subsequently presented in the development plan and supplementary planning guidance.

 

Members commented that:

 

o       satisfaction survey of occupants of sample of new residential developments on which the Guidance was applied; and

o       satisfaction survey of users of the SPG including case officers, developers, agents and resident groups/action groups.

 

Resolved that

 

1)                 the Committee endorses the Guide, subject to changes in the text to take into account the above comments of members

 

2)                 the results be noted of the research undertaken in preparation of the Housing Design Guidance attached as appendices 3, 4 and 5 of the report and the text of the Guidance, attached as Appendix 2, for the review of Local Plan Policy.

 

3)                 any further changes to the wording of the Housing Design Guide as requested by committee be agreed with the Chair of Environment Committee and the Chair of Planning Sub-Committee.

 

(Action by Director of Environment and Planning – David Roberts)

 

01/h/30           CAMBRIDGESHIRE STRUCTURE PLAN REVIEW AND EAST CAMBRIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY

 

The report by the Director of Environment and Planning set out the results of the consultation on key issues for the review of the Structure Plan to 2016, and summarised the conclusions of the Cambridge Sub-regional Study which informed the consultation process. A gap in the range of options canvassed for the shape of the Cambridge Sub-region by the County had been identified and recommended that a study be commissioned to examine the feasibility of a large scale eastwards expansion of the city as an alternative to a detached new settlement.

 

The Committee noted the receipt of a letter from the Chairman of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Planning Committee commenting on the issues contained in the report and urging that the study not be undertaken.

 

A draft brief for a study exploring the feasibility of expansion on the eastern side of the city had been the subject of a consultation exercise and the response to the draft were set out in the report. The issues covered in the report referred to the Government’s Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia setting a target for new housing and the impact on the Sub-region. The local authorities within the Sub-region had commissioned a study, the conclusions of which had been incorporated in the County Council’s consultation.

 

There were aspects of the study that had not been sufficiently radical, in particular the review of the Green Belt which merited a more fundamental approach as had been sought in the City Council’s submission to the Regional Planning Guidance Examination In Public in 1999. The Director of Environment and Planning had recommended the commissioning of a separate study on the option for an eastern expansion and the Development Plan Steering Group had agreed but deferred progressing with the study until the Sub-regional Study had been completed. The Director of Environment and Planning’s reasons for proceeding with the study were set out in paragraph 4.6 of the report.

 

The Director of Environment and Planning pointed out that the County Council, not the City Council, would be determining the final shape of the Sub-region on the advice of the independent Structure Plan Panel following an Examination In Public. The likely cost of the study would be £50,000 which, as the consultancy budget was fully committed, would require virement from underspending in other areas.

 

Members commented as follows:

 

 

Councillor Durrant’s proposal that the words ‘an eastwards’ in the first line of the second recommendation (paragraph 2.2) be replaced by ‘the’ was lost by  7 votes to 3).

 

Councillor Howarth’s proposal that paragraph 2.2 be amended to read as set out below was carried by 6 votes to 1.

‘A study is commissioned which will broadly:

1)     examine the case for a major urban expansion of Cambridge, taking into account both the socio-economic and environmental concerns, the overall scope and sequencing of development of the city.

2)     examine the case for different sites to become a major expansion using the Council’s 1999 Green Belt study as the starting point and

3)     test the feasibility of the preferred site emerging from 1) and 2) above and prepare an outline master plan.

The study, the draft brief and list of possible consultants considered by the Development Plan Steering Group on 22 November 2000 (appendix 1 of the report) is finalised by the Director of Environment and Planning in consultation with the Chair and spokespersons.’

 

Resolved that

 

1)     responsibility for giving detailed comments on the Cambridge Sub-regional Study and the County Council’s consultation on Key Issues for the review of the Structure Plan is delegated to the Environment and Planning Policy Sub-Committee.

 

2)     A study is commissioned which will broadly:

a.      examine  the case for a major urban expansion of Cambridge, taking into account both the socio-economic and environmental concerns, the overall scope and sequencing of development of the city.

b.      examine the case for different sites to become a major expansion using the Council’s 1999 Green Belt study as the starting point and

c.      test the feasibility of the preferred site emerging from a. and b. above and prepare an outline master plan.

 

3)     The study, the draft brief and list of possible consultants considered by the    Development Plan Steering Group on 22 November 2000 (appendix 1 of the report) is finalised by the Director of Environment and Planning in consultation with the Chair and spokespersons.

 

4)     £50,000 is vired from the Public Transport Subsidy underspend for 2000/1, and the City Board is requested to agree the carry-forward of this amount to 2001/02 to enable the study to be funded.

 

5)     the Director of Environment and Planning writes to the Planning Directors of the County Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and East Cambridgeshire District Council explaining the reasons for this decision and inviting officer representation from all three Councils on the project steering group; and Huntingdonshire District Council be consulted on the project and kept abreast of its progress.

(Action by Director of Environment and Planning – Peter Studdert)

 

01/h/31           HOME ZONES – REPORT BACK ON CONSULTATION

 

The Director of Environment and Planning reported that on the 9 January the Committee had considered the results of consultations about the possibility of designating home zones in four streets: Darwin Drive, Kendal Way, Hawthorn Way and St Thomas' Square.  The results had not been considered sufficiently robust to go ahead with a designation, however, the Committee had agreed to a further survey of Hawthorn Way, which had given the most positive response. It was agreed with the Chair and spokespersons that a further survey of Kendal Way should be done to avoid doubt about the delivery of survey.  No representations had been made by residents from the other two streets.

 

West Chesterton ward members had surveyed Hawthorn Way in the week beginning 5 February 2001.  Kendal Way had been surveyed by staff from the Cambridge Federation of Tenants, Residents and Leaseholders in the week beginning 19 February 2001.

 

The responses were reported in detail to the Committee, in Hawthorn Way, the proportion of those who responded and were in favour was 69%.  In Kendal Way, the proportion of those who responded and were in favour was 82%. The issues raised by residents of Hawthorn Way and Kendal Way were also listed.

 

Resolved that further consultations be undertaken with residents of Kendal Way to establish the feasibility of creating a Home Zone there.

 

 (Action by Director of Environment and Planning – Brian Human)

 

 

01/h/32           CLIENT / CONTRACTOR ARRANGEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

 

The report of the Director of Environment and Planning sought approval for the re-allocation of resources and responsibilities, including budget management responsibilities, from the Head of Environmental Health and waste Strategy and the Head of Street Services to the Director of City Services.  This was in accordance with the new client and contractor arrangements for environmental services approved by City Board on 29 January 2001.

 

Resolved to approve the allocation of resources to

 

1)                 the Head of Environmental Health and Waste Strategy to carry out the strategic client role identified in paragraph 4.2 of the report.

 

2)                 the Head of Street Services to carry out the strategic client function identified in paragraph 4.3 of the report.

 

3)                 the Director of City Services to implement contractual services indicated  in paragraph 4.4 of the report.

 

(Action by: Head of Environmental Health & Waste Management – Roger Coey / Head of Street Services – Peter Littlefair / Director of City Services – Graham Watts)

 

01/h/33           CCTV INSTALLATION AT PARK STREET AND QUEEN ANNE TERRACE CAR PARKS

 

The Head of Transport Services advised the Committee that the Home Office had awarded funds for the installation of CCTV in Park Street and Queen Anne Terrace car parks and the amount of money awarded by the Home Office was £220,220. The estimated cost of the scheme at the time the bid was made was £240,220. The remaining £20,000 was to be funded by the City Council through a combination of a grant from the Safer City fund and from the City Council's capital resources.

 

The total capital cost had been made up of two elements; the installation of the cameras and equipment within the car parks and the installation of cabling for transmission of pictures from the car parks to the Guildhall control room.  At the time the bid was made the estimated costs were £179,630 and £60,590 respectively. 

 

Tenders for this work had been in excess of these sums, it had been necessary therefore to enter into negotiations to reduce the cost and bring the project back into budget.  This has been achieved and the total cost was now within the total budget of £240,220.  However the negotiations had delayed the implementation date and meant that it had not been possible to report the tender figures to Committee.  Consequently, using the urgency action procedures provided for in paragraph 33 of the Scheme of Delegations to Officers (Appendix D of Standing Orders), the Chair had authorised acceptance of the tender of Eastern Contracting Ltd in the sum of £203,642.86, for the installation of the equipment within the car parks. 

 

Resolved that the action be noted.

 

(Action by: Head of Transport Services – Alan Sidell)

 

 

 

01/h/34           CYCLE PARKING AT PARK STREET CAR PARK

 

The report by the Head of Transport Services sought approval to the use of the lower ground floor at Park Street car park for cycle parking. The proposal involved the installation of 106 ‘Sheffield hoops’ in the lower ground floor area, providing 212 cycle spaces. This would be at the cost of 24 car park spaces. The capital cost of £17,500 was being met by Home Office funding through the Targeting Policing Initiative.

 

Resolved to agree that the lower ground floor of Park Street car park be converted from car parking to cycle parking and City Board be requested to make appropriate provision in the Capital Plan.

(Action by: Head of Transport Services – Alan Sidell)

 

01/h/35           A BUS STRATEGY FOR CAMBRIDGESHIRE

 

The Head of Transport Services reported that a consultation document had been received on 13 February from the County Council on the draft Bus Strategy for Cambridgeshire and it had not been possible to produce a report in connection with the document in time for this Committee. 

 

The County Council had asked for comments by 6 April 2001 and, to ensure sufficient member involvement, it was proposed that the strategy be considered by the Environment and Planning Policy Sub-Committee when it met on the 26 March to consider a response to the draft Structure Plan.  The draft Structure Plan also required comment by 6 April.

 

Resolved that the response to the County Council on the draft Bus Strategy for Cambridgeshire be made by the Environment and Planning Policy Subcommittee

 

(Action by: Head of Transport Services – Alan Sidell)

 

01/h/36           CONSERVATORS OF THE RIVER CAM:  APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

 

Members were reminded that at the last meeting, the Committee had confirmed the appointment of six out of the seven City Council representatives on the Conservators of the River Cam for the three-year period ending 31 December 2003. 

 

A vacancy remained for a representative of environmental organisations, who was to be appointed following consultation with the Sustainable City Executive and it was agreed that the appointment be deferred until this meeting, to allow the Sustainable City Executive an opportunity to consider nominations. The Executive had been unable to nominate a representative. A nomination had been received from James Macnaghten, Director of Scudamore’s, which suggested that Rod Ingersent be appointed as a commercial operators’ representative, instead of the environmental organisations’ representative. The nomination had received support from the Clerk and Chairman of the Conservators.

 

Resolved that Rod Ingersent be appointed a City Council representative on the Conservators of the River Cam, the appointment to run until 31 December 2003. 

 

(Action by: Head of Committee Services – Gary Clift)

 

01/h/37           PETITION ON THE COMMUNITY CENTRE IN ST MATHEWS AREA OF ST PETERSFIELD WARD

 

The Committee noted that at its meeting on 25 January, the Community Development and Leisure Committee, in hearing a petition on the Community Centre in St Mathews area of St Petersfield Ward had resolved, among other things, to request the Environment Committee and Planning Sub-Committee to:

 

 

 

in time to inform the development of an action plan to be brought to the Community Development and Leisure Committee in November 2001.

 

The Director of Environment and Planning reported that the Planning department was currently working on a City wide strategy for the collection and use of s.106 funds, including for community facilities. This work was at an early stage but was committed to a first draft for consideration by Environment Committee in June. 

 

This work would be informed by any existing strategies that had been developed by Community Development. There had been, and would continue to be, close working with the Head of Community Development as this part of the s.106 strategy developed. Identification of what new or improved community facilities were needed or wanted should come out of this work and consultation with residents and tenants groups might be needed to inform this. Priorities for use of s.106 funds for Community facilities would need to be approved by the Community Development and Leisure and Environment Committees as part of the s.106 strategy. 

 

Resolved that the comments of the Director of Environment and Planning be noted.

 

 

 

The meeting ended at 2.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIR

 

 

G:\Committee\MINUTES\2001\april\010306h%.doc