District councillor for Sutton, Mepal, Witcham, and Wentworth (East Cambridgeshire District Council) and county councillor for Coveney, Little Downham, Mepal, Pymoor, Sutton, Wardy Hill, Way Head, Witcham, and Witchford (Cambridgeshire County Council)
Stagecoach has announced further changes to its services on a number of Cambridge routes with effect from Sunday 28 June.
These include
Reopening of the Milton Park & Ride
All Cambridge Park and Ride services to operate at a 10 minute frequency
The No 9 bus from Littleport to Cambridge at 18:00 operating 18 minutes earlier throughout its journey.
More information about all changes available here.
And from Monday 29 June, as previously reported, Histon Road Cambridge will be closing southbound (from just south of the junction with Kings Hedges Road) for several months. This will impact Stagecoach’s Citi 8 and Busway route B on their inbound journeys to Cambridge.
A meeting of the Combined Authority’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee this morning, with a couple of changes of membership – welcoming Cllrs Corney and Mason, and recording our thanks to departing Cllrs Dew and Miscandlon, and our congratulations to the latter on being elected Chairman of Fenland District Council.
We’ve been asked by the Combined Authority Board to consider whether we wish to co-opt an Independent councillor to the Committee, who would not have voting rights, and would not count as a member of the committee for formal purposes. Between 2017 and 2019 the Committee did indeed have an Independent member from one of the Cambridgeshire councils, but in 2019 the Board said this would no longer be permitted. Independent councillors are not included for the purposes of calculating how many seats each party is given on this Committee, which has a distorting effect on the ‘political balance’ of representation overall.
My view, which I express in the meeting, is that inviting us to co-opt an Independent member with no vote, who will not even count among the minimum number of members to hold a meeting, is no more than a fig-leaf strategically placed to cover the distortion of not including them properly in the calculation to begin with. No-one on the Committee disagrees. We decide not to co-opt a member on these terms, and to ask the Combined Authority
Why was an Independent member allowed to sit on the Committee from 2017 to 2019?
Why was there a change to exclude Independent members in 2019?
What efforts has the Combined Authority been making to persuade Government to remove any legal barriers to including Independent councillors in the calculation of committee places?
We then agree that the Committee should appoint a Lead Member to shadow the work of the Combined Authority’s Business Board – an increasingly important body in shaping Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s COVID recovery, and with considerable amounts of money to disburse to local businesses. We already have Lead Members from our Committee shadowing the Skills, Housing and Transport Committees, and feel that the Business Board deserves no less consideration. We decide to invite expressions of interest in taking on this task, and to make an appointment next month.
We move to consider the Committee’s work programme for the year, and agree to add to the existing agenda items
invitations to the Chairs of the Skills, Housing and Transport Committees, and the relevant Directors, to come and brief us about their work
items on the A10 dualling and junctions project, the Ely Area (Rail) Capacity study, and digital communications
ongoing overview of the CAM metro scheme.
A number of projects have been closed, either because they have been completed or because they are no longer progressing, and we receive a short report on that.
Finally, with input from our Lead Members we consider the Combined Authority’s forward plan, and note some of the items that will be of particular interest to the Committee, such as the CAM metro Cambourne to Cambridge route, and (intriguingly) a ‘change of registered office’ for the Combined Authority in early August. Will they have sealed the deal on their new premises in Ely by then?
This week’s headline numbers, taken from figures produced by Cambridgeshire County Council’s Public Health intelligence team.
There have been 1,239 laboratory-confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Cambridgeshire – an increase of nine since last week. The rate per 100,000 population is still less than the England average. (As usual, remember that the number of actual cases will be considerably higher).
East Cambridgeshire still has the lowest rate in the county, and Huntingdonshire the highest. The rate of cases is increasing more slowly than previously.
Over half (50.4 per cent) of Cambridgeshire care homes have reported an outbreak during this pandemic, compared to 44 per cent in the East of England. The proportion of care homes which have experienced outbreaks is highest in South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, and lowest in East Cambridgeshire. For the week starting 1 June, there was only one reported fresh outbreak in Cambridgeshire (in Huntingdonshire).
18 deaths related to Covid-19 occurred among Cambridgeshire residents in the week ending 5 June – a reduction on the previous week. Five of these deaths occurred in a care home. 13 of the 18 deaths occurred in Huntingdonshire, and none in East Cambridgeshire. 68 deaths from other causes occurred in the same period.
Overall there have been 377 Covid-19 related deaths in Cambridgeshire between 27 March and 5 June. 239 of these have been in hospital, and 118 in care homes.
For the week ending 5 June, the number of deaths is above the 2014-18 weekly average in Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire, primarily as a result of deaths where Covid-19 is mentioned on the death certificate. The number of deaths in Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland has returned to levels lower than the 2014-18 weekly average.
A full copy of the weekly report is available here.
The following planning applications in the Sutton division have been published by East Cambridgeshire District Council.
20/00742/FUL Little Downham 37 Main Street Pymoor CB6 2ED Single storey rear extension.
20/00702/FUL Witcham 5 Silver Street Witcham CB6 2LF Single storey flat roof rear extension following removal of existing single storey conservatory style room.
Further information can be found on the district council’s planning pages. If you would like to respond formally to the council about any planning application, comments should be addressed to the district council and not to me. Comments may be made
online using the council’s public access web page (the link above);
The application by Abbey Homes for the ‘reserved matters’ at their site at Garden Close Sutton has been refused by East Cambridgeshire District Council today.
Abbey Homes still has its outline planning permission, but the council has refused this application for the details.
Eight reasons are given for the refusal.
The scale and form and density of the proposed development does not accord with the aims and objectives of the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan 2019 which requires development on the site to be predominantly low-density single-storey dwellings. The scheme as proposed therefore fails to respect its edge of settlement location and fails to preserve or enhance the views into and out of the settlement. The proposal conflicts with Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 and Policy NP5 of the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan 2019.
The reduction of open space, tree and hedge removal and changes to the drainage strategy have not been adequately assessed within the scheme as to what harm would occur to the ecology and protected species of the site, which also would result in irreparable damage to the Great Crested Newt habitats on and off the site. Furthermore an updated Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) has not been received and this document is an integral part of the s106 Agreement and secures the welfare of protected species and the management of ecology and biodiversity networks/systems. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy ENV7 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 and Policy NP2 of the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan 2019.
The mix of market housing proposed on site fails to contribute to meeting the needs of the village. The lack of 2 bedroom market dwellings as well as the needs of an ageing population looking to downsize into homes suitable for lifetime occupation have not been accommodated within the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HOU1 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 and Policy NP7 of the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan 2019.
The proposal fails to provide an acceptable turning and parking layout on site as well as limited visitor parking contrary to Policies COM7 and COM8 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015.
The location of an area of accessible public open space as well as the parking layout to the north of the site does not provide a suitable buffer to protect the residential amenities of an adjoining occupier who has protected characteristics. As such the scheme would not comply with Policy ENV2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 and Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Insufficient information has been provided to support the view that a sustainable urban drainage strategy can be delivered satisfactorily throughout the site without compromising the amenities of neighbouring properties through the raising of land levels to the rear of properties in Garden Close. The overbearing nature of the development would lead to a loss of privacy; overlooking; over shadowing which is exacerbated by the disparity in scale of the existing bungalows along the western boundary of the site and the applicant’s intention to provide two storey dwellings throughout the development. The proposal is contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 and Policy NP5 of the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan 2019.
No information has been provided with the reserved matters application of the design and layout of the POS nor the LEAP. Furthermore the applicants’ have failed to provide information on how much public open space has been lost due to the changes in layout and the introduction of SUDS features around the site. Moreover as the drainage strategy is in the process of agreement between the statutory consultee, neighbours, and the applicant, to which the Council has not been a party to, it is also not known how much of the POS would be lost to accommodate the new drainage strategy. Due to insufficient information being received to satisfy the Council’s concerns the proposal would conflict with Policy GROWTH 3 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015.
Due to the continued submission of contradictory tree information, combined with the unnecessary loss of category B trees and high likelihood of future pressures for tree removals and pruning that there would be an adverse impact on the settlement character and visual amenities of the area. The proposal is contrary to Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 and Policy NP5 of the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan 2019.
Responding to reports that the Government is set to spend £900k to repaint RAF Voyager in the colours of the Union Jack flag, Liberal Democrat Defence Spokesperson, Jamie Stone MP said:
“This absurd waste of nearly £1 million at a time when so many families are struggling to put food on the table and so many are worried about their job security is insulting.
“The country is facing the biggest crisis in generations but Boris Johnson is concerned with the colours of his plane.
“This government continue to astound with their posturing. It is disgraceful. They should halt these plans and use the money to help those who need it most right now instead.”
Cambridgeshire Liberal Democrats have supported proposals to fix the problem of the A10 traffic bottleneck at the BP roundabout at Ely – but say this must not come at the expense of safer provision for walkers, cyclists, and horse-riders.
At the County Council’s Highways and Transport Committee this morning (Tuesday 16 June) Lib Dem councillor Ian Manning supported proposals for improving both the A10/A142 BP garage roundabout and the A142 Lancaster Way roundabout, but pushed for action to overcome the lack of safe walking and cycling provision. He proposed an amendment to ask contractors to come up with proposals alongside pushing ahead with the roundabout upgrades, but the majority Conservative group signalled that they would reject this.
Cllr Manning said, “It’s shocking that, while there is real momentum nationally to encourage walking and cycling, the County Council are determined to proceed with two road improvement schemes that make no provision for walkers, cyclists or equestrians to cross the A10 and A142 in safety. Indeed senior councillors have admitted the changes will make matters even worse for non-drivers.
It will benefit everyone if, at the same time as we build in improvements for existing traffic, we also ensure that travellers in future can access jobs and services safely by bike or on foot.”
In response, the Conservative committee chair agreed to write to the Combined Authority requesting Cllr Manning’s suggestions were looked into. Cllr Lorna Dupré, who represents Witchford on the County Council, commented, “Under the current proposals, the Lancaster Way business park, A10 leisure centre, and the North Ely developments, Ely railway station, the centre of Ely, and villages west of the BP roundabout will be even more cut off from each other for anyone without a car.
“The Mayor and councillors on the Combined Authority promised in their Local Transport Plan to prioritise walking and cycling. Now we need to ensure they are held to their promise.”
Free short courses are on offer to anyone in Cambridgeshire over the age of nineteen, from Cambridgeshire Skills.
And although the courses are online they all come with full tutor support. Each course should take about ten hours to complete.
From food safety to garden design, English for beginners to how to get that job in retail, there’s something for everyone, with further courses to be added shortly.
There’s nothing to lose from taking a look! Visit the website for more information and to book your free place.
This week’s headlines, courtesy of Cambridgeshire County Council’s Public Health intelligence team.
There have been 1,230 laboratory-confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Cambridgeshire – an increase of 34 since last week. The rate per 100,000 population is still less than the England average.
East Cambridgeshire still has the lowest rate in the county, and Huntingdonshire the highest. However, cases in Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire and South Cambridgeshire in the week starting 1 June grew more rapidly than in the previous week.
Almost half (49.6 per cent) of Cambridgeshire care homes have reported an outbreak – more than the average for the East of England. This figure varies between one-third of care homes in East Cambridgeshire, to four-fifths of care homes in Cambridge.
22 deaths related to Covid-19 occurred among Cambridgeshire residents in the week ending 29 May – 10 of these occurred in a care home. 10 of the 22 deaths occurred in Huntingdonshire, and one in East Cambridgeshire. 80 deaths from other causes occurred in the same period.
Overall there have been 357 Covid-19 deaths in Cambridgeshire between 27 March and 29 May. 225 of these have been in hospital.
There have been no Covid-19 related death notifications in care homes in Cambridgeshire since 2 June.
