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)
Cambridgeshire County Council, Peterborough City Council, and the five district and city councils in Cambridgeshire are all working to close the gaps in the national Test and Trace programme operated by SERCO, contacting people who have tested positive for COVID and giving them help, advice and support to self-isolate.
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 Combined Authority’s latest Board meeting was certainly different to any I’d previously encountered.
I’m not a Board member, but I attend as Chairman of the Combined Authority’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee to ask questions agreed by the Committee about items on the Board’s agenda.
At this meeting:
The Mayor had to announce that the person lined up to be appointed as Chief Executive of the Authority’s ‘special purpose vehicle’ to develop the CAM metro, at a salary of £225,000 + ten per cent performance bonus, had just turned down the job.
We were informed the Leader of the County Council had resigned as finance portfolio holder (I’m told due to pressure of work).
We were advised that the Combined Authority was scrambling together an emergency meeting of the Combined Authority’s Transport Committee, to discuss the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Cambourne to Cambridge corridor project, following the Transport Committee’s failure to agree (or even find someone to second) the Mayor’s proposal to its previous meeting.
After three and a half hours, with five items still to go, people were drifting off to other commitments, and the meeting was about to drop below the minimum number of members required to legally continue—so the rest of the business was deferred and a commitment made to reconvene a meeting in the next few days to finish it off.
The Overview & Scrutiny Committee had asked a number of questions about several of the agenda items. We were particularly interested in the CAM: why was it proposed to pay the Chief Executive, even if the preferred applicant hadn’t declined the offer, so much? Why were the non-executive directors to be paid £40,000 a year? And why was so much being spent on executives and directors for this project when there was no money in sight to actually build it? The response was that this was ‘perfectly normal’, ‘exactly how major schemes of this type begin and go on to get funding’, and while it was a ‘big challenge’ for us councillors to understand these things, this was how big national projects happen. It will all be fine.
We asked some initial questions about the Combined Authority’s budget, but we will be seeing that twice more at our Committee, in December and January, before it is finalised.
One of the most interesting Board papers was the review of progress on the 71 projects undertaken to meet the commitments of the ‘Devolution Deal’ to set up the Combined Authority nearly four years ago. We had a lot to ask about this, and unfortunately didn’t get much back in return.
Our first query was whether, in light of the recent and future shocks to the economy, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough would still meet its commitment to the Government to double the growth of the area’s economy. There was ‘every prospect that we will get back on track – absolutely yes’.
We then asked about the Public Sector Reform Commission, which has apparently been meeting for a long time, with nothing public to show for it at all. Something will be in the public domain ‘very soon’, we were told.
One of the commitments was to achieve ‘world class’ connectivity for the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough area. How would we know it was world class? The ‘acid test’, we were advised, was ‘whether the area continues to attract global investors in the future’. It’s not clear that those two things are uniquely linked, but the Overview & Scrutiny Committee will I am sure follow this with interest.
When would the impasse with the Government be resolved about its holding back of £45M of the promised £100M for affordable housing, and when will it be settled whether this multi-million pound scheme ends in March 2022 or March 2021? The Government minister had been ‘supportive’, we were told, and it should all be sorted out ‘in the coming days and weeks’.
Finally, we asked a large number of questions about various of the 71 commitments where the updates in the Board’s papers said that these were ‘not yet completed by Government’. What was happening with these? The rather circular response we received was that the updates were in the Board papers. Well yes, it was those updates we were seeking further information about. There will be regular updates and the Overview & Scrutiny Committee will be included in these, we were assured. But clearly not today.
The following planning applications in the Sutton division have been published by East Cambridgeshire District Council.
20/01494/FUL Sutton 36 The Row Sutton CB6 2PD Two storey rear extension and alterations (variation of previously approved 16/00334/FUL).
20/01512/FUL Sutton 180 High Street Sutton CB6 2NR Single storey rear extension.
20/01496/FUL Witcham 8 Silver Street Witcham CB6 2LF Single apex dormer in first floor extension.
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);
From Thursday (19 November) a local contact tracing service will launch in Cambridgeshire, to reach people whom the national system staffed by Serco has failed to contact.
Cambridgeshire’s local councils will be contacting people who have tested positive for COVID, giving them help, advice, and support to self-isolate.
Council officers who have undergone special training will follow up on people who have tested positive but have not responded to the national service, and will ask them for details of their close contacts.
Initial contact will be by phone, text or email asking people to call a local number. If this fails, officers carrying council ID will make house to house visits to reach those people who have tested positive and will give advice and support. They will also be asked to share details of others they have been in contact with.
Anyone who has been contacted and is concerned about this can call the council or local community hub on 0345 045 5219 to check the identity of the tracer.
The local contact tracing service in Peterborough has been up and running since August and has been very successful in tracing people when the national service did not.
Support for people in self-isolation
Support is available for people who need to isolate and don’t have friends, family or neighbours to help.
The network of council support hubs can help people get food and medicine, or even find volunteers to walk dogs. See also https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/content/community-support-group-details for details of local support groups in East Cambridgeshire.
In addition, each district council is running a Test and Trace Support Payment Scheme which entitles people who meet certain criteria to a one-off payment of £500. (Those who don’t meet the criteria to claim from the Test and Trace Support Payment Scheme, but are still adversely affected as a result of not being able to work, can apply for a £500 discretionary payment.) See https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/content/coronavirus-financial-assistance for more information in East Cambridgeshire.
Remember: no-one contacted by genuine Test and Trace staff will ever be asked for money or their bank details. Tests for Covid-19, whether at a mobile testing unit, official drive-through centres or elsewhere, or ordered online or by phone, are always entirely free.
Covid cases in schools week commencing 9 November
Cambridge: 20
East Cambridgeshire: 12
Fenland: 8
Huntingdonshire: 19
Peterborough: 46
South Cambridgeshire: 13
Estimated cases in East Cambs Tuesday 17 November
From King’s College London COVID Symptom Study app
The following planning application in the Sutton division has been published by East Cambridgeshire District Council.
20/01480/OUM Witchford Site north of 196 – 204 Main Street Witchford Outline planning application with all matters reserved (except for access) for up to 44 residential dwellings, new internal access roads and footpaths, open space, sustainable urban drainage system and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks (resubmission of 19/00754/OUM)
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);
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Independent Commission on Climate is carrying out a survey of public views – and there are just two days left to respond.
A crossing at Lancaster Way that will address the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and horse-riders could be on the cards, following pressure from many people including Ely Cycling Campaign, the British Horse Society, and Liberal Democrat councillors.
An amendment was proposed by Cllr Ian Manning (Lib Dem, Chesterton) at the meeting of the County Council’s Highways & Transport Committee on Tuesday 10 November. It means that the County Council will now ask the funders, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority, for a ‘Pegasus’ crossing that can be used by horse-riders as well as walkers and cyclists – and liaise with Ely Cycling Campaign and the British Horse Society over the design and location.
This is what I said to the Committee to try to persuade them of the need for a better design than the dismal effort originally consulted on.
“The design for the Lancaster Way roundabout as published for consultation was clearly the wrong one, as evidenced by the fact that of those who expressed a view in the recent consultation, it was opposed by a 2:1 majority.
There are at least ten reasons why the junction design put out to consultation was the wrong choice, and why it received such a strong negative public response. I am conscious that I only have five minutes to address you, so I will narrow these down to the following.
The concept of ‘improvement’ of this roundabout has only ever been viewed through the prism of increasing capacity and speed for motor traffic. For pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians trying to cross busy lanes of traffic onto reduced verges, the original design self-admittedly makes matters worse.
If the promised additional jobs are created, most of those employees will travel by car as this is the mode the original design promotes, and because the roundabout will make active travel more difficult and more dangerous.
The original design ignores successful solutions implemented elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, including on the A1307 by Babraham Research Park.
It ignores the commitment of the Combined Authority’s Local Transport Plan to active travel, the direction of the government’s Gear Change report, the National Planning Policy Framework, the district council’s Local Plan, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2019 Summary for Policymakers, which all promote sustainable transport and reduction in car use.
And at a technical level it also fails to comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, and with Local Transport Note 1/20.
Fortunately the residents of East Cambridgeshire are more committed to sustainability than that, and have given the original design a big thumbs-down.
The report before you seeks to address the deficits in the original design, and the objections of consultation respondents, by adding a signalised crossing on the eastern arm of the roundabout. However, this is specified as a pedestrian crossing, offering little help for cyclists, and none whatever for equestrians needing to cross from livery facilities south of the A142.
A better solution, supported by both cyclists and equestrians, would be to place a crossing on the western arm of the roundabout, with a path on the north side of the roundabout to connect it with the existing path. This is a route already taken informally by a number of existing pedestrians and cyclists. This should be a Pegasus crossing, capable of accommodating cyclists and horse-riders as well as pedestrians, with push buttons high enough to be capable of being pressed by someone on horseback. Such a crossing has recently been installed at the Babraham Institute roundabout.
A Pegasus crossing on the western arm would at least demonstrate some alignment with the Combined Authority’s Local Transport Plan. It would also assist in furthering the aims of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, reconnecting pre-existing paths bisected by the A142, and offering entry from south of the A142 into the triangle between Mepal, Ely and Pymoor which has enormous potential for leisure and other uses.
An amendment to provide a Pegasus crossing to the western arm of the roundabout, rather than a pedestrian crossing to the eastern arm, is absolutely critical in addressing the objections that have been made to the original design. It has the support of local representatives of the British Horse Society, as well as of the Ely Cycling Campaign, and I would urge members to amend the recommendation to this effect. The Council should then work with local equestrian and cycling representatives on the design of such a crossing to ensure it is fit for purpose.
Finally, the recent works to the BP roundabout at the junction of A10 and the A142 have caused months of misery to residents on unofficial cut-through routes both north and south of the A142. I would ask officers to liaise with affected residents and parish councils at the earliest opportunity to discuss working practices and how residents can be protected as far as possible from the negative effects of these road works while they are ongoing.”
Cambridgeshire Lib Dems are calling on the ruling Conservative group on Cambridgeshire County Council to listen to the views of road users other than car drivers, and move the location of a pedestrian crossing on the Lancaster Way business park roundabout in Ely.
Further, given the number of equestrians in the area, the type should be a ‘Pegasus’ crossing – accommodating horse riders as well as cyclists and pedestrians.
A decision on the roundabout design is to be made at tomorrow’s (Tuesday 10th November) meeting of the Highways & Transport Committee of the County Council.
Cllr Lorna Dupré, County Councillor for the neighbouring parish of Witchford, said:
“The proposals initially put out to consultation prioritised motor traffic, making this roundabout actively hostile to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. They should not go ahead in that form.
”The revised proposal to be put to the Highways & Transport Committee tomorrow simply adds signals to the existing pedestrian crossing to the east of the roundabout. This isn’t good enough, and doesn’t meet the needs of cyclists or of horse-riders using the livery yards near the roundabout.
”A Pegasus crossing to the west of the roundabout would be better for all road users.”
Regardless of the improvement of moving the crossing, concerns remain, explained Lib Dem highways lead Cllr Ian Manning:
“The original design was opposed by the majority of people who responded to the consultation, because it so completely failed to meet highways standards, planning guidance, or the Local Transport Plan adopted by the Combined Authority which is paying most of the costs of the scheme.
“Its primary aim was to improve capacity and speed for cars, whereas the Local Transport Plan requires the needs of walkers, cyclists, and horse-riders to be prioritised.
”Combined Authority and County Council Conservatives need to move beyond lip-service, and start practising what they preach.”
Cllr Manning will be moving an amendment at the meeting to move the location of the crossing to the west side of the roundabout.
Cllr Manning’s amendment will read (additions in bold):
Approve the addition of a signalised pegasus crossing to the west of the roundabout within the scope of the project and cover this with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority through a change request. Officers should consult with Ely Cycling Campaign and the British Horse Society on the design of the crossing.
The following planning applications in the Sutton division have been published by East Cambridgeshire District Council.
20/01421/FUL Little Downham 14 Second Drove Little Downham CB6 2UD Change of use of existing agricultural storage shed from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and vehicle servicing and repairs (retrospective).
20/01360/FUL Sutton 33 Bellairs Sutton CB6 2RW Front porch and enclose area under the existing first floor extension.
20/01405/FUL Witcham Chestnut Lodge 3 Martins Lane Witcham Single storey rear extension, garage conversion and loft conversion.
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);
.png)
