Issue - meetings

The Civic Affairs Committee unanimously

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

(a)  Option B as laid out in the report, due to the support of local parish councils, local organisations and local residents for this option.

(b)  That the new parish be named “South Trumpington”.

Council

AGREED

(a)  Option B as laid out in the report, due to the support of local parish councils, local organisations and local residents for this option.

(b)  That the new parish be named “South Trumpington”.

Councillor Janet Lockwood, local member for Harston and Hauxton, proposed this recommendation by explaining that it had the support of the affected parish councils and local residents associations. Councillor Doug Cattermole, local member for Haslingfield, seconded the recommendation.

Councillor Charlie Nightingale proposed and Councillor Ben Shelton seconded the proposal that instead of Trumpington South the new parish should be named Fawcett due to the association the area had with the Fawcett family. Councillor Simon Crocker explained that the name Trumpington South had the support of the Civic Affairs Committee and the Trumpington Residents’ Association and none of the parish council representatives at the meeting had objected to this name. He added that a future governance review would be required to set up a parish council and the residents could propose a name change then. Councillor David Bard cautioned against agreeing to give the parish a name which had not been consulted on. A vote was taken and with 6 votes in favour, 33 against and 3 abstentions the proposal was lost.

Council unanimously

AGREED

(a)  Option B as laid out in the report, due to the support of local parish councils, local organisations and local residents for this option.

(b)  That the new parish be named “South Trumpington”.

The Civic Affairs Committee

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

(a)  That option B as laid out in the report, due to the support of local parish councils, local organisations and local residents for this option.

(b)  That the new parish be named “South Trumpington”.

The Development Officer presented this report, which invited the Committee to consider the second phase of public consultation for the Community Governance Review of Haslingfield Parish and make a recommendation to Council.

Andrew Roberts, from the Trumpington Residents’ Association (TRA), addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         A new parish should be created north of the M11, in the existing area of Haslingfield Parish.

·         The new parish should be called South Trumpington, as the name Trumpington Meadows has no historic context.

·         The TRA now supported Option B.

·         The district boundary should eventually be moved to include all residents of Trumpington Meadows in Cambridge.

John Hammond from Hauxton Parish Council addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         The area south of the M11, beside the A10 should become part of Hauxton Parish.

·         It was important that Hauxton Parish Council continued to be consulted on any proposed changes to junction 11 of the M11.

·         The M11 was a natural boundary, with the City on one side and rural Cambridgeshire on the other.

·         Hauxton Parish Council preferred Option B to Option A.

Councillor Tony Orgee explained that he wished to address the Committee as a District Councillor for The Abingtons ward and not as a County Councillor. He urged the Committee to support Option B.

The Development Officer explained that Haslingfield Parish Council had stated that they would be satisfied with either Option A or B.

The Committee recognised the support for Option B from local representatives and residents. The Committee recognised that parish names tended to be named after historic places and not people. For this reason it was considered that it would not be appropriate to include either Byron or Meadows in the name of the new parish. It was noted that the existing residents supported the name Trumpington Meadows, but they currently numbered approximately fifty residents and it would be possible to amend the name of a parish in the future.

The Civic Affairs Committee unanimously

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

(a)  Option B as laid out in the report, due to the support of local parish councils, local organisations and local residents for this option.

(b)  That the new parish be named “South Trumpington”.

The Civic Affairs Committee:

(a)        AGREED to commence further consultation regarding a Community Governance Review of the Parish of Haslingfield, based on the principles of Option A as set out in the report.

(b)        AGREED that the consultation should include the rescaled Parish of Haslingfield retaining its current complement of Parish Councillors, with the newly created Parish Council consisting of nine Parish Councillors.

(c)        AGREED that no proposed name be allocated to the new Parish at this stage and that the name of the new Parish forms part of the consultation exercise.

The Civic Affairs Committee considered a report which enabled Members to deliberate the submissions received during the first phase of public consultation for the Community Governance Review of Haslingfield Parish.

Gemma Barron, Partnerships Manager, presented the report and highlighted that the formal consultation had been conducted between 15 March 2016 and 13 June 2016 and followed a round of briefings to the Southern Fringe Community Forum, Trumpington Residents’ Association, the Trumpington Meadows Management Committee and the Parish Councils of Haslingfield, Hauxton and Grantchester.  It was noted that the resultant submissions had been summarised in Options A to C of the report with a further option, Option D, being to make no change to Haslingfield Parish boundary or its electoral arrangements.

Linda Frost, a resident of Trumpington Meadows, reported that she and a number of people in the area had been meeting as a group to discuss this issue.  The group’s consensus was that people wanted to be a whole community and one that was together in either Cambridge City or South Cambridgeshire, not split by their respective boundaries.  She understood, however, that a review of that boundary could not be instigated as part of this Community Governance Review.  Linda Frost therefore called for the Community Governance Review to be postponed until a full review of the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire boundary took place, particularly in view of the fact that this situation was not unique and that other developments commencing on the fringes of Cambridge City were also crossing the boundary into South Cambridgeshire.

Members noted that the request to postpone the Community Governance Review would effectively mean supporting Option D in the report, although it was emphasised that a review into the boundary of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire could not form part of this Community Governance Review and would consist of a separate and much more comprehensive boundary review.

Councillor Janet Lockwood reported that Hauxton Parish Council would be in favour of Option B as this would see the A10 and a field which included a cycle path from Hauxton to Trumpington being located within the parish boundary of Hauxton.  She also understood that a Greater Cambridge City Deal proposal for a Park and Ride facility in this area may be proposed, which the Parish Council would want to have more input on. 

Councillor David Bard referred to the very recent submission of a planning application for Trumpington Sporting Village, but he understood that this would not consist of any residential properties in the area being considered as part of this Community Governance Review. 

Councillor Deborah Roberts supported Councillor Lockwood’s comments and proposed Option B as set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Lockwood and with 2 votes in favour, 4 votes against and 3 abstentions, the proposal was lost.

Councillor David Bard proposed Option A as set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor David McCraith and with 3 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 3 abstentions, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

The Civic Affairs Committee:

(a)        AGREED to commence a Community Governance Review of the parish of Haslingfield based on the terms of reference set out in Appendix A of the report, taking into consideration the timing of such a review.

(b)        NOTED the current status of each Community Governance Review as outlined in the report.

The Civic Affairs Committee considered a report which updated Members with progress regarding Community Governance Reviews in the district.

The following points were noted during discussion for each review:

Cambourne West

Since the last meeting of the Committee on 9 July 2015, where it was reported that a letter had been received from Cambourne Parish Council to request a Community Governance Review, Members noted that Caxton Parish Council had now been contacted by Cambourne Parish Council.  The contents of the letter from Caxton Parish Council were included within the report. 

Councillor Simon Crocker made the point that Cambourne Parish Council had requested a Community Governance Review based on planning applications being considered at this moment in time and not the proposed development as it appeared in the Local Development Plan, which he felt was contrary to what Caxton Parish Council had referred to in the letter.  Officers agreed to arrange a meeting with representatives from both Parish Councils to confirm their respective positions with regard to the Community Governance Review.

Darwin Green 2 and 3 and North West Cambridge

At the previous meeting of the Committee it was agreed to consider North West Cambridge alongside Darwin Green 2 and 3.  Members were informed that preliminary discussions with a local Councillor regarding governance at North West Cambridge had recently been held.  No further discussions in relation to Darwin Green 2 and 3 had taken place since the last meeting. 

Northstowe

Members noted that a further report on Northstowe would be submitted to the Civic Affairs Committee in due course.

Trumpington Meadows

As previously agreed by the Civic Affairs Committee, draft terms of reference had been prepared for a Community Governance Review for the parish of Haslingfield, which set out the matters on which such a review could focus.  A copy of this document was attached the report at Appendix A.  Forecast housing trajectory for the South Cambridgeshire part of the Trumpington Meadows development in terms of estimated dwelling completion between 2015 and 2021 was set out the in report. 

Depending on the timing of the review, it was noted that the Parish Council could be in a position where it had elections in 2016, 2017 and 2018.  The point was made, however, that electors would be voting at the all-out County and District Council elections scheduled to take place in 2017 and 2018, respectively, in any case.

Members agreed that people in this community should be given the opportunity to build and develop their own communities and were of the view that the Community Governance Review should commence as soon as possible. 

The Civic Affairs Committee:

(a)        AGREED to commence a Community Governance Review of the parish of Haslingfield based on the terms of reference set out in Appendix A of the report, taking into consideration the timing of such a review.

(b)        NOTED the current status of each Community Governance Review as outlined in the report.