On the first of May 2012 I attended a meeting of Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership, held in the Guildhall.

The meeting was rendered almost pointless by the absence of both elected councillors who should have been there, Cambridge City Council’s executive councillor for policing, Tim Bick (Liberal Democrat) and Police Authority representative and the partnership’s “citizen focus champion” Cllr Kevin Wilkins (Liberal Democrat). Without the councillors there is no one in the room expressing the view of, or defending the interests of, the public. The gathering became a waste of time, practically a morning off, for a bunch mostly senior and very highly paid public servants.

Neither councillor had offered apologies or explanations for their absence. There was an empty chair with Cllr Bick’s name in front of it at the table.

Compounding the absence of the elected representatives, no representative of Cambridge Magistrates was present either.

When he has been present at previous meetings of the partnership Cllr Bick has led the critical questioning following each report; without him, or anyone to fill his place, each report was simply presented and there was no one to raise any questions. The only comments those making reports received from their fellow professionals were ones of vacuous mutual congratulation; many of these contributions suggested some of those present had been watching too much “twenty twelve”.

Public Questions

I used the public question slot on the agenda, I noted I was coming back and making another suggestion of something the Community Safety Partnership could be doing, despite the suggestion I made at a previous meeting that it could work on encouraging it’s member bodies, and the local policing, crime and justice sector as whole to operate more openly and transparently, having been summarily dismissed.

I said:

I’d like to suggest the partnership co-ordinate the various “Neighbourhood Resolution Panels” in operation in, and being proposed for, Cambridge.

The city council already runs a neighbourhood resolution scheme and has recently adopted a policy of pursuing a new scheme with a slightly different remit. The police are proposing their own separate but similar scheme. The Home Secretary has recently reportedly announced plans for another similar concept which result in a fourth scheme.

In my view some clarity, co-ordination and simplification is is needed.

I noted the council had had problems consulting with groups such as the probation service, who had not understood what they were consulting on, thinking they were being asked about the police scheme, and suggested this showed better co-ordination and awareness among the public bodies involved or what was being done was needed.

My written question submitted contained a link to my article following the council’s adoption of a policy to pursue its neighbourhood resolution panel scheme for Cambridge.

The meeting’s chair, Cambridge City Council’s Director of Customer and Community Services, Liz Bisset (on ££91,891/year) responded to say that the partnership only takes on new areas of work once a year and suggestions raised would be considered at the appropriate time.

Liz Bisset asked Linda Kilkelly, Cambridge City Council’s Safer Communities Manager (who also spells her name Lynda) to respond.

Kilkelly started by denying there was any overlap between the council’s existing remediation scheme and the resolution scheme it had recently approved.

Kilkelly said she was not aware of any other schemes.

This was an astonishing admission by council officer Kilkelly as it shows she had not read the police response to the council’s consultation on introducing its own scheme and that she had not been paying attention during the December 2011 meeting of the partnership where the police also reported their plans to introduce their own scheme.

Kilkelly went on to claim that the Youth Offending Service had managed to respond to the council’s consultation on introducing it’s own restorative justice scheme and had done so positively. I clarified that Kilkelly really meant the Youth Offending Service, and not the probation service (whose response the council has published in response to a FOI request) and she said she did.

Apparently responding to my previous article in which I noted:

The Government’s specification document strongly recommends oversight arrangements involving local Magistrates and others. There are no proposals for oversight in the proposal document for the Cambridge scheme.

Kilkelly said that was an area the council had to work on, and said the council might talk to the CSP about that aspect. (The CSP is the only body I’m aware of which brings the council and the magistrates together).

Speeding in 20MPH Limits/Zones

A second public question came from Mr Lawton, though he was not present to ask it in person.

He wanted to know why speeding was not one of the things the partnership was working on; he urged the partnership to look at what was being discussed at area committees and give weight to that when setting its priorities. Mr Lawton suggested speeding vehicles were a serious safety hazard in the city so ought be tackled by the safety partnership.

Prior to the meeting I saw the chair, officer Bisset, ask Chief Inspector Sloan of Cambridgeshire Police if he would answer the question. Mr Lawton’s question referred to Victoria Avenue and Maid’s Causeway however the inspector didn’t know where these roads were, or the speed limits in force on them and had to have the situation described to him by the chair.

The most interesting element of the Chief Inspector’s response was that the West Central Area Committee’s recent setting of tackling speeding in 20MPH limits as a priority had been accepted by the police. It will be interesting to find out if this decision was made at a Neighbourhood Action Group meeting, or if it was made unilaterally by the police.

Officer Bisset responded to say that she doesn’t know how the Roads Safety Partnership’s responsibilities relate to those of the Community Safety Partnership.

Another member of the partnership suggested collecting data from the ambulance service on city centre traffic incident injuries.

On the area committee’s point, the chair asked for a new “local issues” agenda item to be added to future Community Safety Partnership meetings highlighting matters raised at the area committees.

Notable Points from the Meeting

• Chief Inspector Sloan spoke about a recent rise in “theft from person”, other than robbery, mainly thefts of mobile phones and other electronic items from pubs and cafes in the city centre. The partnership was told this crime was moving into cafes in the daytime, the trend having started in the evenings in pubs. The Chief Inspector said the “national mobile phone theft unit” was helping the local force as the crime was being organised on a national basis. Door staff have been trained in recognising thieves and pick-pockets. A member of the partnership said they had dressed up as a mobile phone to draw attention to the problem and this had been covered in the press. The partnership said they wanted to do more self-promotion along those lines.
• The meeting was told that “Integrated Offender Management” had come into being in Cambridge as of the 2nd of April, and that “offending families” not just individuals were being considered. A launch event, for professionals, had been held at the Arbury Community Centre. The meeting was told that “Inclusion” had become the new “drug service supplier” (Contract obtained via FOI).
• The city council is running “street surgeries” on the subject of how to report anti-social behaviour. There was a discussion of if a case study of an anti-social behaviour case ought be brought to the partnership in anonomised form to highlight the problems co-ordinating action from different bodies. Some present felt this would actually bring some purpose to the meeting, others argued it would be too complex and better suited to an “away day”.
• Differences between ambulance service and Addenbrooke’s derived violent crime injury data was discussed. One issue being what people chose to tell hospital administrators, another being the wide catchment area of Addenbrooke’s for trauma cases.
• The meeting was told Cambridgeshire County Council were increasing their domestic violence staff from 5.2 Full Time Equivalent to 7.2, and were told these people go out to cases with the police. The meeting was told that in the past there were staff posts vacant as it was hard to fill posts advertised for short term contracts. On statistics reported was that high risk Domestic Violence cases have a 100% repeat offence rate (presumably they mean cases identified as high risk before the repeat offence occurs / is reported).
• The annual budget of the partnership is about £90,000 and they have £20,000 unspent. They talked about pitching to a new police and crime commissioner, via a “strategic assessment” aimed at keeping their budget.
• The partnership changed their vice-chair and edited their terms of reference so they contained their current priorities.
• The partnership resolved to clarify that matters relating to road safety were not their core business and that they are not the Road Safety Partnership.

My view

The meeting was a complete waste of time.

No discussion or co-ordination took place; there was no working together between the various arms of the state represented.

Each group was simply reporting its “news”, the vast majority of which could be gleaned from reading the local paper.

My view is that such a group should exist, and there are things it could usefully be doing, as I’ve suggested myself to the partnership using their public speaking slot. They could better co-ordinate the production of statistics, particularly for councillors setting priorities at area committee meetings and co-ordinate the proactive release of information so the whole policing and justice sector operates in public, and seek to prevent overlap where multiple bodies end up doing the same thing.

In many cases I think we need sharper boundaries between the roles of the various bodies. For example I think it’s crazy that the city council is trying to encroach on the roles of the police (though its anti-social behaviour team) and the courts (through its new restorative justice panels). Each organisation should stick to its core role, and what its supposed to be doing. The role of the partnership should be making sure the interfaces between the organisations work, and preventing duplication of effort.

See Also

• Community Safety Partnership Webpage - Contains meeting papers

Ian Nimmo-Smith as Mayor of Cambridge (Source)

Following the elections on the 3rd of May 2012 there are 21 Liberal Democrats on Cambridge City Council and 21 others. The casting vote is held by Ian Nimmo-Smith. Mr Nimmo-Smith did not stand for re-election in May but as he was Mayor last year Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables him to continue as Mayor, and as a councillor, until his successor as mayor “becomes entitled to act as chairman”.

While Ian Nimmo-Smith did not stand for re-election at the end of his term it appears even if he had been beaten in an election he would have been able to continue as a councillor. As it is he can wield more power with his chair’s casting vote at full council, than those elected on the 3rd of May, to me that feels wrong and anti-democratic. Surely as his term as an elected councillor has come to an end he shouldn’t be sitting in the council chamber and the deputy mayor ought be “entitled to act as chairman”.

At around 8pm on the evening of the 10th of May 2012 I spoke to the man holding Cambridge’s casting vote as he walked down Nuffield Road and Green End road in East Chesterton on his way home from chairing a meeting of the Fen Road steering group.

At the Fen Road meeting he made clear he would be hanging around; he introduced himself as a councillor and as chair of the North Area committee despite his term as a councillor having come to an end.

Under the bizzare and anomalous provision of Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1972 Nimmo-Smith intends to attend a joint development control (planning) committee meeting on the 16th of May, and will continue to act as vice chair.

He made clear that on the following day he plans to chair the North Area Committee on the 17th of May and on the 24th of May he is expected to chair, and hold the key casting vote at the annual meeting of the council which will elect the new mayor.

The person holding the mayor’s casting vote is currently very important as if all other councillors vote against the Liberal Democrats, they will need the support of the outgoing mayor’s casting vote to push through their choice of new mayor. If the Liberal Democrats wish to retain control of the council they will need the support of the new mayor. The new mayor will need to use their casting vote to push through any Liberal Democrat motions which face opposition from all other councillors.

Localism is clearly infectious as I started by asking Mr Nimmo-Smith about his role at the North Area Committee, I asked if he thought it right that he’d be chairing and potentially holding the casting vote in respect of planning decisions despite not having stood for re-election. Mr Nimmo-Smith betrayed too many years as a politician by stating an obvious, and true fact, rather than addressing the question, he stated: “a casting vote only becomes required if a vote is tied”.

Vice Chair Cllr Ward indicated that he would be charing later elements of the North Area Committee meeting on the 17th of May, he didn’t explain why, and neither did Mr Nimmo-Smith provide enlightenment.

Turning to the question of the key full council vote on electing a new mayor, Mr Nimmo-Smith told me that he would not vote at first on any motion to appoint a new mayor, he would only step in if there was a tied vote and a casting vote was needed.

I asked if he would, as a democrat, be turning up to the full council meeting. Mr Nimmo-Smith asked me if I had read the law, I confirmed I had and was aware he was apparently allowed to turn up and vote but suggested it was up to him to decide for himself if he thought it was the right thing to do. He asked me what the alternatives were I noted there was a deputy mayor, and that the chief executive could chair the meeting (without a vote obviously) until a mayor was elected in a similar way to committee managers chairing area committees before chairs are elected.

Commendably Mr Nimmo-Smith said he was still listening to the views of people on how, if at all, he should use his casting vote. He refused to comment on any hypothetical situations. I asked what factors he would take into account when deciding if and how to use his vote and if he viewed his role (as mayor hanger on) as a non-partisan one in the way that the role of mayor is nominally considered.

I asked if Mr Nimmo-Smith was still a Liberal Democrat; he confirmed he was still a party member but he said he would not be using his casting vote simply along party lines. I asked if the success in the recent Cambridge elections by Labour would be a factor in his decision, surprisingly he said that he would “be considering the Δ as well as the absolute”, however he told me his major considerations would be who the largest group is and who is most likely to be able to form a stable administration for the city.

Mr Nimmo-Smith is also participating in the 3rd June 2012 Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant; though it wasn’t made clear when I heard him announce this on the radio in what capacity he is joining this event.

At the Fen Road steering group meeting Mr Nimmo-Smith had offered to continue to chair the group into the future if the group desired, in his capacity as a local resident with an interest in the area.

Cllr Tim Bick, Executive Councillor for Policing, Cambridge City Council.

On the 19th of April 2012 I used the public speaking slot at a full meeting of Cambridge City Council to ask the executive councillor for policing, Tim Bick (Liberal Democrat, Market) what he had been doing in that role.

I said I thought the role of executive councillor for policing was a rather special one, but noted that not much was proactively made public about what Cllr Bick was doing in that role, hence my question. The role had been specifically given to Cllr Bick at the 2011 annual meeting of the council, previously the council leader had exercised the council’s policing related powers.

I published my pre-sumbitted question prior to the meeting.

In his response:

• It was revealed that rogue officers who Cllr Bick had failed to keep under democratic control had been behind proposals to give policing powers for Cambridge City Council rangers. Cllr Bick stated the first he heard of the proposal was via a report in the Cambridge News; Cllr Bick noted that the story had probably been based on a response to a FOI request I made. Cllr Bick confirmed that officers were not acting in line with policy set down by councillors while pursuing police powers for city rangers. (See also an article I wrote in 2009 covering this subject).
• Cllr Bick admitted his approved policy on Neighbourhood Resolution Panels for Cambridge contained a key error, making it apply to more serious offences than he attended. Cllr Bick thanked me for my proof-reading but claimed the intent of the policy was clear, and stated the agreed policy “is not the last word on the matter” suggesting there will be an opportunity to revise, clarify and correct it.
• Cllr Bick told the council he had not taken up the opportunity offered by Cambridgeshire Police to take a role in the appointment of Cambridge’s new police commander, and had played no role in Superintendent Vicky Skeels’ appointment. The minutes of the June 2011 Force Executive Board meeting state:
  

  The process for selecting senior staff for the six areas of operational command was discussed and the Chief Constable indicated that a representative from local councils would be on the selection panel.

  Cllr Bick’s response appears suggest this has not happened in Cambridge (unless one of his rogue officers represented the Cambridge’s residents without telling either the people of Cambridge or Executive Councillor Bick).

• Cllr Bick reported that proposals for dispersal zones for both central Cambridge, and the East of the City had been dropped. This was the first announcement of this news in public. Cllr Bick said further details in relation to central Cambridge would be reported to the West Central Area Committee. (I attended and have written about that meeting).
• Cllr Bick stated the make up of Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Panel was still under discussion, that he was not yet happy with the proposed make up and as yet there had been “no agreement”. Cllr Bick did not explain what he would like to see, or why he felt the current proposal was deficient.

At a number of points during his answers Cllr Bick’s Liberal Democrats colleagues raised their eye-brows and made other faces expressing surprise at his answers.

Up to date

Cllr Bick was absent from the May 2012 Cambridge Community Safety Partnership meeting. As Cllr Wilkins was also absent, there was no elected representative present at all.

C|lr Bick was re-elected to his Market Ward seat on the 3rd of May 2012. According to ex councillor Neil McGovern the Liberal Democrat group internally elect executive councillors, and councillors stand for election to the positions. I would love to observe the hustings and debate, but the Liberal Democrat party carry out the selection procedure behind closed doors. We don’t yet know if Cllr Bick will remain in his position following the upcoming annual meeting of the council.

My view is the position of an executive councillor for policing is a very important one. The City Council holds a number of significant policing related powers, including a veto on giving police powers to security guards, rangers and other non-police personal; they also hold a veto on the use of dispersal powers.

Role of Executive Councillor for Policing Under a PCC

With the introduction of a Police and Crime Commissioner in November I would like to see district councillors with responsibility for policing given a greater role. Perhaps such individuals will effectively become sub- commissioners with responsibilities for their local area, forming a key local link for the Commissioner who will have a very broad and disparate area to cover. I would certainly like to see such a role develop; I think it will help address some of the challenges a Police and Crime Commissioner will face covering such a large area if they have a close relationship with key local councillors, such as the individual in the post of Cambridge’s executive councillor for policing.

Early discussions on this idea have raised the suggestion it might be appropriate for the commissioner to contribute to the expenses of such an individual if they were to act as a sub-commissioner / local deputy commissioner.

A Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner

I also think an actual deputy commissioner ought be appointed; in my view this would have to be a senior elected individual capable of taking on the commissioner’s key statutory roles if they were incapacitated or killed, mitigating one of the key weaknesses of centralising everything in one individual. In my view the options for Cambridgeshire are:

• Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council
• Leader of Peterborough City Council
• Cabinet member at Cambridgeshire County Council or Peterborough City Council with responsibility for policing
• One of the deputy/sub commissioners from one of the districts which make up the Cambridgeshire Police force area. (Elected councillors given responsibility for policing by their district councils).

I wouldn’t envisage this deputy having any statutory role if the elected commissioner themselves was capable of fulfilling their role.

On the 19th of April 2012 Cllr George Owers (Labour, Coleridge) asked an oral question about dog poo at a full meeting of Cambridge City Council.

Cllr Owers’ question was:

“In light of the council’s catastrophically poor record at taking enforcement action against irresponsible dog owners for dog-fouling, are there plans to co-operate with PCSOs and/or police officers to bolster enforcement efforts against dog-fouling?”

Liberal Democrat Cllr Jean Swanson, “Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services”, which gives her responsibility for public toilets, bins and dog poo, responded. Cllr Swanson read out a prepared response, much of which did not address the question. Cllr Swanson said she welcomed police support and suggested dog fouling could be made a local policing priority at an area committee.

Cllr Owers said this would not usually be an issue which would be appropriate to take forward as a police priority, and repeated his question asking about giving PCs and PCSOs the powers and training to issue Fixed Penalty Notices.

Cllr Swanson said she had not heard of the possibility of giving the police the power to issue these Fixed Penalty Notices and committed to follow it up. She said she could not make any guarantees the police would feel it was the best use of their time but “it can be worth asking them”. “The whole issue of Fixed Penalty Notices and controlling dog fouling as far as is possible is very much on the agenda for all of us”.

My View

I have in the past researched, and lobbied on, the question of Cambridge City Council Fixed penalty notices being issued by the police, my interest in the past has been particularly in relation to fly-tipping. In December 2008 I wrote:

I would like to see the council and police get PCSOs and police officers issuing Cambridge City Council Fixed Penalty Notices.

Currently, as I have detailed below, the police have the powers to issue Cambridge City Council Fixed Penalty notices however as I understand it, at the moment the necessary agreements and arrangements between the council and the police are not in place to enable their use to occur.

I would like to see the council and the police introduce the required protocols, and practices, enabling the tickets to be issued. For example new tick boxes ought be added to pads of tickets already carried by officers and procedures set up covering things like appeals and cancelling notices.

The public perception of the police is damaged when officers are seen ignoring crime, and when people brazenly get away with offences. In Cambridge the most common thing to see the police ignoring is dangerous and illegal cycling, especially cycling without lights. I would like to see the police, where they have time, dealing with such relatively minor crime as the health risks, and impact on the city being a pleasant place to live is real.

I think it would be create an anomaly if PCSOs and not PCs gained the powers and would suggest giving the powers and capabilities to both groups.

Ideally I would like to see the city policed by constables, with full powers; enabling them to tackle whatever they come across. Particularly I’d like to see those patrolling the city able to deal with dangerous and illegal driving, parking and cycling.

The manner of involvement of local councils in policing is often in my view often inappropriate, I don’t think for example the council should be involved in deciding which powers the police get to hold or exercise. I think this creates a confusing inconsistency. The complexity of the position relating to dog fouling is just one of many areas where simplification is required. A police officer shouldn’t have to consider which local council district he is in when deciding how to deal with an offence.

Councils, not the police, have prime responsibility to keep public areas like parks, and streets clean; but I think its reasonable to give the powers to deal with offences which are actually witnessed to officers who might find themselves in the right place at the right time to take action.

I wouldn’t want to see police officers, either PCSOs or PCs tasked with tackling dog mess, but if they are patrolling a park or public space they ought be able to deal with this form of unpleasant criminality just as they would any other issues such as littering or criminal damage.

The Current Position

I obtained a letter outlining an agreement between Cambridgeshire Police and Cambridge City Council dated 2007 which stated:

The Parties shall enter into negotiations with the aim of agreeing further terms with respect to the issuing of fixed penalty notices in relation to offences with respect to graffiti and littering; the further terms would authorise the issue of these notices by the police community support officers on behalf of the Council”

However it appears these negotiations never took place.

I have also via an FOI request obtained a list of the powers of PCSOs in Cambridgeshire, this includes the power to:

All Cambridgeshire PCSOs have been designated with the power to issue certain Local Authority / Litter Authority / Local Education Authority Fixed Penalties:

• Power to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of offences under dog control orders: Power of an authorised officer of a primary or secondary authority, within the meaning of section 59 of the Clean Neighbours and Environment Act 2005, to give a notice under that section.
• Power to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling: Power of an authorised officer of a Local Authority to give a notice under Section 4 of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 (fixed penalty notices in respect of dog fouling).

Interestingly a FOI response from Cambridgeshire Police listing PCSO powers refers to the Dog (Fouling of Land) Act 1964, which I can’t find a copy of, the only reference I can find is in the list of Cambridgeshire’s PCSO’s powers, so it looks as if its a mistake. It would be interesting to know if the wrong reference has been cited in the actual designation to Cambridgeshire’s PCSOs and on their designation cards, in which case it will presumably not be operative.

The law which I suspect was intended to be referred to is the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, which has now been repealed but in a peculiarly British, and confusing manner “continues to have effect”.

The the entire city of Cambridge, including the commons is a designated place under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 according to the Midsummer Common legislation compilation (and confirmed on p11 of a Cambridge City Council document from 2006).

Section 59 of the Clean Neighbours and Environment Act 2005 refers to dog control orders, and
FOI response from the council dated August 2010 states:

Cambridge City Council has not made any Control Orders under the above legislation

I can find no more recent mention of dog control orders on the Cambridge City Council website.

The Fixed Penalty Notices which can be issued under each act are both local authority, not police, Fixed Penalty Notices, though they can be issued by PCSOs.

The list of powers of Cambridgeshire’s PCSOs also includes the statement

Application of such powers will generally follow consultation with the relevant issuing authority, for example a district council.

City Council Website

The Cambridge City Council webpage on Dog fouling and dog bins states:

Owners who fail to clear up will be prosecuted and could face a fine of up to £1,000.

Failing to clear up dog fouling is a criminal offence.

The maximum penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding £1,000. Alternatively, the council may issue a fixed penalty notice of £50.

An FOI response from the council issued on the 5th of April 2012 stated no fixed penalty notices for dog fouling had been issued since 2007.

References

• The Litter (Animal Droppings) Order 1991 - legislation giving local councils the responsibility to keep public spaces clear of dog faeces, by strengthening provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990
• DEFRA Dog control order guidance.
• The Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006
• The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No. 2, Transitional Provisions and Savings) (Wales) Order 2006 - The commencement order which keeps the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 in effect despite it being repealed.

Conservative Candidate Andre Beaumont (Newham) Addresses the Student Hustings

On the 30th of April 2012 I observed a hustings run by the Cambridge University Students Union for candidates from the Castle, Market, Newnham and Queen Edith’s wards on Cambridge City Council (wards selected for their large Cambridge University student populations).

The event had been advertised via an apparently university wide email yet only twenty-five students attended. This may in itself be informative and suggest in general students are not interested in the upcoming local elections.

Candidates

The Liberal Democrats sent their leader, Cllr Sian Reid (Up for re-election in Newnham), along with Cllr Tim Bick (Up for re-election in Market) (Twitter: @TimBick) , Cllr Amanda Taylor (Up for re-election in Queen Edith’s) (Twitter: @LibralLady) and their candidate in Castle ward Alan Levy.

The Liberal Democrats were the only party to field a full slate of candidates for the hustings.

One Green Party candidate was present, their candidate for Market Ward, Brett Hughes (Twitter: @thugheb).

The Conservative candidates Nikesh Pandit (Castle) and Andre Beaumont (Newnham) appeared as did Labour’s Noel Kavangh (Market), Sarah Cain (Newham) and Ashley Walsh (Castle) (Twitter: @Ashley_Walsh)

Independent Cllr Hipkin (up for re-election in Castle Ward) (Twitter: @CllrJohnHipkin) was neither present nor represented.

Opening Statements

Each party was given ten minutes, and the order selected by drawing names from a hat.

Conservative

Conservative Andre Beaumont kicked things off. He said he had an interest in students and that was the reason he had asked to stand in Newnham ward, rather than where he lives, or in Queen Edith’s where he said he had stood previously.

Mr Beaumont said he opposed tuition fees, and was the only candidate to do so when he stood last in Queen Ediths. (He was up against Lib Dem Cllr Heathcock and Green Shayne Mitchell in 2005).

Mr Beaumont didn’t explain why he was still a Conservative, or how his own view was compatible with being a member of a party which has just substantially raised tuition fees. (I’m also shocked by his statement there there was green and a Lib Dem supporting tuition fees, I find that hard to believe).

Candidates from all parties said, or suggested, they opposed tuition fees.

Mr Beaumont’s statement went from the incredible and confusing to the bizarre as he announced without context that he had known Health Secretary Andrew Lansley for more than nine years but that Mr Lansley though he had known him for longer.

Mr Beaumont urged those present not to tactical vote, and not to be discouraged from voting Conservative by the fact they currently had no seats on the council, he said this could change over time if more people voted Conservative.

Nikesh Pandit spoke next, he said there was “no fairness or hard work in the current council”. He stated the council’s chief executive is paid £134,399/year (this isn’t the figure the council gives), he also quoted a salary of over £100,000 for the Director of Resources (again not what the council gives). He said that these high salaries were “unfair”.

He said that a quarter of the city’s pubs closing was “unfair”

Mr Pandit said Cambridge was the 8th most expensive place in the country to live and violent crime was high and rising. He said if elected he would focus on four things:

1. Violent crime and anti-social behaviour
2. Sensible planning
3. Transport
4. Value for money

He said he would personally review crime in his ward and come up with reasons for the crime in his ward such as “lack of CCTV” and “fences”. He said as a qualified barrister and a student of criminology this was his expert area, and he would look forward to working closely with an elected police and crime commissioner.

On transport he said he supported Chesterton Station, and wanted to see better cycling parking, including at the current station. He said he would audit cycle routes.

He said if elected he would cut councillor allowances, and merge the city council’s chief executive post with one of the neighbouring district councils.

Green

The green, Mr Hughes, said he wanted to hold people to account, and talked about how people could choose how to vote. He said in the past you voted Conservative if the economy needed fixing, and then after a period voted Labour to rebalance public services. He said both Conservative and Labour were failing. He said people should vote on the basis of a party’s platform and reputation. (Implicitly saying don’t vote for an individual).

He said the Liberal Democrats had broken promises.

The Greens he said were in favour of social justice, peace, ecological justice and sustainability. He defined sustainability as “not spending more than you earn”.

He said the green party was in favour of localism, and a lack of localism was his main criticism of the Liberal Democrats running Cambridge City Council.

Mr Hughes finished his speech saying: “vote for us as even if we stuff up the economy and social services we’ll be no worse than the others”.

Labour

Castle candidate Ashley Walsh kicked off for Labour, he said he was working towards an MPhil and then hopefully a PhD.

He said the Liberal Democrats wrongly charging graduate students council tax and their threat to the toilets in the lion yard, which he said was putting commercial interests over the wider public good, were reasons he was standing against them.

He said he wouldn’t use national lines, then reeled off a bunch of anti coalition Labour lines on the NHS.

Walsh then turned to the living wage. He said as a student he had persuaded his college, Downing, to adopt it. He explained the point was paying someone enough to have their basic needs met for a 40 hour working week. He said Labour would pay a living wage if they controlled the council and use the fact they did it to lobby others, like the university, to follow suit.

On crime, Walsh called for CCTV monitoring 24 hours a day, and for a new post of a city centre enforcement officer. He said he’d plant trees on castle hill and hold community clean up blitzes. He finished by saying there was a town/gown divide, which sometimes deteriorated into fights, and urged people to vote for the “university slate” of Labour candidates (he’s a student, one of the others is a staff member) bring the two sides of the city together.

Sarah Cain spoke next, saying she had lived in Newnham for sixteen years, as an undergraduate, PhD student and now as a member of staff at the university. She said she had been involved in running “access schemes” (My view is the underlying assumption behind these, that those from poorer backgrounds are unaware of Cambridge University is wrong, and if the university became a fairer, meritocratic institution, and ditched the corruption, nepotism and patronage it would encourage those from a wider range of backgrounds to attend.)

Cain said she thought the Owen Holland sentence was “disgraceful”.

She said her three main points were:

1. Safety for women
2. Jobs
3. Housing

My view is that safety is crucial for everyone, not just, or even particularly, women.

Cain said she supported the “right to light” campaign for better lighting of city’s green spaces and certain roads.

Cain said she would reopen consultation on the city’s lap dancing policy, saying she wanted to see a “nil” policy.

Turning to shared housing Cain said many of the city’s shared houses were squalid, unregulated, and bad value for money. She criticised Liberal Democrat Tim Ward on the grounds he was a landlord, and that he was using his commercial website, which she said supported this disreputable industry, to attack the labour policy.

(I think Cllr Ward’s website provides a very useful service to Cambridge).

Cain finished by complaining MP Julian Huppert has misrepresented Labour’s proposals in relation to regulating shared houses.

Noel Kavangh spoke next, he said he had worked as a lecturer in a further education college and in the Cambridge University Press. He said Cambridge is special. He said safety at night, particularly on open spaces was important, and he is a passionate cyclist who wanted more cycle parking at the station. He said the Liberal Democrat’s recent budget was dismal as it failed to reinstate a full time cycling officer. He then urged those present to vote Labour, to “send a message to Westminster saying we’ve had enough of them”.

Liberal Democrats

Cllr Bick spoke first, saying he had been a city councillor for four years. He said Cambridge is a successful city, and the Lib Dems aimed to ensure all parts of the city participated in the success. He said the Liberal Democrats had put funding into helping people in to work, helping women back to work after taking time off to have children, and had funded five disadvantaged young people giving them work experience.

Bick said area committees were the councils “flagship” policy,

He said the council supported minorities and minority groups such as LGBT and the aged; and told the event how the council funded Black History Month and funded ethnic minority communities.

Bick said the council worked with the police, urging them to act in a proportionate manner .

Bick said that lighting on Parker’s Piece was something the others were talking about, but “we are doing” and it had been “adopted as a project”.

(This means it’s been added to a list of ideas, not that there’s a worked up proposal which has been actually approved by councillors).

Sian Reid spoke next, saying she would talk about the economy and the environment. She said that the Liberal Democrats had presided over the creation of thousands of jobs and the city was a “top prospect” economically. Reid said the city had helped developers build in a green manner and had required developers to provide 40% of homes built as affordable homes. (She didn’t define this, or discuss the impact of this requirement on house prices).

Reid claimed the city council had introduced a “cycling team” within the city council to “deliver cycling projects”.

Cllr Taylor then spoke briefly opposing “tory cuts to busses” and in favour of “lighting cycle ways” before tuning to Labour’s proposal to control, and cap, shared housing. She said that the council had prosecuted three rogue landlords already this year and was tough on them. She opposed the Labour idea of capping shared homes as 25% of properties in 200m stretch and called the idea: “fundamentally illiberal”.

Cllr Taylor said that shared houses were not a nuisance in her ward, and she got more complaints about homes where families with large numbers of children lived. She called labour’s proposals:

A direct attack against young people

She said a cap would make things for young people worse, and noted that the Labour proposals were targeting people, all sorts of people, including professionals, and limiting their choices.

The Liberal Democrat’s time was up as Cllr Taylor was speaking. Alan Levy complained grumpily and petulantly that he hadn’t been given a chance to speak, challenging the chair (who had done exactly what he said he’d do and given each party ten minutes).

Questions

Living Wage

A questioner asked for more details from those other than the Labour party, on their views on the Living Wage.

For the Liberal Democrats Sian Reid said only a few council staff were paid below the living wage, and they were only pennies below it. She said that following current negotiations with unions all staff would be paid above the living wage, she blamed the unions for the delay.

The Green candidate said the living wage was their idea which the other parties had stolen.

The Conservatives said that putting up the salaries of public servants in a time of austerity was not the way to go.

Making the city more green

The second question was on candidate’s plans to make the city “more green”.

Cllr Reid sounded very excited and declared this was one of her favourite topics. She said the council had improved recycling rates and required high sustainability standards on new developments.

The Conservatives called for villages to be built to provide new housing, and opposed the current expansion no of the city. They said London’s “garden cities” had been a success and wanted the equivalent for Cambridge.

Labour claimed they had pushed the Liberal Democrats to recycle plastic pots, and said they’d do even more in power than they’d achieved from opposition.

Drinking in Public Spaces

Chair of the Student Liberal Democrats, Anthony Martinelli, asked what appeared to be a planted question about drinking in public. He didn’t identify himself as a Liberal Democrat.

Labour struggled to answer. Mr Kavangh said residents drinking on green spaces, and students after May balls were not a problem. He said the problem was those whose drinking caused a “social nuisance” and who were involved in aggressive begging. Mr Kavangh said Cllr Gowers (he meant George Owers) had proposed a wet room policy (which he joked wasn’t a pub) and that the police had supported that idea.

(See my article Police Endorse Cambridge Labour’s Wet Room for Drunks Policy)

Mr Kavangh said “the police issue ASBOs” (showing a lack of knowledge of the justice system) and asked Cllr Bick to help him out and explain what the police and city council could, and were doing.

Cllr Bick obliged, and noted that Mr Kavangh was in a difficult position as he had apparently not wanted to reveal how authoritarian his party were on this subject. Bick opposed the idea of asking the police to clear the streets and lock up all those who are drinking in public and causing a nuisance in a drunk tank.

The Conservatives quoted John Hipkin saying he would not walk down Regent Street on a Friday or Saturday night “for fear of being urinated or vomited on”. Their answer to the problem was more bins, particularly on Huntingdon Road which they said people walked down drinking on Friday and Saturday nights but had no where to throw away empties. They suggested the city adopt a more “european” approach to street drinking, stressing it wasn’t in their view generally a problem.

The Green said his Green colleague Cllr Segwick-Jell had supported the drunk tank idea.

Right to Light

Asked for more information on the lighting of green spaces Cllr Bick said he’d seen a list of the top twenty places students wanted better lighting. He noted that there had been different views, and that some of the city’s permanent residents were opposed to better lighting of green spaces, he said he had though recently come to understand that Parker’s Piece is such an important route between key areas of the city that it needs to be properly lit. Bick said that while the city council could deal with the green spaces, the County Council was responsible for the highways, he offered to help CUSU and ARUSU lobby the County Council.

Labour’s Sarah Cain called for lighting the college backs better, and promised that under Labour any improved lighting would retain the “reality checkpoint” on Parker’s Piece. She said getting better lighting “not rocket science”.

The green candidate called for lights to be solar powered.

Shared Homes Cap

A questioner asked about the Labour shared home cap.

Labour candidate Sarah Cain responded, she said she wanted to see fewer rental properties in Cambridge and more owner-occupied family houses. Cain demonised landlords, and said she wanted to see fewer of them.

Cain related some personal experiences of living in shared houses, including living in a property where the gas boiler wasn’t safety checked, and in a property where she lived in an uninhabitable attic room where the landlord regularly came round unannounced late at night. She also told how her sister had fallen through the stairs in a rented property and been asked by the landlord to pay for the damage. In the only bit of heckling which occurred during the event the questioner noted all these stories were irrelevant to his question on the cap.

Cain stated Liberal Democrats in Southampton had introduced such a cap.

Alan Levy spoke for the Liberal Democrats, but started by introducing himself. He mentioned he’d been a councillor before, but not that he’d been absent for so long the council had to pass a special motion as technically he should have been deemed to have resigned. Mr Levy started with the irrelevant statistics that the council has 8,000 council homes and 8,000 people on its housing waiting list. He did eventually address the point and said the Labour proposals would price young people out.

Levy said Southampton was not a Liberal Democrat controlled council, and in any case what Liberal Democrats were doing elsewhere wasn’t relevant to Cambridge.

The Conservatives said they would oppose the extra regulation Labour was proposing, particularly due to the snooping on who was living in a house and how which would be required to enforce it.

The Green stated he would tentatively support the Labour proposals, but later sent me a private tweet saying he didn’t hear the question.

Unitary Authority

The questioner asked how technically a unitary authority would come about.

Labour’s Ashley Walsh explained central government would make it happen if local people wanted it.

Sian Reid for the Liberal Democrats said she would like the County Council abolished and its powers passed closer to the people to the City Council, which she wanted to see have boundaries which were “less tight around the city”. She said support for the idea in South Cambridgeshire was strong. Reid said the process for obtaining a unitary authority under Labour was too convoluted to use, and that now with the current government they were more serious about localism, and giving powers to the county’s major cities. Reid said she wanted whatever powers went to Manchester or Birmingham to come to Cambridge too.

National Planning Policy Framework

Asked for their views on this the Green candidate said: “no idea”.

The Conservative said how under Thatcher he had written to the government urging them to remove the restrictions on building on green belt and green fields as this was artificially making land and house prices too high, he welcomed deregulation.

Cllr Reid for the Liberal Democrats sat on the fence and said their views on further expansion of the city would depend on the consultation responses to the local plan - the consultation is starting in mid-June.

Labour’s Sarah Cain only contribution was to accuse the Liberal Democrats of not having a local plan, saying the current one expired in 2006. Cllr Reid stated this was “factually inaccurate”

Homelessness

The Conservatives suggested volunteering to help homeless people.
Cllr Bick said the Liberal Democrat run city council focused on trying to help people turn their lives around, and deal with addiction and other problems and helped them find accommodation.
The Green said the issue was complex, and Labour said the solution was “building more houses, obviously” and claimed they would build many more than the Liberal Democrats.

Overall

In summary I thought the Liberal Democrats had much better knowledge of the state of the city’s affairs than any of their challengers; some of this comes from being on the council, but council meetings and council papers are open to all and the candidates could I think have done much more to inform themselves. The Conservatives suggesting that the city’s biggest street drinking problem is a lack of bins on Huntingdon Road is just so far out of touch it’s ridiculous.

I was quite surprised by Sarah Cain, and by seeing someone who believes in Labour’s policy of pushing house sharers out of Cambridge much more strongly than any of the Labour councillors speaking full council did, and even expanding the attack to cover not just shared houses but the entire rented sector. Utterly astonishing, and when combined with the bizzare comments on the local plan and Southampton, fatally damaging her credibility I’d have thought.

Map of Proposed Conservation Area

On the 30th of April 2012 I responded to Cambridge City Council’s consultation on a new conservation area for the Victoria Road area and parts of Castle ward.

My response:

Dear Cambridge City Council,

I am writing to respond to the council’s consultation on the Castle and Victoria Road Conservation Area.

I would like to see the council assess the impact of the proposed conservation area on:

• The ability of residents to modify their homes to make them suitable for the way they live their lives.
• Making improvements intended to make properties more energy efficient, and reduce energy bills, including replacing windows and installing external cladding, solar panels or wind turbines.
• The ability of residents to install secure bike parking on their property.
• Housing costs, the fraction of properties which are rented vs privately owned, and the make up of population in the area in terms of residents’ ages, occupation, and wealth, and types of property use eg, shared houses, family homes etc.
• Potential future changes to the road environments, eg. signage, cycleways, etc.

Without these assessments I think councillors will not be in a good position to assess the pros and cons of introducing a conservation area.

I would like to see councillors consider introducing policies which would reduce the impact of any conservation area in relation to such matters.

I am concerned that a conservation area will increase the cost of property ownership, and property prices, in the area and push those such as house sharers out.

I think the current consultation has been poorly advertised, and suggest consideration is given to if groups such as students, employers, and residents outside the proposed conservation area itself have been suitably consulted. I live within the area assessed, but not the area proposed for designation as a conservation area, I only found out about the consultation when Cllr Hipkin explained he had been absent from a full council meeting in order to attend the public meeting held as part of the consultation process.

I think the consultation ought to have been clearer what the impact of a new conservation would be on the lives of those living in the area, both under the current council’s policies, and in a worst case, if a future council were to use the powers obtained by virtue of an area being designated a conservation area in an authoritarian manner.

My view is that a conservation area is a substantial incursion on the freedoms of property owners, so there has to be a very strong reason for introducing one. I don’t think there is any such a reason which applies to the residential suburbs of Cambridge in to which we’re seeing conservation areas creep. The council has not explained why it considers it justifiable and proportionate to extend conservation areas into greater swathes of the city, and what benefits, it expects residents, and the wider city and country, to obtain in return for the greater bureaucracy and increased cost of living.

Elsewhere in the city we’re seeing calls to use the fact that a property is in a conservation area to prevent parking on a property, we’ve also seen the council accept applications for pruning fruit trees. Personally I’ve considered the fact a property is in a conservation area in Cambridge a negative factor when looking for a home to buy and live in. I didn’t want to be in a position of having to ask the council’s permission to change the colour my back gate is painted.

Many of the areas covered by the proposed conservation area would in my view be better designated “areas for substantial change” rather than “conservation areas”. Many properties are small, unsuited to modern life, and not particularly well built, for example many along Victoria Road.

I think councillors should consider what has driven these proposals, and if the “historic environment” officers in the council are trying to create work to justify their existence.

I also note there is no clear path set out for the area appraised becoming a conservation area. There needs to be greater clarity over, for example, what committees and councillors will be asked to consider the matter, and what if any future consultation will be carried out. If a conservation area is introduced there needs to be clarity overt the date it is in-force from.

I note that there is also a potential impact on work in progress to properties when a conservation area is introduced. The council ought ensure all those who may be affected by the designation of a new conservation area are aware of the proposals and how they may affect their projects. Clear public guidance for councillors on how to deal with applications which come in now the potential of a conservation area being introduced is being discussed.

Further comments on the consultation document:

• The road environments and quantities and types of traffic it is designed for are not addressed.
• The positive views marked from the Castle are only southerly yet many people climb the castle to observe sunsets.
• If the conservation area is approved perhaps it would give greater powers to the council to tackle the home made, unofficial, parking signage in Victoria Park (there are similar, smaller, examples across the city).
• I note the Arbury Fast Fit garage is designated a building which detracts from the area. I disagree, the area isn’t a modern housing estate of identikit buildings, the garage is striking, imposing, and breaks up the street scene.
• I note that many of the more recently constructed buildings have either been marked as buildings which detract from the area, or not marked as being important to the character of the area. I suggest these findings ought be passed on to those involved in planning and efforts made to ensure future new buildings do have a positive impact on the area, both visually, and more importantly for the way people who live in and use the area.

Regards,

[Full name and address]

See Also:

• My article commenting on the Romsey conservation area, introduced in March 2011.
• Cambridge City Council webpage on the Castle and Victoria Road Conservation Area Appraisal consultation.

Having reached a few days before polling day and not had any contact from three of the four candidates standing in my ward of Arbury, Cambridge, I decided to try some “reverse canvassing” and knocked on the elusive candidates’ front doors.

While sitting Labour Councillor Mike Todd-Jones and his team have produced a number of leaflets and have been meeting electors on the doorstep in Arbury, there has been no sign of the Liberal Democrat, Green or Conservative candidates. There is even very little available online about them for those who are proactive about looking them up.

The Liberal Democrat Candidate, Rhodri James, was in when I called, and my first question to him, in light of the lack of activity, was if he was taking the election seriously. Surprisingly he pretty much agreed he wasn’t and spoke very positively about his opponent, Labour’s Mike Todd-Jones. Mr James said:

I have not been doing as much canvassing and campaigning around Arbury as usual that’s true; partly because I like [Labour Candidate] Mike Todd-Jones and winning against him would be a bit of a struggle so there’s sense in targeting the effort where it will make more of a difference.

[Shrugs shoulders]

Later Mr James added:

I know Mike, I like him a lot and we do get on very well.

Mr James let me know that when he had been out campaigning “it has tended not to be here, sorry”.

Mr James said his party’s targets were Romsey and King’s Hedges and noted that they also could not ignore “safe seats” this time round, perhaps alluding to activity in Newnham where the council leader Sian Reid is up for re-election.

Policies

I had a discussion with Mr James about his views and policies.

Area Committees

Mr James had talked about improving area committees in a statement to the Cambridge News, I asked him why he hadn’t attended any since he ceased to be a councillor and what his ideas for improvement were. He told me he wasn’t available on Thursday evenings so was unable to attend the meetings as that’s when they were invariably held. He said changing days just confused people. I asked if he would like to see them moved to Saturdays, he wasn’t too positive about that, and we discussed some of the ways they could be run differently, for example running some as councillor question times where the main focus is the public asking questions of councillors. Mr James suggested using residents associations to fulfill some of the role of the area committees.

Housing

Mr James has previously cast himself as a specialist councillor focusing on council housing tenants.

Mr James said he wanted to see more council houses being built, including on new developments and if elected he would push planning committees to require that, despite saying: “I’m not sure I’d get them”.

We discussed other ways of providing social housing, but Mr James suggested the legal means available to the council were limited.

Mr James blamed the state of the housing market, (which he appeared to think the council had little or no influence over), for people living in shared houses for longer periods of their lives.

Policing

Mr James agreed with me that there was a strong argument for representative democracy in setting local police priorities. We also agreed on the importance of operational independence for the police.

Less positively though Mr James said his support for the current system was based on the fact:

“It’s a fairly loose thing, and the police come to meetings with recommendations and we don’t mess around with them much”.

While this accurately reflects the approach the Liberal Democrats generally take in Cambridge, I think councillors ought not be afraid to speak up and express the views of those they represent even when they contradict the police, as that’s a key way of ensuring the police work for the public, and are doing what we want them to do.

We also spoke about the importance of clarity on what a police priority set by councillors actually means, and what can be expected as a result, and on the importance of quality, appropriate, evidence from the police to help councillors make decisions.

Parking

Mr James said he thought the views of those living on a street were the main consideration when making deciding if parking restrictions should be introduced. He said he would not support restrictions where they were not needed, for example on the road he lives on.

We talked inconclusively about if councillors ought have a role in addressing problems such as people trying to claim spaces outside their homes (eg. by putting bins in the road).

Cycling

I had previously emailed Mr James urging him to answer the Cambridge Cycling Campaign’s candidate survey. He neither responded to me, nor (as yet) the survey.

Other Candidates

There was no answer when I knocked on the doors of the Green candidate Stephen Lawrence or Conservative Ali Meftah.

Further Thoughts

I am wondering if the major parties essentially giving up on all but a few wards and by doing so are to all intents and purposes agreeing among themselves who ought be elected in many parts of the city.

My candidates in Arbury have not been making it easy for electors to find out about them; the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat candidates all have as yet failed to answer the Cambridge Cycling Campaign’s candidate survey. The Green candidate didn’t even respond to The Cambridge News’ offer of a soap box which would have given him an opportunity to tell people what he was trying to achieve by standing.

Poorly located 20 mph signs on entering Maid’s Causeway.

On Thursday the 26th of April 2012 I observed Cambridge City Council’s West/Central area committee hold the police to account on their recent performance and set the new policing priorities for the area.

One of the key items under discussion was the operation of the 20 mph limits and zones in the city centre, particularly on Maid’s Causeway.

In January 2012 councillors had set a priority of:

Speed enforcement in support of the 20mph limit

Cambridgeshire police, represented by Inspector Steve Poppet, came to the committee to report that while some work on speeding had been done on all roads with 20mph limits in the area, he had decided it would be unfair to give those travelling under 31 mph anything other than words of advice, and he had set “operational guidelines” for his team in line with that view.

Inspector Poppet reported that the majority of people were breaking the 20mph limit, and the majority of those stopped stated they were unaware of the 20 mph limit and had not seen the signs.

Poppet stated his view that enforcement alone could not reduce speeds, and that even continuing the level of enforcement which had been seen in recent weeks was inappropriate in the absence of better signage and changes to the road environment to reduce speeds, never mind introducing tougher enforcement measures.

Inspector Poppet specifically called for the suitability of Maids Causeway for a 20 mph limit to be reviewed as so many people were going faster than 20 mph.

The leader of the council Sian Reid (Liberal Democrat, Newnham), and the executive councillor for policing, Tim Bick (Liberal Democrat, Market) proposed a local speed awareness course for Cambridge. This was in response to Inspector Poppet saying one reason he felt it unfair to take action against those breaking the 20 mph speed limit but travelling at under 31 mph was that they could not be offered a speed awareness course.

I contributed to say:

1. I think the local speed awareness course is a terrible idea, as it will be unfair on visitors to the city if they have to return to Cambridge if they wish to attend the course [rather than pay a fine or have their case taken to court]. This used to be a problem in relation to all speed awareness courses, following lobbying from me and no doubt many others, we have just obtained national speed awareness courses, and this problem is, in general, being addressed, a new local course will be a retrograde step.
2. I agree with the police inspector that enforcement should not be the prime means by which 20 mph limits are expected to reduce speeds. I think that asking the police act against the majority in the way some councillors are seeking is illiberal and potentially damaging to the key principle of policing by consent. I don’t want to live in a country with the kind of police force we would require if we relied on primarily on police enforcement to enforce this, or any other law.
3. Councillors, including Cllr Bick, have suggested giving more powers and training to PCSOs to enable them to tackle speeding. I would suggest making those PCSOs who are capable into PCs, and setting a priority of having the city centre patrolled by PCs rather than PCSOs so that action can be taken against not just speeding but other forms of dangerous and illegal driving and cycling.

County Councillor Whitebread, (Liberal Democrat, Market) expressed her view that the signage was inadequate, a number of councillors joined her in expressing this opinion. I hope this is clearly minuted and if anyone ends up in court before the problems are solved they are able to put this to the magistrates, who I think ought take account of it.

Despite having agreed the signage was insufficient though, Cllr Whitebread proposed strengthening the police priority set by the committee. She proposed setting a priority asking the police to issue Fixed Penalty Notices or summonses to those breaking the 20mph speed limits at under 30 mph. No councillor seconded Cllr Whitebread’s proposal and it was dropped.

What I think councillors may have missed is that even if no action is taken against those going at under 31 mph the consequences for those issued with Fixed Penalty Notices or summonses at higher speeds will be more severe as a result of the speed being recorded in a 20 mph limit. The consequences of doing 40mph in a 20mph limit is greater than that for doing 40mph in a 30mph limit.

p131 of the latest Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest magistrates can disqualify drivers for 7-28 days, or give 4-6 points along with a fine for doing 40mph in a 20 limit, where as for doing 40 in a 30 limit the guidance is that 3 points and a smaller fine is appropriate.

I would love to be able to go and observe how our local magistrates are dealing with these cases, but while the doors of the courts are open, the court lists are not published so it is all but impossible to observe particular cases of interest, other than those the participants let people know about.

For many people their car is critical to their way of life, particularly for those visiting Cambridge from more rural areas. I think given the fact the current signs are so badly positioned, and the signal in-terms of changes to the road environment that a 20mph limit which are typical elsewhere, it would be unjust to see people banned from driving as a result of minor speeding in a number of central Cambridge’s 20 mph limits.

I passionately want to see Cambridge made safer for cyclists and pedestrians. Just putting up 20 mph signs, and asking the police to take enforcement action against those breaking that limit, isn’t working, and it isn’t in my view going to work. The kinds things I would like to see include extending the policy of closing off roads to shift through traffic away from areas which are now heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians (eg. Carlyle Rd at its junction with Chesterton Rd), introducing park roads (gates, red roads etc), this could work for elements of Maids Causeway, and prioritising cyclists eg. perhaps banning overtaking of cyclists and putting the cycle lanes in the middle of roads, eg. on Mill Road.

Cllr Smith (Liberal Democrat, Newnham) said she agreed with me, rather than her leader and the executive councillor for policing, that a local speed awareness course would be unfair.

Cllr Reid then called for speed cameras to enforce 20 mph limits.

There was a lot of discussion about what headlines might result from various actions by the committee, Cllr Smith warned that dropping the priority for enforcing 20mph limits might make councillors look as if they were not committed.

Cllr Hipkin expressed concern that his views, not supporting continuing with the priory, might be mis-represented and used against him in the current election campaign.

Before voting on the priority councillors asked Inspector Poppet for information on how much time would be spent on enforcing 20 mph limits; clearly rattled he refused to answer the question saying it was an operational matter.

Councillors voted in favour of keeping their previous priority of “Speed enforcement in support of the 20mph limit”, they did not strengthen it. All Liberal Democrats on the committee voted to keep the priority, Cllr Hipkin abstained. Cllr Hipkin said it wasn’t working and what he wanted to see was a city wide 20 mph limit, which he thought drivers would better understand (he wasn’t clear on if he meant literally a city wide limit, or as many, but not all, mean when they use that term a 20 mph limit for “residential streets”).

Inspector Poppet had warned that the “Neighbourhood Action Group” might over-ride councillors’ views, particularly if they set the more stringent priority proposed by Cllr Whitebread. I suspect this might be one reason why they did not. As the police were calling for the priority to be dropped entirely they may still ignore the councillors.

I have lobbied for the activities of the secretive Neighbourhood Action Groups to be opened up, but Cllr Bick, the executive councillor for policing has opposed this, and defended their continuing in secret, he even opposed publishing the minutes, and outcomes, of their meetings.

My view is that the police have operational independence and are free to do what they think is right, but they are accountable to councillors. I think councillors should set their priorities as they think fit and it is up to the police how they operationally respond to those. If councillors find themselves unable to effectively influence and hold the police to account at a local level then they should look to the Police Authority, or in future the Elected Commissioner, for assistance.

Inspector Poppet suggest councillors lobby ACPO Ltd, some councillors appeared to think this was a reasonable suggestion others pointed out anything ACPO says is just guidance and they were right to be trying to influence the police directly.

County Council Position

County Council officer Mr Preston addressed the meeting on the prospect of better signage or changes to the road environment. He said the county council focused its funding where they expected it to reduce injuries, and that as there were very few injuries on residential roads subject to 20mph limits they were not a priority for the County Council.

City Wide 20 MPH Zone Project

Cllr Cantrill (Liberal Democrat, Newnham) spoke to draw attention to the fact the City Council have budgeted £450,000 for work on a city wide 20mph zone. Council leader Sian Reid said it was £400,000, and Cllr Canrill noted that was still substantial, both councillors claimed this was in the city council’s recently approved budget.

While I cannot find a relevant section in the papers for the February 2012 full council meeting at which the council’s latest budget was approved, the details are in the papers for the January 2012 Environment Scrutiny Committee. p19 of the Planning & Sustainable Transport Portfolio - Budget 2012/13 shows a “bid” for £29,900 in each of 2012/13 and 2013/14 for :

Implementation of new 20mph zones across the City. Funding proposal covers the staffing resource and there is a separate linked capital bid for the physical works involved (signing, lining etc). Bid is for 2 years funding, which would provide a City-wide approach. [See also C2755]

The referenced capital bid is for £200,000 in each of 2012/13 and 2013/14 described as:

Further research into the project and meetings with Portsmouth City Council suggests that a City-wide approach to 20mph restriction, rather than a piecemeal implementation would be more appropriate and successful in terms of public awareness, compliance and enforceability. The estimated capital costs (based on best estimates from local and Portsmouth experience) as well as inclusion of commuted maintenance for the new structures and markings on the highway that will be necessary if the City funds this project. This is estimated as a two year project with scoping, research, surveys and preparation in year one with implementation, including signing and lining, following in year two.

The total funding being £459,800, Cllr Cantrill was closer than the council leader, but neither got it right.

How much change to the city’s road environments which is expected isn’t at all clear, there is a mention of “new structures”, but having seen how little value for money the public sector gets when it comes to changes to the road environment that’s not going to go very far.

If the council is expecting the police to do most of the work to change behaviour how will they be funded, and have the wider implications of a dramatic change in the culture of policing in the city, been properly thought through?

The meeting was told by Cllr Ward (Liberal Democrat, Arbury, Executive Councillor for Planning) that progress towards a city wide 20 mph limit was slow, and to-date all that had occurred was deciding which department would be responsible for the project, and working on the job description for someone who would be hired to run it. The committee was told a consultation on the idea of a city wide 20 mph zone could be run later in the year.

Public Contributions

Hugh Kellet addressed the meeting calling himself a spokesman for the “think tank” and campaign group “20 sense”. He use an analogy of cats and mice, with the speeding car drivers being the mice, and asked for more mouse traps.

Ex Liberal Democrat councillor Anthony Bowen spoke to say the police were holding the committee in contempt.

Maids Causeway resident Mr Lawton called the whole thing a farce, and noted it had been eighteen months since councillors had asked for enforcement of the 20 mph limits and there was still no action.

Other Policing Matters

Dispersal was briefly discussed, Inspector Poppet was no longer pushing for a dispersal zone in the city centre but failed to really explain what had changed since the previous meeting which he attended calling for councillors’ support in introducing such a zone.

Worryingly he stated that if he thought a dispersal zone was needed in the future he would “move more swiftly”.

I asked if by that he meant he would try and avoid public consultations, and making the case to the West Central Area Committee or another open council meeting, and try and bounce the executive councillor for policing into a rapid decision.

Inspector Poppet admitted this was the case.

Councillors Bick, Cantrill, and Smith were unimpressed by this response and made clear they wanted any future dispersal zone proposals to come before the West/Central Area committee and the chair offered to hold an emergency meeting of the committee if necessary.

Cllr Cantrill said: “We’ve held emergency meetings for less important things, like trees”, but the meeting, including Cllr Cantrill burst into laughter, and Cllr Cantrill made clear he wasn’t suggesting trees were unimportant.

City council officer, Linda Kilkelly, noted the councillors were reversing a previous policy of having an emergency procedure for introducing dispersal zones. Councillors confirmed very clearly that was in fact what they were doing.

Cycle Theft

At the previous police priority setting meeting I had asked for photographs, and frame numbers of recovered stolen bikes to be recorded by the police and placed online.

Inspector Poppet responded at this meeting to say this had been considered, but the police had decided against it on the grounds people other than the owners of the bikes might seek to claim them.

My view is this is nonsense, as the police can ask for evidence of ownership.

Cambridge Cycling Campaign tweeted in response to the police statement saying:

They used to! Surely proof of ownership is needed, and/or a prior police report solves that?

Divisional Priorities

The Inspector noted the existance of divisional priorities. I suggested these be reported to councillors along with what they were, the time period they were running for, and information of the amount of manpower and other effort devoted to them, so they could take this into account when setting their own priorities.

This request was ignored.

Restorative Justice

I asked who was giving approval for restorative justice disposals where the community at large, and not an individual, was the victim. I noted that approval by the victim of a proposed restorative sentence/penalty was an important safeguard in the approved scheme. I asked if any councillors had given any such approvals, they all indicated they had not. Inspector Poppet declined to comment.
I suggested a priority of asking the police to follow their restorative justice policies, but no councillors took this up.

Mobile Phone Thefts

The police reported mobile phone thefts in pubs and clubs in the city centre was an ongoing problem, with very high value items being targeted eg. iPhones and similar. A priority of tackling this was suggested.

Cycling

Cycling the wrong way on one way streets, primarily Sidney Street and Trinity Street, was discussed.

Despite the committee repeatedly (on occasion prompted by me) asking for road markings to be improved, and for one way arrows to be painted on the road, the County Council had responded by asking the committee if they were sure, and saying they would, if the committee really still wanted them to, come up with some specific and costed proposals for an up-coming meeting. The committee for third or fourth time confirmed that they really did want the County Council to do this.

Priorities Set

Councillors agreed on:

• Speed enforcement in support of the 20mph limit
• Anti-social cycling
• Mobile phone thefts.

Background Documents

Meeting papers:

See Also

Some of my previous articles on the subject of 20mph speed limits:

• PCSOs Lack Powers to Enforce 20mph Limits
• Cambridge Cycling Campaign Hustings - Blanket 20 MPH Limit for Residential Streets
• Police Claim 20mph Average Speed on Water Street / Fen Road in Chesterton
• Police Not to Enforce New City Centre 20 MPH Limit
• Councillors ask police to tackle speeding
• Police obtain equipment to enforce 20 MPH zones (after resisting councillors’ attempts to get them to enforce the old 20 MPH limits).
• Enforcement of the previous 20 MPH limits in the city centre
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/policing-west-central-cambridge-april-2012.html/feed 52.20747386458047 0.1270294189453125 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/observing-cambridge-election-count-in-cambridge.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/observing-cambridge-election-count-in-cambridge.html#comments Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:50:21 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5072




A couple of weeks ago I tweeted drawing attention to the fact that election counts in Cambridge are not open to the public and asked what arrangements were in place for those wishing to observe and report on proceedings.

This resulted in a number of local politicians, including elected councillors, asking why the count was not open to the public, and suggesting that I ought be allowed access.

Both for the current elections, and previous ones, I have been invited to attend to observe, comment, and report, on the count and the subsequent results as a counting agent. I have declined this offer as there are significant responsibilities placed on counting agents, (eg. they have to attend the whole count) and my interpretation of their role is they have a responsibility to their particular candidate. Consequently my view is that becoming a counting agent for a candidate for a particular party might damage my independence in the eyes of those looking on. Certainly no professional journalist would accept access to proceedings as a counting agent.

Some people have been permitted access to election counts in Cambridge to observe and report on proceedings; I know this as footage from the count has appeared on BBC television channels, and the Cambridge News has reported live on Election night “as it happens”.

The council recently revealed via twitter, in response to discussions on if I would be allowed access, how they determine who is allowed in. The council revealed it “invites a list of media”, it has promised to provide the list to Cllr Pogonowski, though has not published it.

Twitter exchanges with the council also revealed the existence of an application form for those seeking “media accreditation” from the council so as to be allowed to observe the count. The existence of this form is not mentioned on the councils’ elections webpage where I would expect to find it. So those beyond the select organisations proactively invited by the council would have no way to know of its existence.

On the 18th of April 2012 I tweeted in the direction of Cambridge City Council asking:

What are the arrangements for those wishing to observe and report on the election count?

The council responded:

Admittance to the general public is not provided under electoral law. The Returning Officer permits accredited media to attend

Cllr Adam Pogonowski joined the discussion saying

How does one become ‘accredited media’? I think Mr. Taylor does excellent media-job in #Cambridge.

The council replied:

Returning Officer advises ‘accredited media’ represent media organisations such as newspapers, radio stations etc.

Noting the “etc.” at the end of the stated policy, and thinking it might indicate the presence of a large enough loop-hole to slip into the count through, I decided to apply via Twitter for accreditation under that provision.

The council then emailed me a form to complete to apply for access.

I have made a copy of the form available.

The form states it is for “Thursday 3 May 2011″ but it was provided in relation to the 2012 elections.

The form is designed for organisations, but I completed it noting that I am an individual. In the section asking what my role will be on the night I wrote:

Member of the public, tweeter, blogger, photographer, camerman, interviewer, reporter, scrutineer, commentator etc.

The deadline mentioned on the form had passed but the council officer sending the form said she was happy to extend it. She asked me to get the form back by the morning of Friday the 27th of April, I actually sent it in on the Friday evening. The covering email stated that following the return of the completed form the officer:

can then make sure you get the security pass and press pack that will provide you with further information.

It will be interesting to see if I am allowed access.

While the Returning Officer is responsible for the election, policy on things relating to the count is discussed by the City Council’s Civic Affairs Committee, who review each election. I’ve observed this debrief on a couple of occasions. At one councillors suggested the returning officer should spend their special extra payment on the provision of snacks for those attending and televisions ought be provided in the council’s meeting rooms so those present can watch the rolling news channels throughout the night. The other main concern of councillors was the speed of getting the count(s) done. A bunch of excuses were given as to why, even though it is geographically small, Cambridge isn’t one of those places which competes to be the first get its general election results out.

Action

I will write to the chairman of the Civic Affairs committee suggesting the committee consider the arrangements for access to the count for those wishing to observe and report on proceedings.

My Views

My view is the election count process should not be secretive; we shouldn’t only have the candidates themselves, and their guests and agents able to assure us that everything was above board.

As well as the count, dissemination of the results is a key factor, I don’t think the council ought be giving its selected media outlets an advantage over other information sources.

I have no idea if speeches are made following the announcement of local election results, as they are after general election results, but I know that the national TV coverage at general elections often misses acceptance speeches of the winners, and rarely shows anything said by the other candidates. If local people were allowed to report on the result announcements then what’s said might be transmitted to a wider audience.

Being at the count will also allow those present to be asked for their comments during the evening and following the results; its not fair that only media organisations hand picked by, and perhaps friendly with, the council get that access. Patronage creates an environment conducive to corruption.

Generally I simply think having as much of the operation of the state in the public domain is the best way to run the country, it gives greater confidence in the system and allows more people to understand, and follow what is going on.

Freedom of Information

I note returning officers are not subject to Freedom of Information law so they have no legal requirement to publish their policies and procedures relating to access to the count, or information such as who has been invited or accredited to attend.

There is no right to obtain information, such as for example details of numbers of spoilt ballots (if not proactively published), or breakdowns of votes by voting district (or by ward in the case of a general election).

Secret Ballot

I think it’s worth noting my view that maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is of utmost critical importance. That votes are cast in secret (at least if they’re cast in a polling station!) is in my view a critical part of our democratic system as it means people can’t be co-erced into voting a particular way. (Personally I would not allow postal votes without good reason, in order to defend this element of the process).

Ballot papers are numbered and the number of the paper issued to each individual is recorded. It therefore theoretically possible to find out who voted which way. This information is held by the returning officer; the information is protected by procedure, the law, and physical security, rather than by the infinitely stronger means (which I would prefer) of not holding it in the first place.

Affinity Radio

Having observed the Twitter exchange, a request from local internet radio station Affinity Radio also sought permission to attend, and have been sent an application form.

See Also:

• In 2009 I sought accreditation as an election observer - as I did not receive accreditation in time for the count I withdrew my application after the election. While registered as an observer you have to “maintain strict political impartiality at all times, including during their leisure time”, as someone who wants to be an active citizen that’s not something I am prepared to agree to for an extended period, but would have been happy to do in 2009 for a short period around the election count.
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/observing-cambridge-election-count-in-cambridge.html/feed http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-control-cllr-footage.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-control-cllr-footage.html#comments Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:00:36 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5063

Liberal Democrat run Cambridge City Council is very keen on tightly controlling the image of its councillors. Earlier I received the following email:

Dear Mr Taylor

I see that you have posted footage on You Tube from the last council meeting of Cllr Owers, which you have set to music.

Our protocol explicitly asks those filming meetings not to edit footage in a way that misrepresents proceedings or appears to ridicule or show a lack of respect for people being filmed. Therefore can you please remove this clip from You Tube. I would be grateful if you could confirm to me that you have taken it down

Thank you.

Gary Clift
Democratic Services Manager
01223 457011

I think it’s really worrying when the council try and exert control over how what they do is reported.

Humour and satire are important ways in which people find out about what their representatives are doing.

George Owers is in some ways a very different councillor to the others. He is highly animated and passionate when he speaks in the council chamber. That he speaks at all sets him apart from many of the Liberal Democrats a number of whom have sat through years of full council meetings without making any substantive contributions. I think it’s reasonable to draw attention to this via whatever means possible. The images of Cllr Owers gesticulating and raising his arm to the ruling Liberal Democrats were in my view some of the most striking from the meeting.

This raises the question of what can be done with footage from council meetings, and what control, if any, the council should exert over their use.

While I have placed all speeches from the debate on regulating shared houses on YouTube I expect few people will have the time or inclination to watch the entire debate. I think that editing is useful, to bring it to a wider audience. I have made Cllr Owers’ full speech on the motion, which shows all the gesticulations in context available too.

Should the council be able to prevent me, or others, using footage from the council meeting, to for example highlight Cllr Adam Pogonowski introducing his “amendment to his amendment amending the amendment” which drew laughs in the chamber, or draw attention to the exchange between Cllr Owers and the Mayor when the Mayor cut him off mid-speech?

Anyone can use websites such as the http://bennyhillifier.com/ to put soundtracks over videos of councillors or other public figures. It turns the rather staid affairs of the West Central area committee discussing and voting on tree planting on Jesus Green and Midsummer Common into this, and makes Cllr Rosenstiel’s performance surprisingly watchable.

Parliament

Elected representatives in the UK have form in this area. MPs try seek to heavily restrict the use of video from Parliament.

The BBC’s editorial guidelines state:

We can only use parliamentary material in news and factual content or for educational purposes.

We must not use any parliamentary material in light entertainment, fictional or drama content or political satire.

Thanks to a FOI request by Julian Todd some of the rules on TV footage of Parliament have been released which state:

no extracts from Parliamentary proceedings may be used in comedy shows or other light entertainment such as political satire.

Parliament encourages those using its video to sign up to a licence; I’ve regularly posted clips of Parliament on YouTube without agreeing to any such licence. The most popular video, with 35,000 views is Dennis Skinner mumbling his oath to the Queen followed by Julian Huppert saying “I am Spartacus” with over 2,000 views.

The House of Commons’ Administration Select Committee is currently reviewing the “Television: Rules of Coverage”.

Cambridge City Council Protocol

Cambridge City Council’s full council meeting on the 19th of April 2012 decided, following a review, to relax the council’s previously highly restrictive filming rules.

The new protocol was passed with a small amendment requiring adding, at the end of item 1:

The council will supply signs which will be deployed at any meeting all or part of which is to be recorded.

There was some debate on if signs should be put up at all meetings, or only once the chair has been notified filming, photography or other recording is actually taking place. A large number of councillors spoke on the question of if there ought be signs up as a matter of course, some arguing signs would be ignored if they were often present when filming was not taking place.

The decision, following a free vote of the full council was that signs ought be put up at all meetings.

Cllr Boyce made an odd speech saying those filming council meetings had to be careful they didn’t breach the Obscene Publications Act, the Human Rights Act or other legislation. He suggested (wrongly I believe) that permission would be need to be obtained from individual members of the public from those wishing to photograph, film or record them.

Cllr Herbert, leader of the Labour party on Cambridge City Council spoke to say the council should look at what Richmond and Cheshire councils do, and said the council ought put some of its meetings online itsself. Cllr Herbert said councillors were “fair game” and should be “in the public domain”.

A number of Cllrs including Benstead and Saunders agreed with Cllr Herbert that councillors ought be “fair game”, they did though express a view that members of the public ought be able to opt out of being filmed (the protocol allows for this).

Cllr Cantrill reported that he was watching a live planning meeting from Richmond on his laptop while in the Cambridge City Council chamber.

The amended protocol was agreed.

In a typically farcical move the mayor then gave me permission to film despite there being no signs up saying filming was taking place; ignoring and waiving the requirements of the protocol just agreed.

Sanctions

The section of the protocol cited by the democratic services manager states:

The recording should not be edited in a way that could lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the proceedings or infringement of the Council’s values or; in a way that ridicules or shows a lack of respect for those in the recording. The Council would expect any recording in breach of these rules to be removed from public view.

I don’t believe I have breached this, but in any case the sanction provided for is:

A failure to follow these requirements may lead to a request to record being refused at subsequent council meetings.

However the protocol no longer requires a request for permission to film to be made; filming is now permitted by default.

Comments

I welcome comments on this.

What, if any restrictions ought there be on what can be done with the material obtained at a council meeting?

What soundtrack would be most appropriate for each committee?

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-control-cllr-footage.html/feed http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/labour-anti-house-sharing-motion-defeated.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/labour-anti-house-sharing-motion-defeated.html#comments Fri, 20 Apr 2012 04:18:37 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5048

On the evening of the 19th of April 2012 I observed Cambridge City Council debate a Labour motion on the subject of regulating shared houses in the city. The motion talked of capping the number of properties available to sharers and extending the council’s definition of a House in Multiple Occupation to include all properties in which three or more people from two or more households live. The motion was debated in the context of upcoming elections, and a Labour Manifesto which says if Labour was running the council it would:

Look to use planning powers to limit the percentage of houses in any particular area that can be HMOs.

While the Liberal Democrats and Greens worked together to defeat the cap and expansion of the HMO definition and associated regulation this time, the ideas would re-emerge should Labour gain control of the council following the May elections.

I have written a previous article in which I express my view that these proposals amount to plans to push house sharers out of Cambridge.

I used the public speaking slot at the meeting to say that I was only able to live in Cambridge as a result of the availability of properties in the city to house sharers. Limiting the availability of such properties would have priced me out of this city in my twenties.

The Liberal Democrats, along with the Greens and Cambridge Socialists argued against the proposals. Liberal Democrat Cllr Amanda Taylor led the opposition. Her speech, which can be viewed in the video above, was relatively short, but it effectively highlighted many of the illiberal and discriminatory aspects of the Labour proposals. I have transcribed it:

Cllr Amanda Taylor’s Speech

Mr Mayor,

When I first looked at this motion I thought it looked quite well meaning.

It started off by saying about the contribution that HMOs make to families, students and migrant workers.

But as I read on, I became quite appalled, because from talking about care and concern for those in those houses in lines one to three by line nine we were widening the HMO net to take in hundreds more properties and by the time we get to line twenty we’re talking about putting a cap on HMOs in particular streets.

Well I think if we’re talking about a review that’s great, but to talk about a cap, talking about two hundred meters, twenty-five percent it sounds very prescriptive and it also sounds if we’ve got the answer before we’ve done the research at all.

I don’t believe in discriminating against particular groups of people just because of the types of housing they wish to live in or the types of households they are in. I find that a very illiberal approach.

We’re not talking about shops or buildings here as we are with other sorts of planning; we’re talking about people.

There’s people in shared housing in my ward, near the cattle market on Cherry Hinton Road. I don’t see them as some kind of social problem to be kept to a minimum, they’re ordinary people like you and me, maybe more ordinary. It’s not just professionals and students but also nurses, police, waitresses, social workers, all sorts of people. Many are people who cannot manage to get a mortgage maybe because they’re in new jobs or in short term contracts or don’t have the money for a deposit so they’re obliged to go to the rented sector. Where I do get problems in my ward, like everyone else I sometimes get neighbour nuisance problems or complaints about noise and they’re not shared houses very often they’re ordinary families.

Now I find that for a party that has so much to say about the gap between the rich and the poor (and you have the right to do so) I think this motion shows remarkably little understanding of the difficulty of finding accommodation in Cambridge particularly for young people. I think because of the demographic we have in shared housing, it tends to be young people, overall and I wonder if you’ve given thought to an equalities impact assessment on this because I think you would find that it would affect young people more than other groups and would be indirect discrimination. I did find that surprising to come from Cllr Marchant-Daisley as I know [she] is involved in the equalities panel on the council.

There are many other reasons for renting or sharing houses, for example if you’re at the beginning of your career and you don’t know how long you’ll be there and of course it’s a social way of living for a single person. We’re not all neat little family units and I don’t think we should try to push people into a particular way of living. I think the diversity of the population and lifestyles in Cambridge is one of the great things about this city and what makes it a vibrant place to live.

I find that this motion, and conclusions that it comes to do seem to fly in the face of some of the statements made in the manifesto where your say that your priority is sustainable neighbourhoods for people of all incomes and that your first duty if you were a Labour council would be to stand up for all Cambridge residents. I don’t see that in a motion which limits particular types of people and their lifestyles.

I think it’s a very frighting sign of what we might see if the Labour group came to power in the city. I hope that you will vote against the motion.

[Interruption - Labour Cllr Price: "We're not going to are we"]

I hope you all vote against the motion and see that as a sign of tolerance and liberalism in the way that we run the city and the diversity which we all enjoy.

Thank you.

Amanda Taylor’s speech on YouTube

The Debate


The debate was kicked off by Cllr Marchant-Daisley moving her motion, the text of which is included in my previous article.

Transcript of Cllr Marchant-Daisley’s speech moving her motion:

First of all can I thank the public speakers this evening for raising the issue and Cllr Smart [Liberal Democrat Executive Councillor for Housing] for debunking some of the myths about it.

The purpose of this motion is to open up debate on what is a really important issue for the future of housing in Cambridge and our proposals are designed to do 4 main things:

1. Consult with the review of the Local Plan
2. Improve the standards of shared houses for their tenants and external environment
3. Maintain and increase the shared housing sector while, for new HMOs, avoiding too greater a concentration in given streets
4. To listen to the whole community

The first part of the motion is to do with regulation.

All Cambridge has a very significant level of and need for shared housing, and we believe that it is the duty of the Council to ensure that our many thousands of residents who live in shared houses and those that live in their neighbourhoods are protected from lazy or unscrupulous Landlords. The problems of poorly managed HMOs can range from the dangerous, arising from non compliance safety standards (and let us not forget the death of a Cambridge resident last year) to the uncomfortable (with poor quality accommodation) to the inconvenient with shoddy facilities for tenants. For those living close to poorly managed properties, they can suffer from inconsiderate neighbourhood noise, unkempt buildings or gardens, refuse and recycling not being properly handled.

Currently, only those properties that are 3 or more storeys in height and have 5 or more unrelated persons in them need to be licensed and therefore regulated by the council. In Cambridge that means that very many shared houses fall outside the statutory definition and are entirely unregulated.

We are proposing that a report be brought forward examining the implications of extending licensing to shared houses of 3 or more unrelated individuals and getting rid of the arbitrary and unhelpful requirement for the building to be a set number of storeys. Now, we don’t know at this state whether, looking that new definition would get the balance right, which is why we want a report. Evidence from improvements suggests that such a definition may be right, in Oxford this extension to licensing in these terms was supported by both the Lib Dems and the Greens, as well as the Student Union, and is said to be working well, with some Landlords complaining, but most reputable ones welcoming the changes as raising standards, avoiding a race to the bottom on standards and ensuring that the less responsible Landlords either improve standards or get out of the market, the former would appear to be the case as dire predictions about a decline in stock have not been realised. Apart from anything else, the economics of the market place mean that a Landlord is going to be able to charge a greater rental for a shared house than for a property let as a family home and is therefore going to be likely to improve their standards where necessary and adhere to their responsibilities. The response from tenants has been, unsurprisingly, positive.

All this however is anecdotal and we would like to see that evidence brought forward to confirm or otherwise those conclusions.

The second limb to regulation is, of course, increased expectations and where necessary enforcement and that has to be a vital component of any change. Once in response Landlords understand that Cambridge demands safe, good quality and well-run properties for both the tenants of these properties and their neighbours, then we can realistically hope to see an end to poorly managed and unsafe houses.

The last part of the motion relates to planning and is the part that appears to have led to a degree of wilful or innocent misunderstanding in some quarters.

The current Local Plan (produced by the present Ruling Group) refers to HMOs and says that development will be permitted subject to


“the potential impact on the amenity of the local area” and goes on to state that such properties “are residential in character but often have different servicing needs and increased levels of activity associated with them. The location of such provision requires careful consideration to ensure that the proposals respect the character and residential amenity of the local area. An over-concentration of uses, which can affect amenity and character can have a detrimental impact on a locality.”

The Ruling Group have therefore acknowledged the problem of an over-concentration of HMOs on a locality but have chosen to do nothing about it beyond some empty words in the Local Plan, but no real policy, no research, no evidence and no action.

As part of the review of the Local Plan we are asking the Head of Planning to report to the Executive Councillor responsible on the option of using planning powers to prevent, or to create a trigger to look at new HMOs in a street or stretch of street where there are 25% or more HMOs, and to put that out to consultation as part of the issues and options stage of the review of the Local Plan.

This, as has been made clear, does not affect existing HMOs.

What we are looking for is an appropriate trigger for intervention, there is none in the current Local Plan in spite of the plan suggesting (logically) that there should be. Is 25% the right trigger, I don’t know, we don’t know, we want a debate and some research, but a rational, mature debate about what the right figure is – we have not named a figure in our manifesto for this reason. The total number of shared houses is well under 25% of the housing sector, in some streets in Cambridge it is nil or nearly nil, but we believe that there are some streets where is it already near 90% and others are on the way to that level – that would be in clear contravention of the Local Plan, if the sentiment in it had been translated into actual policy.

This is only one of many policies for attacking housing issues and improving private sector housing for Cambridge. It is an area which has been ignored by the Liberal Democrat group for too long.

In context: Cambridge is a City with a huge number of students, professionals, workers of all kinds who rely on shared housing, and that need is not going to diminish. HMOs are a vital part of the housing sector, but they are not the only part and it is the duty of the Council to seek a balance between the different parts of the housing sector otherwise communities will not be sustainable, with unacceptable pressures on parking, the possibility of whole streets emptying out for parts of the year and families finding themselves squeezed out of the rental market due to the higher yields on HMOs.

We want new shared houses, but we can use planning powers to ensure that they are spread further and do not lead to or worsen over-concentration.

So we are NOT proposing a cut in the number of HMOs, nor are we proposing any form of moratorium, but we do want to look at preventing areas being dominated by HMOs.

The idea that this is a strange or unwarranted interference by the Council is unfounded – planning, and seeking to plan and build communities is one of the most important functions of the Council. We do not leave planning issues exclusively to the free market, we regulate and manage our fields and open spaces rather than allowing the maximum yield for developers. Look at the effort that is going into new communities like the Southern Fringe to ensure that we get the right mix: integrated communities, pepper-potting of social housing, high quality environment and standards – so why isn’t that good enough for shared housing? We impose ratios in commercial areas to regulate the numbers of shops to restaurants, for example to ensure a balanced High Street, and this proposal is analogous to that.

Some have expressed the fear that any such policy would drive up prices and decrease the supply of HMOs. We don’t see that it will, but we want to see the evidence. We are talking about new HMOs, these often come onto the market having been bought by investors, and we are not saying that they shouldn’t: what we’re saying is it might be appropriate to say to an investor that they need to invest in another part of the city.

There is huge pressure on housing, we have a duty to all the residents of Cambridge to seek to manage that for all of them, and this motion asks for a report to look at whether we ought to use the planning system to regulate the number of shared houses in a street or area. If such regulation is appropriate, we don’t know at this stage if it should be city-wide or applicable to certain areas and that is something the report can look at. We do not think, however, we should be afraid to look at using the tools available to us to plan for a well-balanced city and communities seeking to cater to the needs of all residents.

I move the motion.

The transcript was produced with the assistance of the Cambridge Labour Party who provided me with the text of the speech which I have checked and corrected against delivery.

One complaint which followed during debate was that the quote from the Local Plan was used inappropriately as it refers to HMOs which are currently regulated, and not the large numbers of shared homes which would be caught by Labour’s proposed definition.

Cllr Smart pointed out that unlicensed shared houses are not entirely unregulated, in particular they are, she said, still subject to fire regulations.

Councillors noted that the speech highlighted many problems, including unscrupulous landlords, which were not really addressed by the motion.

Cllr Todd-Jones


Cllr Todd-Jones (Labour, Arbury) seconded the Labour motion.

Thank you Mr Mayor.

Thank you Cllr Marchant-Daisley for giving a representative overview of our position.

I just want to let you know where we stand on a few points:

As we’ve made clear if you read the motion carefully we are not planning to prescribe policy in any way.

It is quite clear in the motion that what we are calling for is a report to assess options to improve the operation and regulation of HMOs in Cambridge, and regarding the planning aspects, future options including the target figures that Cllr Marchant-Daisley talked about should enable us to look at the proposals relating to the forthcoming Cambridge Local Plan 2014 to 2031. This motion does not set out things in stone it’s very much looking to open things up and debate the proposals.

There are a few other points. Oxford was referred to, and I know there have been of other cities where we have had examples of additional licensing proposals being brought forward. I believe in Peterborough, Reading and Swansea, sometimes these are city wide proposals and sometimes a certain area. This council could look at those practices, they could form part of the base for a report; we need an evidence base and not simply rely on some of the commentary which is coming out of Oxford which is a dire prediction of the additional licensing policy with rising costs of rent or declining stock availability and reducing capacity in terms of HMOs that’s not a good note, but we’re not saying that these things are no problem but we do want an evidence base and that’s essentially what our report would be about.

A few sort of specific points:

At the moment the HMO policy concerning mandatory licensing properties of three stories and above, I think that’s a rather arbitrary rule of thumb measure relates with fire service regulations and that’s to do with people who may have to evacuate from a building in the extent of a fire from the third story or above. So we cannot deny that there must be properties in Cambridge that are two story, or even single story, that would need to be notified under fire regulations when we’re looking at house which otherwise have no additional licensing regarding HMO status.

In Oxford they actually went through stages in introducing additional licensing, first of all looking at bringing in two story properties into the equation and then putting properties in where there are three or more unrelated occupiers so there’s no prescriptive big bang approach, there are different ways to do this depending on what the report we wish to see comes out with and what evidence that draws to our attention. We all know in our own wards, I’m sure everyone who’s been a councillor has come across examples in this campaign of properties in a badly managed, they’re unregulated, with unscrupulous landlords, exploiting tenants with unsafe accommodation and this has an impact not only on the people living in these properties but on the local area and on the local environment. Surely we would prefer and I’m sure good landlords would prefer a level playing field; a proactive regime from the council of inspection to a proper standard meeting fire and and electrical safety requirements. Encouraging responsible landlords means encouraging responsible tenants and they are very much part of the community. Ensuring the safety, security, and quality of life for both tenants and their neighbours.

So to reiterate we are just considering requesting a report be brought forward and assessing the options which arrive and in particular we’re not describing policy we merely wish the council to populate a proper evidence base and bring forward a really considered report on this matter.
Thank you.

Video of Cllr Mike Todd-Jones’ Speech

My view bringing in a cap on shared housing in a stepwise manner doesn’t make it any better. It has to be considered that Cllr Todd-Jones’ speech has been made following criticism of the idea of a cap on shared houses which was raised in the motion. He has talked about things like fire safety and tackling unscrupulous landlords, which are things no one is arguing against, no one is arguing for more people to be killed in fires or for landlords to be allowed to get away with being unscrupulous. People are arguing against restricting the range of properties which house sharers can rent, but that aspect isn’t really addressed. The motion, and the Labour manifesto does mention the cap on shared housing.
There was support from all sides of the chamber and beyond for better evidence on the state of housing provision in the city, so again that wasn’t a key point of disagreement.

Colin Rosenstiel

Cllr Colin Rosenstiel made an insightful speech, the content of which I expect will be of interest to those in any location where additional regulation of house sharing is proposed. (Video of Cllr Rosenstiel’s contribution)

We have another example here of the Labour party’s love of bureaucracy which actually would undermine some of the commitments they claim to advocate in their motion.

[Pulls trousers up]

If you look at the current rules on HMOs they involve requirements which are flatly contradictory with the requirements of family housing. So if I look at a street on my ward not far from where I live where the houses are tall enough to be registered as HMOs if they are thus occupied, they stay that way, they never go back to family housing and the ones which are in family housing use never become HMOs because the costs of moving from one sector to the other are too high.

If you are going to impose that on ordinary two story terraced houses all over the city that will freeze in the pattern that we’ve got now.

Let me give one example which will be perfectly clear to everyone here. Every council house in the city which has had new plastic windows installed has got lockable windows because that’s what our tenants want to give them some security. You can’t have them in a HMO because you have to be able to get out of a window without having to find a key, so all windows have to be replaced if a house becomes a HMO and that is the dead hand of bureaucracy which Labour wants to throw onto our housing market right across this city. It’s bad enough where it applies now in those streets with the taller houses that require but are student housing[sic].

The biggest HMO example which I know in my ward is Jesus Lane which is all but one house now student housing. But the council since long before the present local plan was totally unable to prevent that kind of thing taking place because one of the things which has happened in my lifetime in this city is you don’t get families living properties of seven and taking in lots of lodgers anymore because young people don’t want to live like that and haven’t wanted to live like that since they became adults at eighteen instead of twenty-one, forty-two years ago. There has been that change and therefore what we must not do is get into a bureaucracy which makes it worse and locks in the existing patterns and costs huge amounts to people that cause landlords to give up [..inaudible..]. If you’re a landlord of an existing two story house and flog it off rather than having to change all the windows for example and incur all the costs, there are all sorts of other things about putting in fire resistant doors.

Let’s not talk about glibly licensing and think it does not have consequences. It is a layer of bureaucracy which cannot be justified in terms of our number one job which is to ensure people have houses in the city.

I think Jesus Lane is largely Jesus College owned and run, and subject to the ANUK code and not council HMO licensing, it would though be subject to council planning.

Cllr Benstead


The contribution, by Cllr Benstead (Labour, Coleridge) clearly shows how Labour in Cambridge don’t understand how shared houses in the city are being used, and who lives in them.

He said:

Thank you Mr Mayor.

This is a bit of sad night for the other side and for the council really because in the previous motion we had the Liberal Democrats saying that council tenants should be happy that their improvements are only ninety percent correct to keep the cost down and in this motion we are having agreement among Liberal Democrat councillors, including councillor Taylor, standing up in favour of tenants in HMOs who are so far off the housing ladder they can’t even see the ladder that they should support this free market laissez-faire sometimes poorer quality unregulated HMOs. The only thing I can conclude from that, Mr Mayor, is you’ve been hanging with the Tories too long.

[Interjection: Cllr Owers (Labour, Coleridge) "Yeah, dam right"]

Video of Cllr Benstead’s speech.

Cllr Benstead probably meant to accuse the Liberal Democrats, rather than just the mayor, of hanging around with the Tories too long, but like many councillors he gets tripped up by the requirement to speak “through the mayor”.

I think this shows that Cllr Benstead doesn’t appreciate that some people chose to live in shared houses. I have done myself, as as cheaper way of living allowing me to try and save up to buy a house of my own. Cllr Benstead (and the labour motion he was speaking in favour of) wants to restrict the numbers of shared houses in the city. By doing this he would push up the standard of accommodation in the city, however he would also push those currently living in shared houses out.

Many people are living in shared houses for much longer than is desirable. I too would like to see fewer people living in shared houses in the city, but the solution in my view is not capping the number of shareable homes, but tackling the underlying problems including demand for property exceeding supply, and of high property prices as a multiple of income. New build property on the city’s outskirts should be of a quality, and with good cycling and other transport links which enables it to participate the same property market as the city centre. In my view property prices are also pushed up by the manner in which affordable housing is provided, and other factors such as the availability of credit.

Those speaking in favour of allowing people to chose to live in shared houses, and allowing house shares to be free to rent any property they decide is appropriate and affordable for them in the city, are not as Cllr Benstead suggests, in favour of people living in shared houses rather than more appropriate accommodation or particularly supporting poor quality HMOs.

Cllr Zoe Moghadas

I really wanted to not repeat anything that Cllr Marchant-Daisley and Cllr Mike Todd-Jones have said. I very much support what they said.

I was slightly confused in a way by Cllr Taylor’s response, I do think that the motion makes it very clear that what the motion is pushing for is a report to assess the options and the included in that Cllr Marchant-Daisley made clear that the things that it stated are for discussion.

I really wanted to talk as a representative of my residents in Romsey as I am one of the councillors who brought forward their concerns and this is how this motion has been developed. Residents have come to me and they are worried about attaining a balance of housing in the area. Some families, some single people which I hope we would all agree that it is essential we maintain a healthy community. This idea that we’re not looking at that, that there should be a variety within our streets, that this concern and certainly some of the residents who have lived in Romsey for years and years and I have to say predominately from houses where there are families and obviously lifestyles get very different when there’s a house with single people and a house with young children in close proximity. In a way what they’re feeling is there has been a gradual creep. Many of those households are saying to me we will have to move out the area. I’m not sure that’s happening but there does seem to be more and more HMOs occurring which isn’t conducive to this idea of balance in the area and hence we’re asking for a review of a percentage restriction of HMOs within a street. Again we’re emphasising the review of this.

A big concern for us the focus on the impact on the area of badly managed HMOs in Romsey. At this point I’ll come to the amendment, I feel a section of this is very misleading. Cllr Smart has stated that if the restrictions were put in place rents would rise. That’s an assumption, there’s no evidence for that. In fact we’ve heard from Cllr Todd-Jones that research has been done looking at the Oxford model where this is in place, there is a restriction, to maintain the balance of HMOs in particular streets, and as far as I’m aware there’s no evidence to show rents have risen adversely so I can’t support a motion that has come up with something with no basis or evidence to it.

At the bottom of the motion she has acknowledged I know that I have urged those with problems to go to environmental health officers, I have contacted them myself on occasion. One such case that I was involved in, someone who has needed, someone who has maintained their property but lives next door to a property which is in such abysmal care and I dealt with that at the beginning of the year when I first got elected and that still hasn’t been resolved so there’s a problem with the current systems the existing sanctions just don’t seem to be rigorously enforced so again it comes back to this need for what the report to actually assess these issues which have been brought forward.

Thank you.

In a number of points during that speech Cllr Moghadas appears to have shied away from explicitly saying what she appears to be implying, such as a view that it is concerning, for some unspecified reason, for single people and those with young children to live near each other. As with the other Labour speeches lots of material irrelevant to the motion is included, for example on the effectiveness of the council’s enforcement of environmental health related matters, presumably rubbish or noise.

Video of Cllr Zoe Moghadas’ speech.

Further Contributions

In Progress

One problem with the Labour contributions is they spent much more time talking about things which would not be addressed by their proposals rather than explaining why they want caps on house sharing and HMO regulation to be massively extended to many thousands more properties. Their contributions need to be considered in this context.

A video of Green Cllr Adam Pogonowski’s first contribution to the debate is available, Cllr Sarah Brown’s speech has also been uploaded.

Conclusion

The Liberal Democrats deleted all of Labour motion, and replaced it with their own text. A number of paragraphs drafted by Tom Woodcock and Cllr Pogonowski where then added, and the final motion comprising the Liberal Democrat, Green, and Cambridge Socialist text passed.

The final motion, as amended, which was passed reads:

The Council recognises the vital contribution that shared rented housing makes in providing homes for students, professionals, migrant workers and many people on low incomes. It acknowledges that housing is expensive in Cambridge and that this is the only way many people can afford to live in the city.

Council therefore rejects the idea of limiting the number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the city or part of the city. If restrictions are put in place, rents would rise and people would quickly be priced out of the city. Making it difficult for people to access shared housing in the city, could have a disastrous effect on the economy of the area.

Council notes the desire of some to “extend the current HMO definition to include all properties with 3 or more people in two or more unrelated households, regardless of the building layout” but also notes that the conditions required in the legislation are not present in Cambridge to extend the licensing system in this way and agrees that it should be kept under review. However, Council also recognises that the implementation of the licensing of smaller properties can be deeply intrusive and lead to complex enquiries about details of people’s relationships and domestic arrangements which are no business of the council. Any extension of the licensing system would need to be framed to avoid this.

The Council also notes that, while the majority of landlords are responsible and manage their houses in a satisfactory way, a minority are not, causing severe problems both to their tenants and to the neighbours. It further notes that while the majority of residents are responsible people, some are not and are inconsiderate, irresponsible and cause considerable problems to their neighbours.

The Council therefore endorses the actions of the Environmental Health Officers in responding to complaints and working towards changing the behaviour of the irresponsible minority in all types of tenure whether landlords, tenants or home- owners. It notes that advice, warnings, enforcement letters, injunctions, confiscations and full prosecution are all used to this end.

However, Council requests that an annual report is brought to Community Services Scrutiny Committee detailing the number and type of complaints received by the Environmental Health Department and how they have been dealt with, including the number of prosecutions.

The council further recognises that the massive shortage of secure and affordable tenancies in the city is forcing many to live in inappropriate accommodation or in many cases housing poverty.

In order to help the Council implement housing and planning policy effectively, the Council requests the Executive Councillor for Housing conduct a comprehensive survey into city residents living in private rented accommodation, which looks at rents, agents fees, quality and safety, housing security and the location of housing.

The Council requests that the results from this survey go to Community Services Scrutiny Committee and the Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee to look at the findings and to help inform debate around the Local Plan Review with regards to HMOs.

The latter three paragraphs were introduced by Green Cllr Pogonowski.

This article is a work in progress, I intend to add more videos and other content to it shortly

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/labour-anti-house-sharing-motion-defeated.html/feed 52.20498067839418 0.11911153793334961 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/filming-and-public-questioning-camcitco.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/filming-and-public-questioning-camcitco.html#comments Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:02:11 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5040




I have submitted the following message to the council’s democratic services email address, copying Councillor Tim Bick:

1. 1. If a suitably less restrictive filming policy is adopted during the Thursday 19th April 2012 full council meeting I would like to film/photograph the council meeting from the point the new policy is adopted. I’d like to film/photograph from next to the press desk, and move at some point(s) to the opposite side of the room. The purpose of moving would be to film/photograph both ruling group and opposition councillors from the front.
2. 2. I’d like to use the public speaking slot, not in relation to any agenda item.

   I’d like to ask the executive councillor for policing, Cllr Bick, what he’s been up to in that role recently.

   As well as asking the question in general terms, specifically I’m interested in:

   • what the latest position is in relation to the dispersal zones which have been discussed for both the city centre, and the east of Cambridge.
   • if he’s going to have another go at his decision to introduce council run neighbourhood resolution panels in light of the substantive “error” in the policy he approved, (making the panels an option for more serious crimes than officers intended) and in light of the emergence of the facts, not reported to the scrutiny committee, including that magistrates have concerns about the scheme and the police are planning their own similar, but separate panels.*
   • what the current position is in relation to the formation of the [Shadow] Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel, and Cambridge City Council’s representation on it.
   • how the relationship between Supt. Skeels as police commander for Cambridge, and Cllr Bick as the elected police “commissioner” for Cambridge is working on a day to day basis following the re-organisation of Cambridgeshire police, and what role, if any Cllr Bick had in Supt. Skeels’ appointment.

I think it would be useful to get answers, in public, to these questions.

If councillors’ written, or early oral, questions already cover this material then there will be no need for me to ask my question.

–

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/filming-and-public-questioning-camcitco.html/feed 52.20496489812925 0.11917591094970703 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/police-set-bassingbourne-and-melbourn-police-priorities.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/police-set-bassingbourne-and-melbourn-police-priorities.html#comments Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:23:26 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5034



Sgt Capes of Cambridgeshire Police presenting a report on youth antisocial behaviour in Melbourn.

On the evening of the 17th of April 2012 I attended the Bassingbourne and Melbourn Neighbourhood panel meeting, at which the local police priorities for the upcoming couple of months were set.

The panel meeting was not run democratically, the priorities were set unilaterally by member of police staff John Fuller after the meeting had received reports from the police and those present had an opportunity to raise points.

See also:

• Lobbying to Keep Democratically Set Police Priorities in Cambridge.
• Mob Sets Sawston Police Priorities.

There were a number of astonishing points from the meeting:

• Residents complained about the sale of energy drinks, such as Red Bull, and caffeinated drinks, to “underage” youths in Melbourn. Residents and the police sergeant present said this was illegal. Tackling the problem was set as a priority.
• The only county councillor present, Liberal Democrat County Councillor Cllr Van de Ven, opposed the energy drink priority, but was overruled by Mr Fuller.
• The meeting was told that the police had used restorative justice to require youths who had gathered on a green to pick up litter. Their “offence” was merely “gathering” in a group.
• The police noted that residents of Melbourn were “sensitive” to antisocial behaviour, and reported that some people were calling the police unnecessarily in relation to youths gathering

The meeting covered an area including Haslingfield, Harston, Barrington, Shepreth, Foxton, Fowlmere, Melbourn, The Chishills, Litlington, Steeple Morden, Guiulden Morden, Kneesworth, Gamlingay, Little Gransden and Longstowe.

Meeting Report

Before the Meeting

The farcical nature of proceedings started before the meeting got underway.

South Cambridgeshire District Council listed the meeting on its website, but with no location (the relevant officer was informed). Neither the council nor the police had published the police report to the meeting in advance. Residents from the area complained there had been no ecops email messages for a while (so presumably it wasn’t advertised there).

The website http://melbourncambridge.co.uk (apparently an independent commercial hyperlocal website) listed the date of the meeting along with some previous minutes, but the latest are from July 2011 whereas the panel last met in January 2012.

There were no signs directing people to the meeting in or outside the building it was held in. I found it by following likely looking people, (the other actives in Melbourn Village College that evening were all sporting).

Getting underway

The meeting was chaired by police staff member Mr John Fuller. Police officers Sergent Jon Capes and Inspector Chris Savage were also at the front of the room along with an officer introduced as “Linda” from South Cambridgeshire District Council.
It was noted by the chair that Cambridgeshire County Council had failed to send an officer to attend the meeting.

No one else was introduced. I spotted Liberal Democrat County Councillor for Melbourn Susan van de Ven (she said hello).

The other County Councillors for the area, Sebastian Kindersley (Liberal Democrat, Gamlingay) and Linda Oliver (Conservative, Bassingbourn) were absent.

No South Cambridgeshire District councillors made their presence known at the meeting. However looking the district councillor’s photos afterwards I see Cllr Val Barrett (Conservative, Melbourn) was present. Cllr Surinder Soond (Liberal Democrat, Meldreth) was absent as were Cllr Bridget Smith (Liberal Democrat, Gamlingay), Cllr Ted Ridgway Watt (Conservative, Orwell & Barrington), and Cllr Deborah Roberts (Independent, Fowlmere & Foxton)

I’m not sure about Cllr Jose Hales (Liberal Democrat, Melbourn) one of those present looked a bit like him, but that person called for the death penalty, and urged action against youths buying and drinking energy drinks, and at the end the police thanked him from moderating his contributions [implicitly not being as disruptive as previously]. If the guy at the back near the door left was a Liberal Democat councillor the party needs to review its vetting!

Many of the others attending appeared to be parish councillors. In total there were eighteen people in the public seating, including me and the councillors. When the chair asked if anyone had no attended a panel meeting before it was revealed there were no newcomers to police priority setting.

The chair started by listing villages and parishes asking if there was anyone either from, or representing, each area. Fowlmere was the only area for which there was no response, but Cllr Van de Ven indicating her presence was the lone representation for many places listed.

Discussion of Maters Raised at Previous Meetings

Dangerous dogs in Litlington was the first item raised, six dogs running loose were reported. This was clearly an long term ongoing issue, the person raising it said someone living opposite a property where their were six dogs had sold up and moved - partially due to the dogs and asked if a child would need to be bitten by a dog before action was taken. The police noted the matter was still a problem, they appeared to think it had been resolved.

An eight year old issue relating to planning and parking restrictions in the vicinity of Fieldgate nurseries, Meldreth, was raised and noted to be still ongoing.

Police Report

Mr Fuller apologised for the lack of content in the report. He said that the staff responsible were being centralised within the police and this had prevented the usual data from being made available.

Melbourn Anti-Social Behaviour

Police Sergeant Jon Capes reported on the work done tackling a previous priority of “Anti Social Behaviour in Melbourn”.
He said that despite lots of patrols, there had only been one case of confiscation of alcohol

Sgt Capes told the meeting that a restorative justice had been used on a group of youths who had been required to pick up litter from an area where they had gathered; their “crime” being “gathering”. On hearing this I tweeted:

I’m almost shaking with fury and disbelief at this criminalisation of youths “gathering”. Bassingbourne / Melbourn @cambscops panel #live

Cllr Val Barrett said that a resident was pouring bleach in a doorway because people were urinating in it.

The police noted this point, but said that overall they didn’t think there was a particular problem with anti-social behaviour in Melbourn and asked for it to be dropped as a priority, leaving any emerging issues to be dealt with as “business as usual”.

Cllr Van de Ven said she was still getting reports from residents about youths gathering.

The police noted that some in Melboun were “sensitive” to antisocial behaviour, and related that they were getting calls from residents over exaggerating what was going on in an effort to make the police attend. (It sounds to me as if consideration ought be given to prosecuting these people for making malicious calls, or at least speaking to them and making clear youths gathering is not a crime).

The police reported that on occasion they came across a group of young adults drinking together, but took no action because nothing illegal was going on. They said that if anyone under eighteen was found drinking they would write to their parents, (under their “Guardian Awareness programme”) but suggested this was very rare.

The meeting then took a bizarre turn. A resident called for action against shops selling energy drinks to children. He asked the police to ensure shop owners, and their staff were aware they were an age restricted product. Other members of the public quickly jumped in, saying they wanted action taken to curb the supply not just of energy drinks but brown caffinated ones too. A number of members of the public insisted the sale of these products to children was illegal. One said children were: “running around like headless chickens on Red Bull”.

Cllr Van de Ven and those sitting between her and me started whispering saying they weren’t aware these products were age restricted. Mr Fuller and Sgt Capes appeared very keen to act and appeared convinced there was some criminality to address.

Speeding

A member of the public reported a scooter being driving on the pavements of Foxton; he said he didn’t think the rider understood what they were doing was wrong.

A proposed redesign for Bassingbourn high street was mentioned.

When one member of the public mentioned a speeding problem in their village they were heckled by another member of the public and the suggestion made they should take part in the police’s “speedwatch” scheme (volunteers using speed guns) as that made the police take an interest in a village.

The police confirmed this, Sgt Capes said those villages where there were Speedwatch groups got more police attention.

A parish councillor was among those saying that speeding was the top problem in the area, and there was increasing disillusionment with the effectiveness of speedwatch. He said his parish council had money they would like to spend addressing speeding, but wanted help to determine how it could most effectively be spent.

Cambridgeshire Police Restructuring

The meeting was told that following the re-organisation Chief Inspector Darren Alderson was now the commander for South Cambridgeshire and had response police, CID and neighbourhood police under his command.

It was noted that while some elements of policing were getting more local, with local accountability, others were going in the other direction as their provision was being shared with other forces, examples given by Inspector Savage were: firearms, murder investigations and child protection.

Members of the public complained they’d had no Ecops messages. Inspector Savage said this was due to a move to “ECops2″, but Mr Fuller said the old system should still be being used.

Noting the reorganisation was saving money, some members of the public, criticised Elected Police Commissioners, as being a waste of money. I tweeted:

Public here think elected commissioners will be a waste of money. I wonder if they know @PACambs [Cambridgeshire Police Authority] costs £1m/yr (Clerk on ~100k/yr).

Public Comments

The meeting was opened up for comments from the public.

Cllr Van de Ven asked for crime data from British Transport Police to be included in the reports to the panel meetings. Mr Fuller said the individual in Cambridgeshire Police capable of obtaining the information from the transport police was no longer available. (Transport police data would be useful in East Cambridge, which covers Cambridge station too).

A member of the public complained about driving on the pavement in Bassingbourne.

Complaints were made by speedwatch volunteers saying they were not being supported enough by the police. The meeting was told that some people were speeding up when they saw speedwatch patrols. Mr Fuller on behalf of the police said the police would take reports of this seriously and urged the volunteers to pass the information on.

Double yellow lines in Foxton and Meldreth were mentioned. Cllr Van de Ven reported a small length of these had been approved but would take months to get painted.

Parties held at Shepreth lakes, with party goers urinating on gardens in Station Rd in the village were reported as being a problem a couple of times a year. The police inspector said that if this issue was raised it might prompt the interest of the licensing authorities, he said he was unaware of the venue.

A question about metal theft was raised. The police said it was haphazard and isolated. They told us:

• Scrap dealers in the area were working with the police and signing up to a service level agreement. No details of exactly what information is being shared was given.
• British Telecom have a system called “rabbit” which detects broken cables. This has allowed the police to disrupt cable theft attempts, people have fled leaving cable, but have not been caught.
• There have been cases of people putting white goods outside while cleaning or decorating and having them stolen.

A member of the public asked for the death penalty for those caught stealing metal from war memorials.

Mr Fuller, in the chair, said it was not appropriate to discuss sentencing, as that was a matter for judges.

Inspector Savage however ignored the chair, he said the community could influence sentences via “community impact statements” and urged communities to work with their local officers to produce such statements, to be read out to the courts, when sentencing people for offences which have had an impact on the community.

Someone asked if anyone was interested in small instances of fly tipping. South Cambridgeshire District Council said it was, and the police even said often flytipping interested them too as it was often related to other crime.

Someone from Chishill reported the Bluebells were out in the village, and there were no crime or policing issues to report.

Fuel thefts and garages being opened (looking for fuel?) in Abington Pigotts were mentioned.

Priorities Set

1. The supply of alcohol and energy drinks to young people in Melbourn.
2. Speeding - doing more to support speedwatch volunteers.

A burglary detective was also to be invited to a future panel meeting, as while burglary levels were not significantly increased, they are a form of crime in the area which has a significant effect on people.

Cllr Van de Ven whispered:

Is it OK to disagree? I think it’s wrong

After hesitating for a while, and not really behaving like someone representing thousands of others, she finally spoke up and said she disagreed with the “energy drinks” element of the priority. Mr Fuller overruled her, despite him being unelected and her having the largest electoral mandate of anyone in the room.

Inspector Savage gave an assurance he wouldn’t being going out “tomorrow” and taking action on energy drinks sellers and consumers; he promised to discuss it with licensing officers first and noted it was the first time he’d been asked to take action in the area.

Future of the Meetings

Mr Fuller noted S34 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 required the police to hold such public meetings.

He said he was leaving the police following their reorganisation, and the next meeting would be led by the police officers. He noted that the new law would ensure the meetings continued in some form, and said the police were considering what their format ought be.

My Views

• The date and location of the meeting, along with the police report ought to have been made easily available from the police and local council websites.
• I would like to see police priorities set democratically by councillors. I’d like to have seen more councillors attend the meeting, and for the councillors to be sitting at the front, with a councillor in the chair. Holding the police to account for their performance ought be a much more important part of the meeting, as should prioritisation, not simply raising issues. In the Melbourn and Bassingbourne areas I’d like to see the County and District councillors vote on the priorities. This being effective would require people to elect decent councillors who were interested in local policing and who would turn up to the meetings. I think empowering local councillors would encourage better local councillors and more interest in local democracy.
• I think the “energy drinks” priority is crazy. The police appear to have been duped by an urban myth, energy drinks are not age restricted products. (They have form). If there are problems in Melbourn they appear to be as much with those complaining as with the behaviour of youths. I think the police need to be more prepared to say “that isn’t a police matter” or similar when they are called to reports of gathering youths. People need confidence there will be a police presence and response when one is needed, often a lack of this confidence is behind calls to the police for gathering. I wonder if there is a lack of engagement between those of different ages in Melbourn and if that might be the underlying issue which needs addressing. I’m 31 and appeared to be one of the youngest people at the Melbourn police priority setting meeting; the majority of attendees appeared twice, or more my age.
• I am concerned by the keenness of those at the meeting to criminalise young people who are doing nothing illegal. I am particularly concerned about the abuse of “restorative justice” reported, gathering in groups is not a crime, and where there is no offence, there ought be no “restorative justice”. I think this case should be reviewed by the Police Authority and the force’s lead on restorative justice, if necessary apologies ought be made.
• I think it would be useful if an Elected Police Commissioner, or preferably someone acting sooner, worked with local councillors, including at parish level, to come up with lists of options, costings, and routes to rapid implementation of ways to make roads safer. Discussion at the meeting was exclusively on enforcement; this is expensive, unsustainable, and doesn’t have a lasting, ongoing effect. I would have thought local people would be best placed to know their local problems, but it appears parish councillors are looking up to the police, districts, and county for help. Different things are appropriate for different villages, in some cases where there are lots of cyclists and pedestrians using stretches of country roads perhaps we need to look into acquiring adjacent land, perhaps on the “other side” of hedgerows to put in paths; in others things like pinch points, “gates”, coloured roads, signs showing vehicle speeds or other measures might be appropriate.
• Those setting police priorities need to do so on the basis of the best available data (including what they’re hearing from constituents) . I’d have liked to see much more information on a wider range of crime, and other statistics. Perhaps statistical officers ought attend priority setting meetings, so they can interrogate crime reporting systems, traffic collision maps, as well as police, fire and ambulance call out data, live in an interactive manner in response to issues raised.
• Those setting priorities need to be aware of what options and technology are available; for example RADAR based unobtrusive speed monitoring.
• I’d like to see more quantified priorities being set. In relation to the areas raised at this meeting, perhaps reducing injuries in traffic accidents by a certain amount in certain areas would be appropriate, this could be a longer term target but with progress monitored at quarterly panels. It may be in some areas accidents aren’t the ultimate problem relating to speeding, but that speeding puts people off walking and cycling, so the target could be to get those rates up.
• I think it is excellent that the boundary between “response” and “neighbourhood” police is being broken down, and hope we’ll get a more locally accountable and consistent police force as a result.

No member of Cambridgeshire Police Authority was present at the meeting.

There was no mention of the roll-out of TASER to non-firearms officers which the chief constable has announced he will go ahead with irrespective of the views of the Police Authority.

The date and location, but not time, of the next priority setting meeting was provided: Tuesday 17th July - Bassingbourn Village College.

See Also

• Melbourn Neighbourhood Policing Team webpage - warning due to police technical incompetence some thumbnail images are many megabytes in size!
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/police-set-bassingbourne-and-melbourn-police-priorities.html/feed 52.08778942541965 0.01823902130126953 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/labour-plans-to-push-house-sharers-out-of-cambridge.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/labour-plans-to-push-house-sharers-out-of-cambridge.html#comments Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:44:47 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5024



Spot the shared houses. Many streets in North Cambridge contain lots of shared houses which are indistinguishable from their neighbours.

As has been reported in the Cambridge News Labour Councillors Marchant-Daisley and Todd-Jones are putting forward a motion to Cambridge City Council’s full council on Thursday the 19th of April 2012 calling for a cap on the proportion of houses of multiple occupancy in any particular area of Cambridge.

It is harder than it ought to be to get to grips with and comment on and discuss the motion because it lacks clarity. There are many different definitions of Houses in Multiple Occupation which are used by the council and other arms of the state for various purposes. There are definitions relating to council tax, planning and licensing. Before it can even be debated the motion needs to be clarified to make clear the definition in question is that relating to planning. I suggest the movers of the motion ask the mayor to accept such a clarification prior to the debate.

HMOs with more than seven unrelated occupiers already require planning permission, however it appears that councillors Marchant-Daisley and Todd-Jones wish to reduce the threshold to three or more people in two or more unrelated households.

The effect of this would be to push up housing prices for many of those in Cambridge who find it hardest to afford even remotely suitable accommodation. The pool of properties available to students and working sharers would be drastically reduced if the councillors’ proposals became council policy.

I certainly would not have been able to afford to live in Cambridge had the proposed policy been in place over the last decade. I was only able to live in the city as a result of renting a room in a shared house.

I think that groups of students and professional sharers should not be discriminated against at all in the housing market. Personally I’m even unhappy with allowing landlords to specify “no sharers” or “no students” when renting their properties out.

The vast majority of shared houses cause no problems whatsoever, and I am sure that many residents would not be able to identify which properties on their streets are occupied by sharers.

I find it bizarre that Labour councillors are proposing a policy which will disadvantage those whose interests voters would expect Labour party members to have at heart. This is the kind of policy I’d expect those paying hundreds of thousands of pounds to have dinner with David Cameron to be urging him to impose, not something coming from our local Labour councillors. I’m sure some of the rich elite would rather the likes of me couldn’t afford to live in Cambridge; I thought that kind of attitude would be limited to the kinds of Liberal Democrats who live in enormous architect designed mansions on Millington Road (a plush private road in Newnham where the council leader and her sidekick Cllr Cantrill reside).

I wonder how in-touch the two councillors proposing this motion are with the reality of the housing situation in Cambridge currently. Many young professionals in jobs which are key to the city’s functioning, teachers, doctors, academics, live in shared houses; often in unsuitable accommodation which isn’t really appropriate and makes lives more stressful and challenging than they ought to be. Shared houses are far from the bottom of the accommodation pile in Cambridge, I’ve met a teacher living in an uninsulated breeze block built shed off Nemarket Road, and seen many people living in other structures in gardens. Those living as lodgers too often have very poor conditions, often without access to kitchens or the ability to do any washing up.

Where I think there ought be regulation is the point at which we have specially modified properties designed to be let out by the room to unrelated occupants. I think it is right to regulate these via the planning system, as occurs now. There is also licensing of such premises and if they are mismanaged and a regular source of problems licences should be removed, just as they ought be from premises licensed for other purposes.

Even if we were only considering larger, specially adapted properties, I would not set a cap as is proposed over the whole city, though I can see that such a cap, or target ratio, might be appropriate on some streets. The decisions on each property ought be made just like any other planning application, on its individual merits, by councillors - though of course their is a need for a policy against which applications are assessed. A ratio for certain streets or areas could form part of that policy just as the proportions of different types of commercial activity (eg. the ratio of shops to restaurants) are supposedly regulated in parts of the city.

The motion text reads:

The Council recognises the vital contribution that well-run Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) make in providing housing for families, students, professionals and migrant workers.

However, given problems from some HMOs failing to deliver quality, safe housing, or creating serious problems for neighbours, the Council requests the Executive Councillor for Housing to bring forward a report to assess options to improve the operation and regulation of HMOs in Cambridge, including:

1. extending the current HMO definition to include all properties with 3 or more people in two or more unrelated households, regardless of the building layout
2. improved enforcement of breaches of licences granted to HMOs, and
3. wider adoption of best practice on HMOs by comparable cities including Oxford,

and that the Head of Planning Services also report to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport and the Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee on the future option of denying permission for additional HMOs in any street or 200 metre stretch of any street where HMO numbers reach 25% of residential properties, to enable inclusion of this proposal in the summer ‘issues and options’ consultation on the Cambridge Local Plan 2014 to 2031.

I fully support reviewing this issue as part of the local plan review, I would like to see officers produce a report outlining the options so that the public can comment on it during the review. What I oppose are the specific proposals made, which are far too premature in any case - such specific proposals ought come after the report and consultation.

These councillors are coming at the problem from completely the wrong angle. They’re overly concerning themselves with the rather lofty and abstract concerns of rich, often older, home-owners who are concerned about the way the city is changing around them, rather than focusing on ensuring that those working and studying and living in Cambridge have a reasonable chance of finding appropriate and affordable accommodation.

Attacks on students and house sharers are never far below the surface in Cambridge, and often break out among the public and councillors, particularly at East Area Committee meetings. I think councillors ought stop attacking a large fraction of the city’s population but where there are specific problems, for example with noise, the particular individuals and properties concerned ought be specifically targeted rather than a large swathe of the city’s residents.

I suspect it is true that many of those living in shared houses will be an easy target for councillors, but their interests need to be considered by their representatives even if they don’t themselves generally have the time, knowledge and inclination to find out about what proposals are before the council which might affect them. Those living in shared houses are likely to be younger, busier and living more stressful lives than the older, often retired, home owners who’re typically those complaining. That doesn’t though in my view mean that those living in shared houses are likely to contribute less to the city, as I’ve already said many of the key people who make this city work live in shared houses..

In the event the council shows support for the proposals put forward by Cllrs Marchant-Daisley and Todd-Jones I hope the students’ unions, and those who represent others who will be affected will lobby against the proposals becoming part of the city’s planning policies.

See Also

• 1 Hemingford Road Approved as Seven Tenant HMO - particularly the “My Views” section and the section on discrimination which describes the current state of the law.
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/labour-plans-to-push-house-sharers-out-of-cambridge.html/feed http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/police-endorse-wet-room-for-drunks.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/police-endorse-wet-room-for-drunks.html#comments Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:13:05 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=5018




On the evening of the 12th of April 2012 I observed councillors on Cambridge’s East Area Committee set the areas’s policing priorities for the upcoming four months. Problems caused by street drinkers were by far the top issue raised by councillors.

Sergeant Jamie Stenton for Cambridgeshire Police initially reported:

“Street life people [his words] are often doing nothing wrong, just sitting around socialising.”

Councillors’ contributions which followed however painted a very different picture.

Labour councillor for Coleridge George Owers told the committee about disorder he could see out of the window of his flat, which overlooks the Co-Op on Mill Road, Romsey. Liberal Democrat Kilian Bourke also identified that area as being a problem, he said that a bench in that area had been taken over by street drinkers. Cllr Bourke said that there had been an influx of new street drinkers in the “broadway” area of Mill Road where the Co-Op is located and these people were aggressive and not, as previous street drinkers had been, part of the community who shop keepers and others could communicate with.


Cllr Marchant-Daisley (Labour) reported that in her Petersfield ward street drinkers were harassing people and causing alarm and distress, making clear their behaviour was criminal. She identified the Dicthburn Place bus stop on Mill Road as a particular focal point and described how street drinkers were behaving in an aggressive and loud manner, sometimes fighting, which made people feel unsafe. Others also talked about the impact on bus users getting on and off buses on Mill Road.


Cllr Owers repeated calls he, and his party colleagues, have made previously, for a “wet centre”, so street drinkers can be cleared from the streets and put somewhere else (at previous meetings Cllr Owers has suggested this could be a garden, or part of a park, if not a “room” or “centre”).

Police Sergeant Jamie Stenton expressed support for the Labour “Wet Room” proposal. He said a wet room would be “very good”. While places for street drinkers to go and drink are not mentioned in Labour’s 2012 Local Election Manifesto for Cambridge, Labour councillors made clear they would like to see them during the April 2012 East Area Committee, as they have done at previous meetings of the committee and during recent full council debates. As we are in an election period I thought this clear support for a specific party’s policies by the police was unusual and surprisingly political.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Saunders made a request for the “council’s psychiatric nurse” to be involved. I read after the meeting that the council employs a community psychiatric nurse in its street outreach team, I wasn’t previously aware of this.
A council document from 2008 lists a bid for this post, saying:

Provision of a specialist alcohol Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) to move street drinkers away from a street-life culture and to contribute to the assessment for allocation of new clients to existing
supported hostels and shared houses where appropriate

The cost of the nurse was £60K per year in 2008.

A more recent document from March 2012 reveals that the post holder works from the council’s “Cambridge Access Surgery” which is a dedicated GP service specially for homeless people based at 125 Newmarket Road.

The meeting’s chair Cllr Blencowe asked Inspector Poppet, the city’s neighbourhood policing chief, to comment (he had been lurking in the public seating). Inspector Poppet told the committee the police had started better sharing of information on particular street drinking individuals with the city council to aiming to ensure individuals “had a range of services around them”.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Sarah Brown asked that any priority set did not specifically mention or target street drinkers, but instead ought refer more generically to “anti-social behaviour” so to avoid unfair targeting of a particular group. Her suggestion was not taken up by the committee.

It was notable that dispersal zones were not mentioned by the police or councillors, despite proposals for a zone in the city centre which could have the effect of displacing more street drinkers to East Cambridge. The central zone proposed includes Mortimer Road in East Cambridge, and East Road which is on the boundary of the area, so the area committee really ought to have been informed about it. The East Area Committee’s chair, Cllr Blencowe, is personally pushing for a dispersal zone for East Cambridge, so an update on that might have been expected too.

Councillors congratulated the police on their work addressing their previous priority which was to: “Address alcohol and drug related ASB in Norfolk Street, East Road and Newmarket Road areas”. All councillors who spoke were uncritically positive about the police’s success in doing exactly what they’d been asked to do in that area.

There was some discussion of licensing. Mr Gawthrope, the only member of the public to contribute to the policing item, urged councillors to set licence enforcement, and controlling alcohol sales as a priority, but no councillors took up his suggestion. The police did however agree, at councillors’ request to consider pushing for licence reviews on those they were aware were selling alcohol to people who were drunk. While agreeing Sgt Stenton didn’t appear too keen saying “what counts as drunk might be different for different shopkeepers”.

The meeting was told that Sgt Stenton was being moved to another role, and Sgt Colin Warden would be taking over policing East Cambridge. Sgt Warden was present but sat silently in the public seating.

The committee set a priority of street life drink related antisocial behaviour, including related class A drug dealing.

My View

There is a problem

The behaviour of some homeless people, or those living in hostels, drinking on the streets, of Cambridge are a serious problem because they make the city unsafe, and make it feel unsafe. The problems reported by the East Cambridge councillors are repeated in many parts of the city. Harassment, aggressive begging, loud arguments and these people fighting amongst themselves and who sometimes lunging at and directly intimidate the public have a real impact on how safe the city feels. Illegal drug use, crime to fund drug and alcohol use, robbery and random violence are also committed by the same people.

Focus on criminality

I think we need to focus on the criminality, rather than anti-social behaviour which is not otherwise criminal. Focusing on the criminality rather than other aspects such as merely street drinking or merely congregating means we can target those causing serious problems without having to ask the police to treat one group of people differently from others.

Sentence people to medical help

When people are sentenced by courts for criminal offences and their offending is related to their alcoholism or other addictions then I think their sentences need to both punish and focus on medical treatment, in the interests both of the individual and the wider community. Currently what happens is the courts hand down a “supervision order” with a treatment element. What this will actually amount to isn’t usually known to the court, it is determined by the probation service and drug treatment service later in secret. I’d like to see more transparency and clearer sentences which, for example, both punish by removing someone’s freedom and requiring them to do something. Having to attend for treatment, at a certain place, for a certain period is a restriction of liberty and ought be seen as such by the courts. We need to stop people getting lighter sentences, sometimes involving no punishment, for offences because they are addicted to drugs or alcohol. We need to both punish and seek to address the underlying problem, and I think that can be done together. Magistrates ought set the number of hours of treatment sessions to be attended in the same way as they set numbers of hours of community service to be carried out. Often I think it would be appropriate for sentences to contain both community service and treatment elements.

Sentences need to be long enough for treatment to be effective. Just as Magistrates sometimes allow a driving ban length to be reduced by attending a course, a sentence for a treatment order could perhaps be reduced if certain goals are met, this approach would allow longer sentences for those not changing their behaviour.

A court sentence shouldn’t be the easiest or quickest way for someone to obtain or be able to continue treatment. All GPs in the city need to be aware of the range of services which are available, what they offer. Currently I think this basic knowledge is lacking. People also need to be able to continue treatment even after their treatment orders have expired.

City wide priorities

There are two city wide police and crime priorities which are potentially directly related to the problems associated with street drinkers:

• alcohol-related violent crime
• antisocial behaviour

Progress against these priorities is monitored by the “Community Safety Partnership” on which Cambridge residents are represented by the city’s Executive Councillor for policing, Liberal Democrat Tim Bick. The latest reports to the partnership’s meeting in February 2012 show that street drinking by the homeless / those living in hostels isn’t being considered under these priorities.

I think that where area committees are interested in matters which are city wide priorities they ought receive the reports on city wide progress. This is something I’ve been suggesting for years in the North of the city but the Liberal Democrats have inexplicably opposed it. I’d have liked to see one of the outcomes of the East Area Committee meeting being feedback to Cllr Bick and the Community Safety Partnership.


Notably the city wide priority for alcohol related violent crime has a quantifiable target based on injury statistics:

• To reduce ‘assault with less serious injury’ by 3 percent by March 2014 from the baseline of 2010-11 (8355).
• To record less than 1,100 presentations to the Emergency Department at Addenbrooke’s Hospital by March 2012, where the cause of injury is coded ‘assault’.
• Establish a baseline in 2011-12 for the number of ambulance call outs for ‘assault’ with a view to using this to set targets in future years.

I think this kind of thing is excellent.

I’d like to see councillors on area committees setting priorities with measurable priorities along these lines for their local areas, they should be receiving statistics on crime related injuries.

Influence magistrates and probation

The community safety partnership is also an opportunity for influencing the magistrates and probation service. I’d like to see councillors using it to make clear to these groups what impact the behaviour of street drinkers is having on the city so that sentencing and sentences can take that into account.

I’d also like to see councillors making more use of Cllr Al Bandar who, according to his declarations of interest was appointed to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Probation Trust board for three years from 2010. The Trust’s own page on it’s board doesn’t list him, but the organisation isn’t very good at transparency.

The Community Psychiatric Nurse

I’d also like to hear from the Community Psychiatric Nurse who we’re paying for. I think they should appear before councillors either at a scrutiny committee or an area committee to explain what they do and hear councillor’s views in public. I had not heard of this post until two days ago, but my initial concern is this may be another area where the council is getting into something it ought leave to the experts. I think a lot of effort is mis-directed by the city council meddling round the edges, for example with its anti-social behaviour team getting into a bit of policing, or in this case employing a health professional. I think the councillors could be more effective if they focused on influencing the core services provided by the NHS and the police.

I would also be interested in learning why the city council has a separate GP surgery for homeless people and those living in hostels, and what the arrangements are - are people required to attend the specialist provision or can they register with other GPs for example.

Councillors at the East Area Committee appeared reasonably good at identifying the key issues of concern to their constituents and specific geographical problem areas. They appeared less keen, or perhaps less able, to show leadership and seek out and prioritise solutions.

Wet centres

Unlike the police I oppose the Labour councillor’s calls for places where street drinkers can go to drink, be it a dedicated part of a park or a designated building. The key problem I have with this is it’s focused on clearing the streets, tidying away the problem, and not addressing the underlying problems those involved have with their health and lives. I am also concerned that we would be concentrating the violent and other unpleasant behaviour into a specific area, and wherever in the city we put that it’s going to cause a problem.

Hostels and services

Jimmy’s Night Shelter is being refurbished and will provide some services 24 hours a day (though currently the proposal is not to provide a place for people to go and drink). Current changes to the provision for homeless people throughout the city is in the direction of providing more intensive assistance, I think this is the right direction to go; although he capacity to provide accommodation needs to be able to meet demand.

Role of an elected commissioner

An elected police commissioner may well be able to empower and assist councillors:

• Ensuring councillors get high quality statistics and other evidence to combine with what they’re hearing from their consituants and experiencing themselves so that they’re as well placed as possible to set priorities.
• Encourage the setting of priorities with measurable outcomes; and encouraging councillors to hold the police to account for any areas where their performance has not been acceptable, finding our what the problems are and helping get them addressed.
• Pointing and helping councillors use the routes councillors have available to them for influencing organisations such as the courts, probation, drug treatment services, the community safety partnership, hostels, housing providers etc and helping them ensure their views are heard there. A commissioner will have the opportunity to bring all organisations involved in policing and crime related matters together more effectively than has happened to-date.

Manifestos

As there are local elections coming in in May I thought I would look at what the manifestos of those standing in East Cambridge have to say in relation to this area:

Liberal Democrats

Manifesto Link.

• “We will continue to : Fund a community psychiatric nurse in the street outreach team who organises a specialised evidence suggests they are needed” [That's a direct quote, it is garbled in the manifesto].
• “We will : Expand the detox programme for street drinkers administered by the community psychiatric nurse by funding an extra project worker”.
• “We will continue to : Address homelessness as a causal factor In some types of anti-social behaviour”
• “We will continue to : Encourage greater transparency, public debate and scrutiny on policing prioritiesr”
• “We will continue to : Bring together Police and other relevant parties to address recurrent anti-social behaviour in particular locations”

Labour

Manifesto Link.

A Labour City Council will:

• environment where they can get help and treatment. [sic]
• Work with police to introduce targeted alcohol-free zones via Designated Public Places Orders where there is evidence of a problem and where local communities want it
• Commission a report that outlines effective new policies to ensure that street-drinkers and drug-takers get the rehabilitation and wider support they need.
• Work with local hostels to improve management
• Work with the police to implement Section 30 dispersal orders in areas where persistent anti-social behaviour is a real problem.
• Re-examine recent Lib Dem cuts to city centre CCTV.
• Ensure that the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership engages with community organisations and residents more openly and effectively.
• Create a single Antisocial Behaviour Hotline.
• new City Centre enforcement officer to take tough action against anti-social behaviour.
• Work with local off-licences and supermarkets to crack down on the sale of alcohol to those already drunk or under-aged.
• Look for further opportunities with the police to extend Cumulative Impact Zones where necessary.

Green

Green Party Public Order Manifesto for Cambridge.

We oppose a city-wide drinking ban and find unacceptable the suggestion that ‘middle-class drinking’ will be allowed whilst ’scruffy drinking’ will be outlawed. Criminalising drinkers and drug users will not solve the problem, nor will simply shifting it elsewhere. If drinkers are actually causing an actual problem, for example unacceptable levels of harassment, aggressive behaviour or theft, then there are laws to deal with these problems.

More resources are needed to address the root cause of alcoholism and anti-social behaviour through preventative measures. These include better provision within the public health service, adequate staffing, and provision of care in groups small enough to allow for individual attention.

Cambridge Socialists

Manifesto Link.

While the Cambridge Socialists have nothing to say on street drinking and related crimes directly, they do promise: “No more home repossessions” and to “Create 1 million climate jobs”, policies which may impact on the underlying causes of homelessness and associated street drinking.

Cambridge Conservatives

Policies link.

The Conservatives locally appear to have no relevant policies. (When Conservative Chris Howell was on the council though he was one of the most effective at setting police priorities other than those the police themselves were proposing).

See also:

• Contract for Provision of Adult Drug Treatment Services in Cambridgeshire - INCLUSION - obtained via FOI request in public using WhatDoTheyKnow.com
• LibDems to Consider Regime To Limit Freedom of Movement in Cambridge - my latest article on dispersal zones
• Article about the 222 Victoria Road hostel
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/police-endorse-wet-room-for-drunks.html/feed 52.197588401317034 0.1446247100830078 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-election-candidates-0512.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-election-candidates-0512.html#comments Sat, 07 Apr 2012 14:07:23 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4993



Only Sign of Elections in Arbury - Posters for Labour’s Mike Todd-Jones.

Cambridge City Council elections are to be held on Thursday the 3rd of May 2012.

Cambridge is split into fourteen wards, there are three council seats for each ward. The elections in May are for one seat in each ward, so a third of the council seats are up for grabs.

The names and addresses of the candidates have been published online by the council in the “Statement of Persons Nominated” available from the council’s elections page.

I have mapped the candidate’s addresses and displayed them along with maps of the wards. Those wishing to get to grips with the information can view it on Google maps, and turn individual wards and their candidates on and off using the checkboxes (the topmost checkbox turns everything off, which may be a useful starting point. The wards shapes are listed below the candidates). Maps for specific wards are included later in this article, they can be clicked to enlarge.

Some of key points from the data:

• There are three wards where none of the three main parties, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour have fielded candidates who live in the ward. These are King’s Hedges, Coleridge and Cherry Hinton.
• King’s Hedges is one of the most deprived wards in the city. As well as having no candidates from any major parties who live in the ward it has Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates who live in quite different, remote parts of the city.
• Cherry Hinton is the only ward in which none of the candidates live in the ward (there is no one who lives in Cherry Hinton standing for election anywhere else in Cambridge either).
• In Kings Hedges Ian Tyes (United People’s Party) is the only candidate who lives in the ward, and in Coleridge Green Shaun Peter Esgate is the only candidate who lives in the ward.
• There are a number of candidates who live outside the city altogether:
  • Martin Lawson, Green, from Impala Drive near the airport, standing in Queen Edith’s.
  • Robert Dryden, Labour, from Fulbourn standing in Cherry Hinton.
  • Jack Benjamin Toye, Green, from Waterbeach, standing in Castle.
• In Trumpington and West Chesterton all the candidates live in the ward.
• Personally I was surprised to see that Cambridge Socialist Tom Woodcock, who is standing in Romsey, as he has done in the past, has an address in East Chesterton.

Tabulated Data

Information on candidates who live out of the wards they are standing in:

Party	No. Candidates Living Out of Wards	Mean Distance From Ward(m)
Labour	7	1199
Conservative	6	1948
Green	6	2450
Liberal Democrat	3	1155
Cambridge Socialists	1	1000

How Far Out of Ward Candidates Live from their Wards

Straight line distances from candidate’s address to nearest edge of ward:

Ward	Party	Name	Distance (m)
Castle	Green	Jack Bejamin Toye	7800
Kings Hedges	Conservative	Anette Karimi	5100
Arbury	Conservative	Ali Meftah	4400
Romsey	Labour	Rachel Eckersley	2800
Cherry Hinton	Labour	Robert Dryden	2100
Queen Edith’s	Green	Martin Lawson	1800
Kings Hedges	Liberal Democrat	Neil McGovern	1700
Market	Green	Brett Mark Hughes	1600
Abbey	Green	William John Birkin	1500
Petersfield	Green	Sandra Billington	1500
Market	Labour	Noel Kavangh	1400
Cherry Hinton	Liberal Democrat	Keith Edkins	1400
Romsey	Cambridge Socialists	Tom Woodcock	1000
East Chesterton	Labour	Margery Abbott	1000
Cherry Hinton	Conservative	Angela Ozturk	800
Queen Edith’s	Conservative	Richard Graham Jeffs	600
Newnham	Conservative	Andre Leslie Beaumont	600
Newnham	Green	Billy Aldridge	500
Petersfield	Labour	Gail Marchant-Daisley	500
Coleridge	Liberal Democrat	Thomas Spencer Yates	365
Kings Hedges	Labour	Nigel Gawthrope	350
Coleridge	Labour	George Owers	240
Coleridge	Conservative	Sam Barker	190

Starting Position

As only a third of the council seats are up for election, on the morning of the 3rd of May not all parties in Cambridge will be starting from a level position.

The current breakdown of the council is:

LibDem	25
Labour	14
Green	2
Other/Independent	1

As of the morning of election day, some of these seats will remain safe as they’re not up for election, the starting position on election morning is:

LibDem	17
Labour	10
Green	1
Other/Independent	0

As there are 14 seats up for election it is technically possible for Labour to take control of the council from the Liberal Democrats in this election, or for the council to be left without one group in overall control. My view is this is unlikely and while the Liberal Democrat’s majority might be reduced there will probably be little substantive change to the overall make-up of the council.

I would prefer to see less conservatism in the system, giving elections more meaning, and the electorate more power, by holding all-up elections every time. I think that four year terms for councillors in a city with such a high turnover of population is too long. I’d rather see all council seats up for election every time we have an election, and shorter terms for councillors.

As well as giving a greater opportunity to overturn the current regime, I think shorter terms might encourage younger people to stand for the council, as I suspect many of those in their twenties in the city might be less certain of where they’re going to be in four years than those who’re older and more established in terms of jobs, homes and families. One reason I didn’t stand for election in my twenties was because I wasn’t sure I would stay in the city for the subsequent four years.


Arbury



This is my local election. Labour’s Mike Todd-Jones is the sitting councillor seeking re-election, and Rhodri James, the Liberal Democrat has previously been my councillor so I am voting from a better informed position than would usually be the case. Mike Todd-Jones and his team have been canvassing hard in the ward already, many of my neighbour’s homes have his poster in their windows (I’ve seen no evidence of any other candidate’s posters).

Mike Todd-Jones regularly carries out his “Arbury Survey”, so has some contact with the ward’s residents between elections. He would be a good local councillor in a low tech, unchanging, sleepy part of the country, but in Arbury the fact he doesn’t vote on planning applications, rarely participates in debates on setting police priorities and holding the police to account, and appears to be someone who is rather proud about the fact he doesn’t communicate via Twitter or a blog means he’s not really an ideal person to represent the ward. He doesn’t appear to have a clear vision for the ward, or the city. How he plans to keep the city working in the face of the massive expansion it is experiencing and what his views are on the development around the city are not clear from his publications and statements.

Like Rhodri James did when he was a councillor Todd-Jones appears to have focused mainly on the needs and interests of those living in council housing in the ward.

It appears the Conservative candidate, is just a “paper candidate” someone the party has come up with to ensure they’ve got someone standing in every ward, though I’m interested to see if they do come up with anything, and I am yet to hear anything from the Green.

While Todd-Jones often tries to distance himself from the actions of the national Labour Party he appears happy to pick up the votes of those who vote locally based on national politics.

My own vote might go any way, or I may spoil my paper. I’ll cast my vote based on who I think will do best for Arbury and for Cambridge.

See also my comments from the 2008 Arbury city council elections.

Abbey



Labour’s Richard Johnson appears to be running a strong campaign here. I think he has a good chance of winning and would make an good local councillor if he focuses on what a local councillor can achieve and not on national politics. See his recent leaflet on ElectionLeaflets.org.

Mr Johnson has been active in the city’s political debates for some time now, having stood previously in Newnham. He tweets.

We’ve got a month to go before the election and in Abbey as elsewhere I’m interested to see what the other candidates come up with. The Conservative candidate for Abbey is their local deputy chairman Tim Haire his most recent article focused on Trumpington.


Castle


The Liberal Democrats appear to have surrendered this ward to Ex Lib Dem, and Ex. Labour, now independent, John Hipkin.

Cllr Hipkin (Twitter, Blog, Manifesto) provides a useful counterpoint to the Liberal Democrat groupthink on both the West Central Area Committee and planning committees. He is one of the few councillors to think strategically about the city, and while I sometimes disagree with him he often pushes debates on to the important subjects which might otherwise be missed.

The Liberal Democrat’s candidate Alan Levy has been shipped in from Arbury, he clearly wasn’t the Lib Dem’s first choice in his own ward. He was very poor as a councillor when he was elected, he rarely spoke at any council meetings and never substantively participated in debate at full council. He had such a long, unexplained, period of absence that his seat ought to have come up for re-election but the Lib Dems passed a special motion at the City Council to allow him to stay on as a councillor despite not attending for longer than the period which ought result in automatic loss of office.

Cllr Hipkin rarely stays to the end of full council meetings though, and his performance in the last year or so has not been as impassioned has it has been in the past.

If I was in Castle ward I’d certainly not be voting Alan Levy, Cllr Hipkin is the known quantity, the green lives in Waterbeach with no clear link to the ward, and student Ashley Walsh’s election manifesto comments on the ex-Texaco garage site planning promising: “Ashley will keep residents informed about the appeal against that decision”. He could do with keeping himself up-to-date and informed first, he could do with reading John Hipkin’s newsletter which reported in March that a planning inspector had upheld the appeal against the city council’s refusal last month. Ashley Walsh on Twitter.

Hipkin appears to be the only serious candidate.

Cherry Hinton



Here the big surprise for me was that the sitting councillor, Robert Dryden doesn’t live in the ward, though he has a long historical connection with it.

The Liberal Democrat candidate, Keith Edkins tweets, his Twitter biography states:


Unimportant background figure in Cambridge Lib Dems

I think far too many Liberal Democrats remain background figures when elected, many stay silent throughout council meetings and their only participation is voting as their leaders direct them. We need people who participate.


Coleridge



Here the candidates from the three main parties live near the ward, but not in it.

I think in some cases, if candidates work in a ward, or spend a lot of time in a ward then standing somewhere other than where they live is acceptable. When people live miles away from where they represent though I think they lose or lack a connection with the area which is necessary to represent it effectively.

Cllr Owers (Twitter), a history research student, has in his short time as a councillor shown himself to be a passionate local councillor and while his contributions at full council meetings have been rather heavy on the national politics he has provided some much needed life and vigour into proceedings. He once accidentally addressed the mayor (who chairs council meetings) as “Mr Speaker”, he participates in full council debates (something which is unfortunately notable for a councillor!), and has a habit of stopping immediately, even mid-sentence, if told his time is up.

Here we have three candidates seeking to represent a residential suburb they have to go out of the city from where they live to visit. I think this is different to someone standing to represent the city centre when they live just outside the Market Ward. I think there’s a slight parallel with Kings Hedges where we have candidates living in richer, nicer parts of the city seeking to represent the poorer and more troubled parts (though as with almost all wards in Cambridge Coleridge is very mixed and there are richer and poorer, good and bad, streets).

East Chesterton



East Chesterton regularly appears to elect poor quality councillors, as far as I can see from the current candidates there’s no sign of this changing.

I believe the Conservative is probably the Mr Francis who attended a North Area Committee meeting in 2010 to comment on the lack of visitor parking for the Vie development.

King’s Hedges



Cllr Neil McGovern (Twitter) is a reasonable local councillor, but now he’s moved to the city centre I question if he’s still the best person to be representing King’s Hedges. I wonder why people in the ward can’t find someone who lives there to represent them.

For those wishing to read about the one candidate who does live in the ward, Ian Tyes, I found this rather unusual biography.


Market



The Liberal Democrat Executive Councillor for policing, Liberal Democrat Tim Bick, is seeking re-election.

This is a student heavy ward, and the Liberal Democrats have, as a party, broken their promise to oppose the increase in tuition fees, this is probably the ward where national politics is most likely to have a substantial impact on the city.

Cllr Bick promised a gate to control vehicular access onto Midsummer Common when he was seeking election four years ago, despite a period when he claimed this was no longer desired by residents, one has recently been installed.

Cllr Bick struggles balancing the liberal principles on which he was elected with lobbying from the police and some businesses for a more authoritarian approach to policing central Cambridge. Cllr Bick recently said he would be prepared to consider a regime to limit freedom of movement in Cambridge.

Cllr Bick is on Twitter but hasn’t yet tweeted.

Newnham



Council leader Liberal Democrat Sian Reid is seeking re-election. I suspect there is little realistic chance of a decapitation, her politics of “Shop doors” and “Residents’ Associations” appears to go down well in Newnham. Though it is notable that the current Liberal Democrat manifesto for Cambridge has dropped any mention of Resident’s Associations, recognition and consideration of these groups used to be a key part of the party’s offering despite them rarely being inclusive and representative.

Petersfield



Active liberal tweeter Zoe O’Connell is standing against Labour’s Gail Marchant-Daisley. This is a ward where unfortunately someone who’d make a great councillor isn’t going to be elected; if only we could re-distribute the passion and ability around the city.

I am slightly concerned that O’Connell’s liberal beliefs and principles might not survive the transition into power though, as as of the time of writing there has not been any response to my question on which way O’Connell would vote on dispersal zones which many of Cambridge Liberal Democrats support.

Queen Edith’s



Liberal Democrat Cllr Amanda Taylor (Twitter) is seeking reelection. She has a substantial record on which residents can judge her performance. She is an active councillor I’ve often written about her contributions.


Romsey



The biggest surprise here to me was to find that Tom Woodcock (Twitter) does not live in the ward he regularly stands in. Perhaps he’s chosen Romsey because he thinks that’s the ward in Cambridge where a more extreme socialist than a Labour party support stands the best chance of getting elected.

The Liberal Democrat councillor, and candidate, Cllr Smart isn’t particularly impressive, she is deputy leader, but in the absence of the leader of the council at the recent budget setting full council meeting gave no speech when introducing her party’s proposed budget for the city.

I have regularly written about Cllr Smart’s contributions to council meetings. Cllr Smart’s views on speeding can be found in this article

With the socialist vote here being split between Mr Woodcock and the Labour candidate from the other side of the city I think it’s likely Cllr Smart will be returned; but has with many of the city’s wards, the result could go in any direction following a decent campaign.

Trumpington



One of the most inactive Liberal Democrat councillors, Cllr Al Bander is standing for re-election. Cllr Al Bander is the council’s cycling champion, but I’ve never heard him speak on the subject despite attending many meetings about improving cycling in the city. Cllr Al-Bander has only made one contribution to a full council meeting, noting a black sailor from 250 years ago with a link to Cambridge. Liberal Democrats give their non-speaking councillors a round of applause when they finally make a contribution, often years after they get elected, Cllr Al Bander got his in July 2011 after being elected in May 2008. His contributions at South Area committee meetings are often off-topic.

If I lived in Trumpington I’d be investigating other options. I suspect this is one ward the Conservatives could win, but they have very little presence in the city.

West Chesterton



The current Mayor, Ian Nimmo-Smith is not standing for re-election. The Liberal Democrats are putting up Mike Pitt (Twitter), who lives in the ward, but previously represented Kings Hedges. Cllr Pitt was one of the better Liberal Democrats at the North Area committee when he served as a councillor. As a maths teacher he is capable of basic arithmetic, a skill which it is often useful for at least someone round the table to have at council meetings. Cllr Pitt also appeared, unlike many of those elected as Liberal Democrats to care about civil liberties and due process, he to some degree followed up a number of concerns in these areas which I raised using the public speaking slot at the North Area committee.

The Conservative candidate, James Strachan, though has opposed the extension of controlled parking (and the associated extra tax) to the De Freville area, which the Liberal Democrats have broadly supported. I think this is a signifiant issue in the ward, and while West Chesterton has previously been a Liberal Democrat stronghold, I think Mr Strachan stands a good chance of being elected.

Moving Councillors

It’s not just candidates who sometimes don’t live in their wards; from time to time councillors move away after being elected. Currently two of Cambridge’s youngest councillors are representing city wards while living our of Cambridge. Liberal Democrat Cllr Sarah Whitebread represents Central Cambridge’s Market Ward on the County Council while living in Stapleford. Green Cllr Adam Pogonowski represents Abbey on the city council while living in Rampton. Both have declared aspirations to return to live in Cambridge, but councillors are not immune from the pressures of jobs and housing costs which affect many others. In recent years Arbury continued to be represented by Liberal Democrat Rupert Moss-Eccardt for a few months after he moved from the ward to Ely, and Liberal Democrat Gaynor Griffiths continued to represent Market ward for a period after she too moved to Ely.

Manifestos

The Liberal Democrat Manifesto for the 2012 City Council elections (PDF) contains lots of promises to do things which have already been approved or agreed, this is a cynical way of campaigning. It also contains the line “We have Saved the Alexandra Gardens trees” those who were following events know is complete nonsense, local residents had to campaign against the Liberal Democrat run council, and it was the Liberal Democrat run council which was threatening the trees in the first place.

Labour have published their priorities for Cambridge giving pavement obstruction and dog poo a surprising prominence

Cambridge Conservatives and Cambridge Greens have made their local policies available on their websites.

Overall

I think we have a healthy and thriving democracy here in Cambridge.

A full set of contested elections, with each seat being contested by at least three, and in most cases four candidates is fantastic.

There’s a lot more we could be doing better though; more openness, greater awareness of what local councillors can do, and are doing, as well as electing better quality councillors with more strategic vision.

Raw Data

• Download the KML file for use in applications such as Google Earth

Thanks to Lucy Price for helping transcribe the candidate data, MySociety’s MapIt for the ward boundary data and Google Maps.

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-election-candidates-0512.html/feed http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cash-for-cameron.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cash-for-cameron.html#comments Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:23:06 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4987



The published Conservative Party cash for access price list only goes up to £50K.

I was invited on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire earlier to talk about the story of the day, cash for access to the Prime Minister David Cameron.

I said the scandal which broke over the weekend didn’t come as a surprise to me. The Conservative Party website has been open about what you get for certain levels of donation for years. The donor club pages list what you get for five, twenty-five, fifty thousand points, with the latter being membership of the “leader’s club” which buys invites to dinners with Cameron and members of the cabinet.

What we’ve found out is what you get for a couple of hundred thousand pounds, it’s an extension of the same kind of thing.

This is a problem as influence follows money. Funding political parties via a small number of large donations results gives a lot of influence to those at the top of the party structure, rather than the grass roots membership.

The underlying issue here is that party membership is at a historically low level. Parties are struggling to survive. The most popular have a couple of hundred thousand members. That’s easier to comprehend in a local context. In Cambridge it translates to a couple of hundred Liberal Democrats, whose party runs the city, and only about fifty or so active Conservatives, based on the turn out for the open meeting they held to select their parliamentary candidate.

If parties don’t have a large membership base to support them and we don’t like people making huge donations, which will always have the appearance of buying influence, then there will be calls for state funding as an alternative. That’s could well be the direction this story takes today, or later this week. I’m concerned that state funding would entrench incumbents, it would be a way of the current political parties seeking to stay in power longer than they would have done without such funding propping them up.

I don’t think the death of political parties would be a great loss to the UK, I’d much rather see them die a natural death than be forced to prop them up through my taxes. I think independent MPs coming together to form alliances on a topic by topic basis, with all debates open and in public (as we’ve seen to an extent with the recent budget debate due to deliberations involving just two parties) would be an excellent thing for our democracy.

You would still need, and be able to have, a cabinet, and an overarching economic plan. I think debating the major strategic questions first, like the desired levels of taxation and size of the state, to come up with such a plan, would be a positive thing. I don’t think making other, perhaps more detailed, decisions in a deliberative fashion over time within an agreed framework would be impractical or undesirable. The opportunity to have the best MPs for the job in cabinet positions could well result in a government which better reflects the country. A moderately conservative chancellor, a liberal home secretary and a socialist in health perhaps?

I’d like to see a political system where the most important currency is ideas for making the country, and the wider world, a better place to live. One way of reducing the influence of large donations is regulate spending on campaigning. If more elections were run in the manner some are proposing for police commissioner elections, with a booklet of manifestos distributed to voters, the cost barriers to entering elections (with a chance of winning) could be reduced. I think we should try very hard to stay away from a USA style of politics where fundraising rather than ideas, appears to be the core.

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cash-for-cameron.html/feed http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/prayer-cambridge-city-council.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/prayer-cambridge-city-council.html#comments Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:50:47 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4981

I observed Cambridge City Council’s Civic Affairs Committee on the 21st of March 2012 discuss if prayers ought be held at council meetings.

The meeting was inconclusive. Its outcome was to ask the mayor, Cllr Ian Nimmo-Smith, “to hold discussions” on what ought be done regarding prayers.

One of the most surprising claims, repeated by many councillors, was that what the council does isn’t praying. Cllr Stuart, who was mayor in the last civic year, stated what chaplains did was not lead the council in prayer, but merely open the meeting.

Here is the wording of one of the meeting openings conducted by a chaplain which Cllr Stuart presided over as mayor:


So let me lead us in a prayer.

Give us father a vision for this city as love was remained[?].

A city where the weak are protected and no one goes hungry.

A city where benefits are shared so that all may enjoy them.

A city where all peoples live in tolerance and mutual respect.

A city where peace is built from justice and justice is fired in clay.

And give us the courage to build these days this city.

- Amen

Liberal Democrat Cllr Boyce expressed his view saying: “What the council does isn’t really prayer”. Labour’s Cllr Benstead said that the prayer isn’t a prayer but a metaphor for respect for the mayor.

The Debate

The item had been placed on the agenda by Labour councillor Gail Marchant-Daisley who was unavoidably absent due to an unexpected work commitment.

There was no report on the item. The meeting’s chair Cllr Boyce asked the council’s head of legal, Simon Pugh (Salary 70,263 of taxpayers’ hard earned pounds each year) to explain the legal position.

Mr Pugh said prayers were lawful but not compulsory.

Labour leader Cllr Herbert spoke in Cllr Marchant-Daisley’s absence. Oddly he said that Cllr Marchant-Daisley didn’t want, or expect, the committee to make a decision on holding prayers. (Quite what she was seeking wasn’t made clear).

The meeting was told that prayers were not on the city council’s agenda or mentioned in the constitution and that the mayor holds them as it is customary.

It was noted that by not putting the prayers on the agenda the council had avoided the “mistake” made by Bideford council where prayers were ruled illegal.

Cllr Herbert suggested another meeting on the subject and a wider discussion.

Cllr Boyce said he had canvassed the Liberal Democrat party and had a high response rate, with views being expressed strongly right across the spectrum from one end to the other. He noted that the party had decided this was to be a subject for an unwhipped free vote should it ever come to one.

Cllr Boyce claimed that attendance at the prayers was not compulsory (they’re held during the council meeting). A councillor, I think it was Cllr Benstead, said that he attended the prayers because he feared if he didn’t he might miss something.

Alternative options such as having a moment of reflection; having something which involved more faiths, or holding prayers in the Mayor’s parlour, or in other rooms, before the formal meeting were briefly put forward.

Cllr Stuart argued to keep prayers as they are as doing otherwise would upset the ceremony involved in the start of a full council meeting (the Mayor, Chaplin, Chief Executive, Head of Legal and Sergent at Mace process in).

The current Mayor Cllr Nimmo-Smith was invited to join the debate despite not being a committee member. He argued in favour of formal prayer saying it was “custom, practice and tradition”. He added though that he would be keen to hear if people think the practice of prayer is exclusionary, indicating that might change his mind on the matter.

Cllr Benstead said he is a long lapsed Baptist who is beyond redemption. He said it ought be up to the mayor each year to decide what they wanted to do.

Mayor Ian Nimmo-Smith said chaplains being invited to lead prayers at the council but not turning up was becoming an increasing problem.

Despite not being on the committee Cllr Andrea Reiner attended the meeting and joined the committee at the table for their discussion. She spoke when prompted to do so by the meeting’s chair but expressed no view on the subject.


Cllr Rosensteil told the meeting he had never put himself forward to be Mayor, despite being a long serving councillor, as he would not be comfortable with the prayers. He said he currently sat through them and didn’t make a fuss, he said this was the British thing to do. Cllr Rosensteil said that once, in the 1960s there had been a Mayor who didn’t appoint a chaplain, and there had been one councillor, ex-cllr Frank Gawthrope who actively absented himself from the prayers during his decades on the council.

Cllrs noted they didn’t know if councillors absent from the prayers were late or abstaining. Cllr Boyce confirmed he was often late, and wasn’t actively avoiding the prayers. He noted there was a custom that those who arrived after the meeting had started, but before the prayer had finished, wait outside so as not to disturb the prayer.

Cllr Herbert responded to those who had claimed the council didn’t pray, saying “they might not be called prayers but they feel like prayers”.

The item was concluded as Mayor Ian Nimmo-Smith agreed to hold discussions on what ought be done.

My View

I don’t know if mayor Nimmo-Smith will be seeking the views of the public, but the prayers affect those seeking to observe and report on council meetings too. The views of the public are also important as members of the public are all potential councillors.

I don’t think there ought be prayers at council meetings. I simply don’t think the council chamber is the place for them, it’s a place for our elected representatives to come together and democratically decide how to run the city.

Prayers, conducted in a formal, public, manner, risk making some councillors, or members of the public, stand out or feel uncomfortable, on the basis of their religion, or lack of it, something which just shouldn’t be a factor when it comes to running our city. If an individual doesn’t want to participate in prayer, or doesn’t want to be seen to pray, they shouldn’t have to mark themselves out, and become the odd one out as all the other councillors are doing it (or at least going through the motions).

Personally I sometimes stand outside the chamber in protest (both at the prayers and the presence of the Mace - I think the monarch ought have no role in democracy either) , sometimes I forget to do this, or I go in to get a seat and to collect and read the meeting papers, or if I’m using the public speaking slot I’ve gone in because I’ve not wanted to miss any relevant announcements. Sometimes I attend and report the content of the prayer live via Twitter, or note it down, as I do with other aspects of the council meeting.

I have seen members of the public stand for the prayer as councillors do, but recently council officers have required people in the public gallery to sit down (for safety reasons, as there is a low rail).

See Also

• Cambridge City Council Meeting 11 September 2008 - A reverend asked God to look favorably on the council meeting and to help councillors make good decisions, he even said: “our Council Meetings … in your Holy Name”. (The chaplain, Christian Heycocks, commented on that article!)
• Julian Huppert at the Maypole - I asked our MP about prayers in Parliament.
• Looking At Some of The Detail in Cambridge City Council’s Accounts - I found out the council pays chaplains £10 for each prayer.
• Cambridgeshire County Council - October 2010 Full Council - a chaplain called on God to “direct the minds of those who are here to make decisions together” and also prayed for councillors’ “health and safety”.
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/prayer-cambridge-city-council.html/feed 52.204972788663724 0.11924028396606445 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-filming-review.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-filming-review.html#comments Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:31:16 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4974

Cambridge City Council’s Civic Affairs Committee on the 21st of March 2012 is to review the city council’s currently highly restrictive policy on filming, recording and photographing council meetings.

The report to the meeting contains the following statement:

Since the Committee approved the amendments to the audio/visual recording protocol in February 2011, there have been no applications to record council meetings. There is no evidence to suggest that the Protocol has put off the public from wanting to record.

I have made very clear that I have the equipment to record council meetings and I am willing and prepared to use it. I have attended council meetings and have mounted my camera on a tripod to actively demonstrate this. I have explained to a number of councillors and council officers why, under the council’s current rules, filming is impractical.

I have also previously spoken at the Civic Affairs Committee explaining the problems with the council’s protocol, and the way it is interpreted.

The key issues with the current protocol are:

• Zooming and panning are banned. (See the declaration on the application to film form and the council’s filming protocol). This makes it almost impossible to obtain interesting and watchable footage. It is not permitted to move the camera to point it at each speaker.
• Setting up must be done before the meeting starts. This has been interpreted by officers as requiring the person filming to leave their camera unattended during the meeting. In full council they are expected to leave the camera on the floor of the chamber and move up to the gallery, in committee again they are not permitted access. The council’s committee staff has to operate the equipment if the chair rules it is to be turned off. It is inconceivable the professional media would be prepared to operate in this manner.
• Those filming a meeting are required to hold a copy of the unedited footage for a period of four months. The only way one can record, while away from the equipment, is to record an entire meeting. This creates huge files and imposes a large and expensive storage requirement on the person doing the recording.
• I’ve been told by a number of professional journalists they would not be prepared to operate under a protocol where the chair was allowed to arbitrarily select which bits of a meeting they could and could not record. Those working for a number of the city’s professional media organisations have suggested to me they would cover the council more extensively if they could easily obtain photos, audio, or video to go with their story.

Additional Points

While the report states there have been no applications to record council meetings there have been a number of occasions the council itself has photographed council meetings. I have attended a number of area committee meetings where this has occurred.

I suggest clearly defining the ceremonial part of the Annual Meeting of the Council, is it everything until the meal break? I also think it is wrong and misleading to have one rule in place during a meeting where there are many people in attendance, giving an appearance of openness, and once the majority of people have left reverting to a more restrictive policy.

Councillors are exempted from the provision allowing people to opt out of being filmed, but council officers are not. The council has accepted senior council officers need to operate in a transparent manner but the current protocol does not reflect that.

I suggest the council, instead of being as restrictive and obstructive as possible to those seeking to publicise what councillors are up to are more helpful. I would suggest informing observers how they can use the council’s guest wireless internet (to help them get live, or near live, images and recordings out) as well as provide access to power points and additional “press” desks. The council could also consider the practicality of providing access to the sound feed from the microphone system to the press and public. The available power sockets and “press” desks are often fully occupied.

Recording is often a practical aid to following what is going on. For example if those unfamiliar with councillors wish to record a non-roll-call vote taking a photograph is one practical way to do it. Where meetings receive presentations a photo is a way of taking a note of what the committee has been shown, sometimes I personally use my camera in such circumstances to help me read the text.

If the council opened up its meetings and permitted recording in practice I think we would see more of the council’s business on TV, online and hear it on the radio. I think this would strengthen local democracy and increase awareness of what our local councillors get up to.

At Cambridgeshire County Council

Cambridgeshire County Council have recently (on the 1st of March 2012) introduced a new filming protocol.

It is short enough to reproduce in full here:

FILMING, VIDEOING, PHOTOGRAPHY AND AUDIO RECORDING AT COUNCIL MEETINGS
The Council supports the principle of transparency and encourages filming, recording and taking photographs at its meetings that are open to the public. It also welcomes the use of social networking websites (such as Twitter and Facebook) and micro-blogging to communicate with people about what is happening, as it happens.

There is no requirement to notify the Council in advance, but it should be noted that the Chairman of the meeting will have absolute discretion to terminate or suspend any of these activities if, in their opinion, continuing to do so would prejudice proceedings at the meeting. The circumstances in which termination or suspension might occur could include:

• public disturbance or suspension of the meeting
• the meeting agreeing to formally exclude the press and public from the meeting due to
  the confidential nature of the business being discussed
• where it is considered that continued recording/photography/filming/webcasting might
  infringe the rights of any individual, and
• when the Chairman, considers that a defamatory statement has been made.

In allowing this, the Council asks those recording proceedings not to edit the film/ record/ photographs in a way that could lead to misinterpretation of the proceedings, or infringe the core values of the Council. This includes refraining from editing an image or views expressed in a way that may ridicule, or show a lack of respect towards those being photographed/filmed/ recorded.

Those intending to bring large equipment, or wishing to discuss any special requirements are advised to contact the Council’s Communications Team in advance of the meeting to seek advice and guidance. The use of flash photography or additional lighting will not be allowed unless this has been discussed in advance of the meeting and agreement reached on how it can be done without disrupting proceedings.

At the beginning of each meeting, the Chairman will make an announcement that the meeting may be filmed, recorded or photographed. Meeting agendas will also carry this message.

• Cambridgeshire County Council Filming Protocol

Clearly the County Council’s protocol is much less restrictive on those seeking to film or otherwise record meetings. I note at the County Council meeting chairs are only able to ban filming if continuing would “prejudice proceedings at the meeting”. At the city council, under the current protocol a chair’s permission may be not given or withdrawn without any reason being given.

I think the County Council’s provision on enabling filming to be stopped following a defamatory statement being made is odd; as all it stops is the filming of the part of the meeting which occurs following that statement. I suspect that part of the policy is not written as intended. What might make sense is the chair drawing the attention of those filming the meeting to the potentially defamatory statement and perhaps urging them to take care if and when they decide to publish it.

What I Would Do

If I was a councillor on the committee I would opt for one of the optional alternative recommendations provided:

Permit recording at any meetings, with no restrictions other than those meetings or part of meetings which are exempt from the public

In addition I would suggest that the council’s existing officers consider filming council decisions of major public interest.

I would not allow members of the public to opt out of being filmed; if you decide to speak at a council meeting you are doing something in public. In my experience almost all of those speaking at council meetings are seeking attention for the cause which they are arguing for and would love to have it filmed. Often speakers attend on behalf of campaigning organisations and a film record would be useful for them to report back to their members on what happened.

Unfortunately despite there being a majority of Liberal Democrats on the committee there are no councillors who I would expect to be pro-openness. Rosensteil, Boyce and Herbert were on the committee when it brought in the restrictive protocol and Stuart was the Mayor shown in the video accompanying this article and Marchant-Daisley has let me know she will be absent. That just leaves Liberal Democrat Cllr Brierley who might stand by his manifesto commitments to openness and join me in calling for the relaxation of the restrictions on filming, he rarely makes substantive contributions to meetings though.

See Also

• Cambridge City Council Bans Filming Meetings - November 2010
• Speaking About My Filming Ban at the Cambridge City Council Civic Affairs Committee - November 2010
• Seeking Permission to Record Cambridge City Council Meetings - September 2010
• Cambridge City Council Complaints Investigator Reports on Filming Protocol - November 2010
• Message from the council claiming I breached their photo policy by photographing a publicly funded buffet at a council meeting - July 2009
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-filming-review.html/feed 52.204935310819685 0.11930465698242188 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/fen-road-public-meetings.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/fen-road-public-meetings.html#comments Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:42:19 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4967



Wooden bollards between Water St. and Fen Road which kept getting sawn down have been replaced with metal ones.

On Tuesday the 20th of March 2012 at 6pm in the Shirley School on Nuffield Road another public meeting is to be held to discuss the problems associated with Fen Road in East Chesterton. The meeting has not been well advertised and is omitted from the council’s meeting calendar.

The March meeting was arranged because the only thing Cambridgeshire County Council’s Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning Councillor Ian Bates (Conservative, The Hemingfords and Fenstanton) could think of doing in response to calls for action at the previous public meeting, on the 26th of January, was calling for another public meeting.

Cllr Bates was jeered and heckled when he made the suggestion by members of the public saying: “Well what’s this?” “This is a public meeting?”. The chair of the North Area Committee, Cllr Ian Nimmo-Smtih sought to calm the situation by assuring the hundred or so people who’d attended the first meeting they didn’t have to repeat everything again and their points would be “taken forward”. The second meeting has now been termed a “steering group” but is open to all. It appears that 45 out of the ~100 people who attended the first meeting signed up for notification of the date of the second where it is hoped that Cllr Bates will, after two months of reflection, be ready to substantively respond to what he heard.

26 January 2012 North Area Committee

On the 26th of January 2012 the North Area Committee held a special meeting to discuss the problems associated with Fen Road, and in particular to discuss a proposal from Clare Blair and Cllr Ian Manning to push for a new access road between Fen Road and Milton Road involving a new bridge over the railway in the vicinity of the planned Chesterton Station.

The problems on Fen Road relate to the use of the road both by heavy commercial vehicles and dangerous and inconsiderate driving by those living on the travellers site.

I know from my own personal experience that the road is lawless. It’s rare to be in the area and not see obviously unroadworthy vehicles and dangerous driving. Local residents at the public meeting talked of white van drivers stopping in the road to speak to each other, not caring about blocking other traffic, and of speeding vehicles mounting the pavements.

The view of those at the meeting was that they were very keen on the provision of a new access road, allowing access to the travellers’ site and industrial units on Fen Road without driving through the residential streets of East Chesterton.

My view is that while a new bridge would be beneficial, especially if it was to carry an extension of the guided bus, and Chisolm Trail, following the line of the railway over Stourbridge Common as well as improving access to Fen Road we ought be able to deal more robustly with the lawlessness now.

It appeared to me that the members of the public who attended the meeting had little confidence in police action being able to address the problems and were therefore calling for the multi-million pound civil engineering project. Many also wanted to see smaller, cheaper, quicker, improvements including a better cycleway between the hailingway and Water Street. This is something I called for when councillors were throwing vast sums at the Penny Ferry car park.

Tweets

I tweeted the following live from the meeting:

• Chesterton Railway station offers opportunity to address Fen Rd. problems Cllr Nimmo-Smith tells North Area Ctte #live
• If DoT approval given for Chesterton Station it could be built in 2014 North Area Ctte #live told.
• Cllrs from @SouthCambs and @cambscc here at North Area Ctte #live as problem area is responsibility of multiple councils. #localgov
• Cheer as member of public reports white van drivers stop to chat to each other Fen Rd to North Area Ctte #live
• Members of public reporting Taxi companies refuse to serve Fen Road residents. North Area Ctte #live
• Allegations of planning breaches at traveller site North Area Ctte #live
• Traveller saying Taxis refusing to serve travellers, but other residents on Fen Rd say they are refused service too. North Area Ctte #live
• Member of public complaining about lack of leadership from cllrs.. too much “what do you think” Re: Fen Rd. North Area Ctte #live
• Members of the public getting fustrated at Cllr Nimmo-Smith’s chairing .. clamour to hear about possible solutions. North Area Ctte #live
• Lots of support for new road Milton Rd ->Fen Rd. Could form part of Chisolm Trail cycle route from Sci Park. North Area Ctte #live #camcyle
• Lots of support for two way cycle lane on riverside of Water St narrowing road to slow traffic. North Area Ctte #live #camcyle
• Officer Mr Preston from @CambsCC getting heckled as he is saying “more evidence needed” to show problems on Fen Road. North Area Ctte #live
• Officer Mr Preston from @CambsCC confirms there is ¬£2m + in the North Area Transport Corridor Fund. Area Ctte #live
• Cabinet member Ian Bates of @CambsCC addressing North Area Cte #live His suggestion of a further meeting baffling residents:we’re at a mtng!
• RT @brianlj: North Area Ctte #live It looks as though we need more evidence before anything is done. Bureuacratic nonsense.
• Chair protecting @CambsCC officer … not letting public find out what evidence they require. North Area Ctte #live
• There is a council contracted stenographer taking down every word here to help a man who has difficulty hearing. FOI? North Area Ctte #live
• Cllr Nimmo-Smith promises Fen Road notes will be on @camcitco website tomorrow morning. North Area Ctte #live

The County Council officer explained the County Council’s policy of spending money on highways improvements where people had been killed or seriously injured. He then went on to say more evidence would be needed before the County Council would support any work on Fen Road. He appeared to be only a whisker away from saying that it will take someone to be killed to prompt action.

The council’s meeting notes were published as promised.

Since the meeting Liberal Democrat Cllr Ian Manning has sought publicity for the new bollards saying progress needed to be shown following the January 2012 public meeting. My view on the bollard replacement is firstly I’m shocked the area is so lawless they were repeatedly destroyed in the first place, and secondly while the replacement is “something” I don’t think it addresses any of the points raised at the public meeting.

Policing

At the previous police priority setting session of the North Area committee in September 2011 councillors had asked the police to tackle Fen Road and 222 Victoria Road. The police had apparently ignored this and turned up to the meeting, which had a special focus on Fen Road, with nothing on the subject in their report.

Councillors failed to hold the police to account for this omission which passed largely without comment.

Policing - PCSOs

I proposed setting a priority of using police constables rather than PCSOs to patrol the North Area, and in particular Fen Road, so that the traffic offences could be more effectively dealt with. The meeting’s chair Cllr Ian Nimmo-Smith declined to shortlist this proposal and did not allow it to be put to a vote.

While introducing it I pointed out my proposal would also address the issue of the patroling of North Cambridge being concentrated in working hours, during weekdays, as a result of the extensive fraction of proportion of patrolling carried out by PCSOs.

I reminded the committee I’d previously asked about this subject to be told by the local Sergent, Sgt Wragg that “PCSOs work on all shifts”. I reported that I’d been tipped off by member of police staff Mr Fuller (who attends area committee meetings) that this response was accurate but misleading as the only reason Sgt Wragg was able to give that response was that very occasionally PCSOs work till midnight, putting them into the night shift. I pointed to the Freedom of Information request I made asking for the hours worked which shows most PCSOs in North Cambridge working 8am-6pm with some doing 2pm to 10pm; and the vast majority of those working Monday to Friday. I questioned if working hours on weekdays was when North Cambridge most needed policing. Sgt. Wragg responded to claim PCSOs were evenly deployed on day and night shifts in direct contradiction of Cambridgeshire Police’s response to my FOI request.

I asked Cllr Nimmo-Smith about his decision to dismiss my suggestion after the meeting and discussed the role of PCSOs with him. It emerged that Cllr Nimmo-Smith was unaware that PCSOs held a paid role, he thought they were unpaid volunteers and said we should be grateful for the work they put in and shouldn’t ask them to work anti-social hours (I wasn’t making that suggestion). Cllr Nimmo-Smith appeared to be confusing Special Constables and PCSOs, something which I find is one of a number of common misconceptions about how the police are run. When I explained the role of a PCSO to Cllr Nimmo-Smith he backtracked and said what he meant was people voluntarily applied for the role of a PCSO expecting a certain pattern of working hours.

Cllr Nimmo-Smith said he would have expected Inspector Poppet (Cambridge’s new neighbourhood policing Inspector) who was sitting in on the meeting to have intervened had Sgt. Wragg misled the meeting.

Cllr Nimmo-Smith’s ignorance is particularly alarming as when he was leader of the council he had significant policing related responsibilities and on a number of occasions approved giving extra powers to PCSOs in Cambridge.

Sgt. Wragg also misled the meeting when he told it the police’s lamppost mounted speed monitoring devices record average speeds of vehicles and not the speeds of individual vehicles. See also: Police Claim 20mph Average Speed on Water Street / Fen Road in Chesterton.

Policing Tweets

I published the following policing related tweets live from the police priorities section of the meeting:

• Sgt. Wragg says it’s excellent to be at a public meeting with the public present. ~50 people staying for police item. North Area Ctte #live
• No deliberately set fires on the last month North Area Ctte #live told. Could just be the weather though.
• Sgt Wragg contradicted the stats provided by @cambscops on PCSO working hours. He insists they are evenly depolyed on day and night shifts.
• Sgt. Wragg tells North Area Ctte #live he has no idea what to expect in terms of TASER being issued to non-firearms officers.
• Sgt. Wragg saying even he doesn’t understand where you can and can’t cycle in central Cambridge due to bad signage. North Area Ctte #live
• Chair Cllr Nimmo-Smith refuses to shortlist my suggestions for @cambscops priorities at North Area Ctte #live
• #libdem Clr Znajek is useless.He tells me he supports my suggestion of PCs not PCSOs to tackle driving offences but won’t say it to ctte.
• Democratic police priority setting isn’t as effective as it could be if better councillors were elected and not wet #libdems
• Only pre-submittted open forum questions taken. Details of how this will be run shld be given in advance. North Area Ctte #live
• Insp Poppet of @CambsCops was at North Area Ctte #live he didn’t introduce himself though. Chair told me he was there afterwards.
]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/fen-road-public-meetings.html/feed 52.22023741700174 0.1544952392578125 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-colleges-foi-exemption.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-colleges-foi-exemption.html#comments Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:43:28 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4961




Earlier this week Cambridge First asked me if I would comment on lobbying by the colleges of the University of Cambridge who are asking the government to exempt them from the Freedom of Information Act.

I said:

Cambridge University is defined as public body subject to the Freedom of Information Act, I think that is right as it plays a key role in controlling access to professions, it also receives large amounts of public funding.

In Cambridge the colleges exercise many of the university’s core functions, for example they have a major role in student admissions. Good standing within, and support of, a college is required for entering exams and receiving degrees. In Cambridge the colleges play such a central role in the university I do not think it is possible to separate them from it, therefore both the university, and the colleges, ought remain subject to FOI.

The colleges argued in their submission to MPs carrying out the Justice Committee’s post-legislative review of FOI that they are not in receipt of public funding. This isn’t really accurate as college fees and charges are paid by publicly funded research students who have no choice in the matter if they wish to work at the university. While such funding may reach the colleges indirectly it is still public money. In any case being in receipt of public money isn’t the main thing which makes the colleges public bodies.

As an example I personally made a FOI request to Clare College for papers of the “Backs committee” which has significant influence over large amounts of publicly accessible and publicly viewable open space in Cambridge. Representations from the committee have also been made to the City Council in relation to how public open space under the council’s control is managed. I think that’s an example of the kind of information which ought be easily accessible to members of the public seeking it.

The student media and students’ unions within Cambridge University have extensively used FOI to obtain information from colleges on subjects from ranging from levels of rents to college disciplinary proceedings and colleges’ investment policies. The information released has been used to try and improve the institution’s practices. If colleges were exempt from FOI this would dent the ability of students, their members, to effectively hold them to account.

This quote, along with the colleges’ submission to the post-legislative review of FOI (p367 of the compendium of evidence (PDF)) formed the basis for an article which appeared on p7 of today’s Cambridge First newspaper.

Regulation

One aspect of the colleges’ arguments which I did not address was their first point of their submission which states:

The inclusion of the Colleges (on which they were not consulted before the passage of the Act) is anomalous. They are registered charities not in receipt of public funding. They are not higher educational institutions as defined in the Further and Higher Education Act 1995. They are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, and are not within the remit of the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

This is all utterly spurious and irrelevant to the question of being subject to FOI. It is true the Higher Education Funding Council is not the “principle regulator” for the colleges whereas it is for many other Higher Education Establishments however I can’t see how this is anything other than an obscure technicality which means the Charities Commission has to consult with HEFCE (under a MoU) before acting with respect to most higher education institutions, but this isn’t true in respect of Cambridge Colleges.

The relevant webpages on the The Higher Education Funding Council for England website and from the Charities Commission are not particularly enlightening on the subject of for example, what kinds of things the commission might investigate in respect of the colleges or how it might regulate them, as far as I can see though their involvement would not extend beyond ensuring compliance with charities law.

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-colleges-foi-exemption.html/feed http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/friends-of-midsummer-common-2012-agm.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/friends-of-midsummer-common-2012-agm.html#comments Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:37:32 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4949



Given its heavy use by cyclists and pedestrians this path across the common is a little narrow.

On March the 14th 2012 I attended the Friends of Midsummer Common’s Annual General Meeting. I am not a member of the group, but the meeting was open to the public. It was advertised in the Cambridge News and via notices on the common as well as via a number of local email lists. I’d also tweeted about it.

Key Points

• Some present complained about inconsiderate cyclists. Newly elected chairman of the friends, Barry Higgs, spoke positively about possibility of the segregation of cyclists and pedestrians, saying he was keen to look at the idea. I was alarmed by this.

  My view on such segregation has been developed from my own personal experience and from discussions with members of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign who have vast relevant experience. In places like Midsummer Common segregation can increase conflict as people become less tolerant to those who stray into the others’ space. I have personally experienced a torrent of angry abuse from a cyclist for walking on the wrong side of the path on the common near Fair Street, the one area where there currently is such segregation, albeit poorly marked.

  My view is that to improve the situation for cyclists there is a need for a slight widening of a couple of paths, particularly the one from North Terrace to the Cutter Ferry Bridge. Extra sets of cattle grids so one can be used in each direction would be useful in a number of locations too.

  
  

  
  

  This subject highlights a wider problem with Cambridge’s friends groups, residents associations and similar, they are not democratic and not representative. Nervous elderly pedestrians appear over-represented. I have recently argued for cycling related improvements relating to the Jesus Lock bridge, while I was almost a lone voice at a recent Jesus Green Association meeting I suspect had the matter been put to a vote of elected representatives at the local West Central Area Committee there would have been support from councillors.

  Another area where a similar situation is seen is lighting of green spaces. As someone who used to commute daily, often in the dark, over Jesus Green, this has been a subject I’ve lobbied on for quite some time, pushing for better lighting. Here too the views of a minority who live adjacent to the green spaces, who generally oppose improved lighting, tend to have more impact than those of others. It’s another subject on which I’ve been a lone voice at public meetings. I think its really important that decisions about public spaces are taken by democratically elected councillors, and the views of groups such as the Friends of Midsummer Common, or others such neighbouring residents, are not given too much weight.

• The meeting was told that following an error made in 1968 three areas of the common are not currently properly registered as common land, these are:
  • The allotments
  • The synagogue site on Auckland Road
  • Jesus Green (Jesus Green was originally part of Midsummer Common and remains common land, though it is managed in a different manner to Midsummer Common)

  Outgoing chairman Dick Baxter told the meeting that this could be corrected, by Cambridgeshire County Council, when the Commons Act 2006 comes into force in Cambridgeshire (it is already in force in neighbouring counties!).

• A presentation was given by Pip Noon, who is employed by the Cam Conservators essentially as their Chief Executive, though she has the job title: “River Manager”. Noon defended what she saw as an impression the conservators were “fat cats” pointing out they were volunteers. She appears to have misunderstood recent criticism of the conservators, which isn’t aimed at the individuals personally but at the profligacy of the organisation which employees five full time staff and holds extensive assets and investments making the river the most expensive piece of waterway in the country to run.

Meeting Report

The meeting was held in Christ Church, Newmarket Road. 30-40 people attended, just over half of whom appeared to be voting members of the Friends. Others in attendance included City Councillors Rosenstiel, Reiner and Bick along with County Councillor Manning. The councillors, all Liberal Democrats, sat together. Cambridge City Council officers Alistair Wilson the Green Space Manager at Cambridge and Sarah Tovell were present, as was Angelika von Heimendahl, who grazes cows on the common.

Pip Noon

River Manager Pip Noon started by introducing herself, she told us she had done climate change research and had MSc in Water Management before working as an Environment Agency enforcement officer and then getting the job of River Manager in 2006. She said she was not from Cambridge and has never personally seen the river in flood.

Noon talked about the recent press coverage of the conservators. Her interpretation of this as an attack on individual conservators as being fat cats was in my view utterly bizarre. She presented a slide, headed “Fat Cats” and defended the conservators who are a mixture of individuals appointed by Cambridge University and the City and County councils saying they were not paid for their roles as conservators. If she really thinks the recent comments on the way the conservancy has been run were targeted at the individual conservators personally then she has failed to grasp the arguments being made. Recent proposals to increase charges, and ideas to levy new ones including event charges and even tolls led to greater public scrutiny of the conservators’ finances. Questions were raised, not about conservators benefiting personally, but about the level of spending incurred by the conservators in maintaining the short stretch of river they are responsible for.

Other interesting points made by Pip Noon included:

• The upper river is a privately owned permissive navigation; the Conservators have no duty to maintain it to a navigable standard.
• 400 boats from outside Cambridge visit the Cam each year. (Personally I think we could do a lot more for visitors to the city by boat, when the council was spending money on the Fen Road / Water Street car park I suggested a visitor mooring with signs directing visitors nearby facilities - Tesco, takeaways etc. )
• We were shown a photo of a car in the river on a scaffolding pole. It was on the college backs, I think near Trinity College. Phil Rodgers has reported this was from 1987 and engineering students were involved.
• The conservators have authorised swimming (at your own risk) in the upper river. There is no discretion to allow the river manager to formally permit swimming elsewhere and she has had to turn down a request from an olympic swimmer. (People do swim the backs in the summer, I’ve seen it on a couple of occasions)
• The River Manager said the Conservators, with five full time staff, are “a lean beast” those present were apparently too polite to laugh.
• Talking about the future Noon said the Conservators “might look like the National Trust”, she said they wanted to be independent of external public funding.
• Noon suggested the probability of the proposed 2K rowing lake at Milton actually happening was quite high but subject to the University of Cambridge deciding to support it.
• The CamToo project was also mentioned, with the suggestion that the potential to extend the guided bus following the construction of Chesterton Station, made this not utterly fanciful either.
• The prospect of closing the river completely for events due to misbehaving motor-boaters seeking to disrupt rowing events was raised. Currently motorboats can pass the event during gaps between divisions.
• All Cam Conservators staff are chainsaw trained
• The conservators occasionally call the police when mini-motos and quad bikes cause a problem on the hailingway.
• We were told the Conservators can charge for things like pontoons in the river, and putting up scaffolding to build and maintain bridges, and this is seen as a source of income.
• The new rules on commercial punts were explained (which requires all commercial punts to be run from a regulated punt station).
• Noon suggested that the predicted summer drought could lead to fish killings and the silting up of the river, although she said there was “no crisis yet”.
• We were told that the trees on the nature reserve opposite Riverside could not be cut by the conservators due to restrictions, and that the new conservation areas would also caused problems for the conservators.
• Notably the swan, Mr Asbo, wasn’t mentioned in the presentation.

A couple of questions were taken from those present. One was on the ownership of Riverside. The questioner asked why the owners of the adjacent houses didn’t own the bank (actually this is the position the council’s lawyers originally said was the case). Noon said as Riverside was built up and the land created in 1947 there was an argument it ought not belong to the home owners and the council’s claim was therefore successful. It was suggested the council’s claim was successful simply because there was no other claim, Noon indicated that too could also be true.

Other questions were on material which had been covered in the presentation, asking about how much land the Conservators owned next to the river (they own fields from Chesterton to Baits Bite, but most of the adjacent land is privately owned, or owned by colleges etc.).

A questioner asked if the conservators had the power to prevent building on the flood plain. They don’t. (They have limited powers to authorise, or not, construction on or next to the bank only).

Someone asked for the list of approved punt stations to be listed. Cllr Rosenstiel complained when Noon listed the quayside punt stations as one. Noon defended her stance saying as they were now under the same ownership they could be considered as one.

My Questions

I didn’t get a chance to ask my questions to Pip Noon. Had I been able to I would have:

1. Expressed my view Noon has misunderstood the recent critisism of the Cam Conservators, with critics targeting the organisation and not individual conservators.
2. Asked about the current role of the Cam Commissioners (as opposed to the conservators)
3. Noted the campaign to get the Cam Conservators made subject to FOI, and the recent commitment by the Minister, and ask for the Conservators to voluntarily comply. I would have noted one thing I would like to be able to find out is the dates the Conservators are in the Magistrate’s court. I understand they are a prosecuting authority and have a court session from time to time, I’d like to observe one of these sessions, but they’re essentially secret at the moment with neither the courts or conservators giving public notice of them.
4. Asked if the conservators believe all boats with city council mooring licences are really occupied year round as the primary residence of their occupants. There have been suggestions this is not the case.

We were told of two forthcoming public meetings, one of the “Cam Valley Forum” on the 29th of March, and the next meeting of the Cam Conservators, on the 19th of April. (This isn’t listed on the conservator’s meetings webpage)

Treasurer’s Report

The Friends have subscribed to BTCV which gives them insurance covering their conservation activities.

As a result of this subscription the Friends have been sent two packets of beetroot seeds. It appeared the treasurer considered keeping these for herself, but decided there was not enough room in her garden for them, so offered them to the members present.

Chair’s Report

Mr Baxter said that at the inaugural meeting in 2007 council officer Alistair Wilson had outlined what he’d like to see the the friends do, roughly work out what the council should do on the common and lobby them to do it, and Mr Baxter said he thought this had been achieved.

Mr Baxter said Friends had come into existence as the council had a conservation plan for the common which it wasn’t acting on. He brandished this, along with the newer document, the management plan (both available from http://www.midsummercommon.org.uk/) and said progress was now being made. He listed tree planting and railings being painted as improvements which had occurred.

Mr Baxter spoke about the importance of preserving the common and keeping an eye on the formal protection it benefits from as he explained the 1968 error in drafting which led to an incorrect registration which cannot yet be corrected.

The inconsistency of the by-laws was raised, with Mr Baxter pointing out some adjoining residents could beat carpets on the common and others could not. It was suggested this could have been a factor in one of the city’s executive councillors recently moving into a property where beating is permitted. He noted the council was intending to review, and modernise the by-laws. Mr Baxter said Cllr Reiner was a lawyer from Wisconsin, a US state a by-law makes it illegal to enter with a chicken on your head and invited Cllr Reiner to explain this; she indicated she would do so later, but never addressed the question and made no substantive contribution to the meeting.

Mr Baxter said the new gate for controlling access to the common appeared to be working, after the initial problems.

New Chair

Mr Baxter stepped down and his long-term sidekick Mr Higgs was introduced as the committee’s preferred candidate as his replacement. Mr Higgs was duly elected unopposed. He said he would do as Mr Baxter had told him.

Events

The meeting was told that Strawberry Fair would run this year to the same plan as last. The only change Mr Higgs is seeking is for the toilets to be positioned further away from people’s houses.

Public Questions and Comments

Cows


Angelika von Heimendahl expressed concern about the events getting in the way of grazing; though she noted the council have now bought a cattle trailer so they can quickly get the cows on and off (if she puts them on). She said the grass was good, and suggested there ought be a 4 week period coming up between events when she can get cows on the common. I find it quite astonishing that the council has bought a cattle trailer (and employs a “pinder” to look after the cattle).

Half Marathon

One individual questioned the location of the toilet tents, and tents in general, for this event, suggesting they ought not have been in the middle of the common. There wasn’t any support for this objection (I think moving the location of events around the common where appropriate is excellent) though a number of people complained about the number of people urinating on the common during the event. Cllr Bick reported that Cllr Cantrill, who ran in the race, was not one of those who had urinated on the common and that Cllr Cantrill had done quite well in the race. This was Cllr Bick’s only contribution to the meeting. Mr Baxter reported that no members of the Friends of Midsummer Common committee had competed.

Bikes

As mentioned at the top of the article, the behaviour of cyclists was a subject which prompted passionate contributions from a number of people present. It was suggested there had once been a ban on cyclists on the common, while even the most passionate speaker didn’t want to return to that, some did want segregated cycle paths. People complained about cyclists riding very fast and inconsiderately. A suggestion of a sign asking cyclists to cycle considerately was made. I think extra signs would be a bad idea, it’s a classic case of “something must be done, this is something, lets do it”, those who cycle inconsiderately are unlikely to be swayed to change by a sign.

Cllr Rosenstiel spoke in defence of cyclists. He said restricting bikes was:

A loony suggestion

Some pushed their suggestions and Rosensteil made clear he strongly opposed them. He said he would support calls for more considerate behaviour, but pointed out inconsiderate behaviour came from all quarters including pedestrians.

One specific complaint was that in the recent cold weather cyclists had monopolised the areas of paths cleared of ice and snow forcing pedestrians onto the icy bits.

Newly elected chair of the Friends, Barry Higgs, said he wanted to look at segregated cycle and pedestrian paths.

My view on this is we have strong pro-cycling councillors and the situation for cyclists is unlikely to change for the worse, but this is worth watching as the Liberal Democrats often mistake the views of residents associations and similar for the views of residents and the council leader has been known to explicitly conflate the two.

Barclay Homes Development

Mr Baxter reported the first residents will move into the new development, off Newmarket Road and neighbouring the common, in the next few weeks. He urged the council to spend some of the development taxes it will raise from the scheme, the first tranche of which it will he says be paid very soon, on improving the paths, and perhaps providing BBQs, in the area near the development. Mr Baxter noted the new open, online, system for monitoring so called S106 taxes and how they were spent announced at the recent West/Central area committee and expressed a hope this would result in the money being spent more appropriately.

Jubilee

Someone noted a clash between the Strawberry Fair and the Jubliee, asking for the Strawberry Fair clean up to be considerate of Jubliee street parties. I have no idea where the potential conflict is envisaged.

Previous AGMs

I have attended previous AGMs of the Friends of Midsummer Common and have written the following articles:

• Friends of Midsummer Common 2011 AGM
• Friends of Midsummer Common 2010 AGM
• Friends of Midsummer Common 2009 AGM
• My comments following the Friends of Midsummer Common’s 2007 Open Meeting.

Corrections, additions, etc. are welcome either in the comments, or directly to me as considered appropriate.

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/friends-of-midsummer-common-2012-agm.html/feed 52.21005237674974 0.1307201385498047 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/neighbourhood-resolution-panels-cambridge.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/neighbourhood-resolution-panels-cambridge.html#comments Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:15:21 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4931



Book Cited By Cambridge City Council Justifying Foray Into Restorative Justice

On Thursday the 15th of March councillors on Cambridge City Council’s Community Services Scrutiny Committee will discuss bringing a new form of restorative justice to Cambridge.

Meetings called “Neighbourhood Resolution Panels” which would involve “offenders” discussing their actions with their victims in sessions chaired by volunteers, potentially university law students, are proposed. The meetings would only take place where “offenders” and victims volunteer to attend and participate.

I have put “offenders” in inverted commas as those responsible for non-criminal “anti-social behaviour”, or involved in neighbour-neighbour disputes, would also be offered the opportunity to attend the panels. The panels are not courts, they will not determine guilt or innocence. Only those who admit their offence or behaviour will be eligible to participate.

The proposal is to offer the panels alongside existing out of court disposals such as fixed penalty notices and cautions. As the existing formal processes will continue I support the council’s experiment subject to the questions and concerns noted below.

A proposal document will be presented to the committee by council officer Liz Bisset (Salary an astronomical £91,891 per year). There are many areas of ambiguity and many questions left unanswered by the proposal.

Questions

What incentives are there for offenders to participate?

The proposal document states a basic principle of the scheme will be it is voluntary, neither offender or victim will be compelled to participate. What is much less clear is how offenders may be coerced or persuaded to take part. Hints are given that an offender might be able to avoid being charged with an offence by volunteering for the scheme and if they fail to fulfil the requirements of an agreement signed at a panel meeting their case may be referred back to the police or CPS for them to reconsider their charging decision. I think there needs to be much greater clarity and honesty on this point.

Scale?

No indication is given of how many offenders the council expects to deal with under the scheme. The council document refers to a similar scheme in Sheffield, according to one evaluation report this dealt with 20 referrals; 18 from the police and two from housing associations from June to November 2009.

Will panel sessions be open to the public?

The council’s proposal is based on a Ministry of Justice specification document, this states: “the Panel should look to communicate the results of their activity back to the community”, the Cambridge scheme contains no provisions for doing this.

I suggest holding adult panel meetings in public to enable reporting on their operation. I would like to see lists of all cases to be discussed at panels published, along with details of the agreements reached, and perhaps a summary of what happened at the panel meeting (subject to the same kind of reporting restrictions which prevent the identification of child offenders as apply in the courts).

Where the Cambridge residents at large are victims, or where behaviour has influenced a whole road or neighbourhood, I think there is a case for holding panel meetings in public. Offenders could perhaps in some cases be invited to ward based meetings or the city’s area committees to discuss their actions.

Who will provide oversight and monitor the scheme’s operation?

The Government’s specification document strongly recommends oversight arrangements involving local Magistrates and others. There are no proposals for oversight in the proposal document for the Cambridge scheme.

What records will be kept?

I think it is important to be clear what will be recorded, how long will records be kept for and who will they be shared with? The Cambridge proposal is for informal agreements to be reached during the panel sessions, and not more formal Anti-Social Behaviour Contracts, if this means an individual’s record at panel meetings would be reported to a court if they eventually appeared in-front of one is not made clear. My concern here is that following the instruction of this, and other schemes, Magistrates may not get as full a picture of an individual’s record of offending as they would have done previously.

What offences and behaviours will the panels be used for?

This is a really important question, but the proposal for the Cambridge scheme lacks clarity in this area too.
I expect there is an error in the Cambridge proposal where it states:

At present Cambridgeshire Constabulary believes that the range of offences to which RJ could be applied would be those where a gravity score of two or more would apply, excluding those that involves drugs, weapons or a sexual motivation.

I suspect it perhaps ought say ” a gravity score of two or less would apply. This is indicative of the sloppy way in which the proposal is presented. Offences with a “gravity score” of 2 or below, is the same criteria as Cambridgeshire Police are currently using to determine if an offence is automatically acceptable for their on-street “instant reparation” form of “restorative justice”, and these panels are being described as being for more serious offences, so it isn’t clear at all.
Councillors have not been given a copy of the full gravity scoring tables as part of their documents; it looks as if a link was intended to be provided but this is non-fuctional (simply a coloured and underlined word) in the published material.
I have concerns at both ends of the spectrum; I am concerned that these panels may be invoked in relation to behaviour which is perfectly legal and acceptable, such as gathering in groups, even though that may cause alarm, and/or prompt calls to the police or council from some people.

Who will represent the “victim” where the offence, or action, impacts the public at large and not a specific individual?

This is a question I have asked in relation to on-street instant reparation as well, and it his not been addressed either in that context or in relation to the proposed panels. The Ministry of Justice specification states: “” For offences where there is no specific victim, representatives of the community may attend.” I’ve asked if any of my local councillors have yet given approval for restorative justice to be used in a specific case and been told they have not. I would like to know if councillors are to represent “the community” at Cambridge’s “Neighbourhood Resolution Panels”.

What efforts are being made to make this a good experiment?

This is a trial which the Ministry of Justice is going to seek to evaluate. I suggest steps ought be taken to ensure it is a good experiment, for example making it into a randomised control trial and considering working with academics. Care should be taken to ensure results from Cambridge are comparable with those obtained elsewhere.

How can “no-fault” cases be dealt with if a pre-requsite is an offender admitting their guilt?

I cannot see how if acceptance of guilt or responsibility is a pre-requesite for a panel hearing the system can be used in cases described as “no-fault” as the Cambridge proposal states.

Citing Research

Section 2 of the Cambridge proposal cites research showing restorative justice is effective at reducing re-offending. The citation given is to a book: “Shapland, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2011) Restorative justice in practice. London: Routledge”. Link to book page on publisher’s website. (Amazon).

Citing the book isn’t in my view very helpful, given the research discussed in the book, which was funded by the Ministry of Justice, has been made publicly available. The work is an evaluation of three Home Office funded schemes run from mid 2001 to 2003/4, all are three involve quite different circumstances to those proposed for Cambridge’s “Neighbourhood Resolution Panels” :

• CONNECT - involving adult offenders mainly between conviction and sentence
• JRC - After guilty plea, before sentence, with the exemption of some case in Northumbria, but even there the individuals were due to appear in Crown Court. (This was a randomised trial)
• REMEDI - wide range of stages, but those mentioned are all post-sentence, or post-action.

This is the same research which was used to justify Cambridgeshire Police’s instant on-street reparation, and I opposed its use for that purpose on the grounds I could see almost no parallels between post-court restorative meetings and the on-street reparations, which do not generally involve meetings. There is still a huge gulf between post-court meetings, and what is proposed in Cambridge which is meetings in relation to offences or behaviour which would have, and is to be, dealt with out of court. However there is more of a connection in this case as the key aspect of a meeting between the offender / person responsible and the victim is a common factor. I would still be very cautious about extrapolating from intervention at one point in the justice process with interventions elsewhere. I think a major omission from the report is noting the differences between the form of restorative justice in the cited research and what is being proposed.

My Views

Clearly at the moment I only have so much information to go on, and there are very many unanswered questions about the proposals and how the scheme in Cambridge is intended to operate. Based on the available information my views are:

• I think we have to do better at reforming offenders, and its worth doing these experiments to see if restorative justice can help. I think there are benefits to victims too as they may gain a greater understanding of what happened to them and why.
• I am concerned about the increasing use of out of court, and civil rather than criminal, penalties for offenders. Where serious offences are committed I think they should be heard in court.
• There is emerging evidence that restorative justice meetings have been successful when used alongside the due process of a court. I therefore question why in Cambridgeshire we’re starting with these experiments, rather than at least in parallel doing what appears to work elsewhere.
• Some quoted statistics for the success of restorative justice appear questionable, for example the Cambridge proposal cites work done by Sheffield City Council who have run a similar scheme saying:
  

  The re-offending rate for young people taking part in RJ was 5.2 percent against the national re-offending rate for other forms of disposal of 39.2 percent.

  however this doesn’t show conclusively there is an effect from the restorative meetings, just that those offenders who are prepared to volunteer to take part in such meetings have lower rates of reoffending than the national average.

• I am concerned this might be a slippery slope, already instances of offenders being sentenced by a court to participate in a restorative justice meeting have occurred. (p vii of this PDF)
• While the currently proposed scheme would run in parallel with existing out of court disposals, or operate where otherwise no action would have been taken, I am concerned that in the future it may be extended to be used instead of formal action, which in the case of the more serious eligible offences would not be appropriate.
• This is an expansion of the city council’s role. I’m generally in favour of a small state and am astounded at the number of staff within the council, I question if this expansion is necessary or desirable. The council needs to work closely with the police, courts, and other bodies on a wide rage of subjects, but I don’t think it should start encroaching on their roles. .

The Cambridge Scheme

Involvement in the Cambridge scheme is to be limited to those “offenders” who would not otherwise have gone to court, ie. those who no action would have been taken against or those who would have been formally dealt with via out of court disposals (eg. cautions, or Fixed Penalty Notices). In the latter cases the formal process will continue and the restorative justice meeting will, if taken up, be in addition to that.

If that model is stuck to, and the restorative justice meetings are kept an optional add-on to what would happen anyway, I think that goes a long way to dealing with any objections to them. However with all such things, if this is the starting point, I think there needs to be a consideration of where we could end up.

“Anti-social behaviour (ASB) that is not serious enough to prosecute” is included in the scope of the scheme and it isn’t clear from the proposal document what that might include. I am concerned that we might see people being asked to attend these panels for things like gathering in groups; while some people might be genuinely alarmed by such behaviour and consider it anti-social I don’t think it ought be remotely criminalised.

Overall I’m not keen on spending time and resources on otherwise non-criminal “anti-social behaviour”. Almost every time I’ve heard someone raise a concern about “anti-social behaviour” their real concern has been criminality and they have simply been using the phrase “anti-social behaviour” because they think they need use the jargon to be heard. When “anti-social behaviour” is discussed in public meetings almost invariably members of the public say things like: “Can I talk about burglary, is that considered anti-social behaviour?”, “Can I talk about criminal damage, is that considered anti-social behaviour?” etc. I’d rather the focus was on such genuine criminality, things which were criminal before New Labour’s Anti-Social behaviour laws.

I am concerned about the involvement of these panels in circumstances where previously the state would not have intervened at all.

As well as having cases referred to them by the police the “Neighbourhood Resolution Panels” will also consider cases referred from the city council’s housing officers, other parts of the city council, and housing associations.

The proposal indicates the scheme may go into schools (but notably not the city’s universities or other institutions) as well.

To a large extent it appears what the council is effectively considering offering is a mediation and informal dispute resolution service.

Consultation

Officer Bisset in her report states:

“The outline scheme proposed here has been developed in partnership with, and has the full support of, the police and other criminal justice system agencies.”

The proposal also suggests consultations have been carried out, but the results of these have not been presented to councillors, beyond the above assertion. Nationwide magistrates have been expressing concern about the use of out-of-court disposals, and this was echoed by the Cambridge magistrate’s representative at the December 2011 Community Safety Partnership meeting. I would like to know what our local magistrates think about the council’s proposals.

Money

The only budget is for staffing, to be spent employing a worker for 18.5 hours a week over the two year period, costing £16,000 per annum including on-costs.

Level Of Offences

The council document describing the scheme proposed for Cambridge doesn’t cite it, but I suspect the gravity scores being referred to are the “ACPO Guidelines on Case Disposal Gravity - Youth Offenders” (Hints of which can be gleaned from in the appendix to this document and from p34 of this PDF from Dyfed Powys Police.

The following are examples of non-sexual and non-drugs related “Level 2 offences” from the latter document:

• Common Assault
• Criminal Damage
• Threat to Destroy Property of Another
• Possession of Articles with Intent to Commit Criminal Damage
• False Alarms to Emergency Services
• Possessing a false document with intent
• Forgery of documents etc.
• Threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended to cause fear of violence or to provoke violence
• Inconsiderate Driving
• No ‘L’ plates
• ‘L’ driver unaccompanied
• No Test Certificate
• Wasting Police Time
• Making Off Without Payment
• Interference with Vehicle
• Tampering with Motor Vehicle
• Taking Vehicle without Consent
• False Accounting
• Obtaining Services by Deception
• Going Equipped to Steal
• Abstracting Electricity

In relation to criminal offences the Cambridge proposal limits the use of panels to:

Summary only offences that have or will receive a formal out- of-court disposal (for example minor criminal damage or public disorder) but which the work of the panel could complement by agreeing for additional reparative activity to be undertaken by the offender

A summary only offence is one which can be dealt with by magistrates, (or a district judge sitting in their place) but cannot be referred to the Crown Court.

I don’t think it is an accident that a clear list is missing from the meeting papers.

A key question which arises for me from that list is if motoring offences ought be included.


What I’d like councillors to do at, and before, the committee:

• Ask to see consultation responses from magistrates, and others, and have the documents tabled at the meeting and posted online.
• Clarify if on p140 the “two or more” is an error and “two or less” is what ought be written.
• Approve the continued development of proposed scheme subject to:
  • Clear aims being identified.
  • Working with academics and/or the ministry of justice to refine the details of how the proposal will operate with the aim of making it a useful experiment from which robust conclusions can be drawn.
  • Developing a publicity strategy, aimed at maximising openness and transparency while protecting the privacy of offenders and victims.
  • Establishing mechanisms for oversight of the operation of the panels.
  • Clearly limiting approval to the scheme as described, requiring a return to councillors if the scope of the scheme was to change; specifically if it was to move to being used instead of, rather than as well as, established out of court disposals.
• Complain about the quality of the proposal document in relation to:
  • Unhelpful choice of citations, proposal not fully reflecting content of material cited. eg. citing Shapland’s book and not the openly accessible research and providing no citation for the performance figures from the Sheffield City Council scheme
  • Failure to clearly set out which offences are eligible. How does the ACPO gravity score system relate to the Ministry of Justice table in the proposal?
• Ask for details of the proposed scale of the proposed scheme, ie. how many panels, dealing with how many offenders is envisaged.
• Clarify any incentives for offenders to participate in a panel meeting and to comply with any agreement reached.
• Discuss tailoring the scheme to Cambridge, for example if and how it ought apply to cycling offences and speeding in the 20mph zones for example.
• Ask the council to lobby for the introduction of restorative justice meetings run by the probation service in Cambridge for those who are being dealt with by the courts (The council is represented on the probation service board).

Finally one other concern I have is that as these resources will be focused on offenders who are happy to volunteer to attend panel meetings we might be targeting the wrong people, and not focusing on the worst offenders.

]]> http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/neighbourhood-resolution-panels-cambridge.html/feed http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/huppert-civil-liberties-ldconf.html http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/huppert-civil-liberties-ldconf.html#comments Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:57:52 +0000 Richard Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=4917



Cambridge MP Julian Huppert

At the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference being held on the weekend of 10-11 March 2012 Cambridge MP Julian Huppert is moving a motion titled “Civil Liberties” scheduled for debate at 10:45 am on the Sunday morning.

The text of the motion is available, but only deep within the Conference Agenda (on page 50 of the PDF). I think it’s fantastic and deserves to be made more easily accessible.

I have reproduced the full text of the motion below:

Conference believes that:

1. This Government needs to undo the damage done to civil liberties, including Labour’s sustained assault on basic freedoms.
2. It is the duty of Liberal Democrats to safeguard basic freedoms against the encroachment of state power and unfair discrimination in society.
3. Liberal Democrats have an excellent tradition of promoting human rights, and should continue to support both the Human Rights Act and our 2009 conference motion Standing Up for Civil Liberties.

Conference therefore welcomes the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Bill and other measures taken by this Government to restore civil liberties, including:

• A. Scrapping of ID cards.
• B. Removal of innocent people from the national DNA database.
• C. Controls on the misuse of CCTV and local authority surveillance.
• D. Ending the taking of biometric material from children without their parents’ consent.
• E. Abolition of the ContactPoint database.
• F. Ending of 28 day detention without charge.
• G. Abolition of Control Orders and the end of internal exile.
• H. Rolling back of government powers of entry into your home.
• I. Commitment to review the powers of bailiffs.
• J. Dramatically increasing openness of government data.
• K. The repeal of provisions which banned protest near Parliament.
• L. Reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
• M. Ending Labour’s policy of routinely detaining children for immigration purposes.

But conference notes that:

1. The government needs to go further in protecting the right to free speech when:
   • a) Police can still prosecute those who use words and behaviour which are merely insulting, not abusive or threatening.
   • b) The cost of defamation proceedings limits freedom of expression and the protection of reputation to the rich and powerful.
2. Vigilance is needed as the right to peaceful protest is constantly under threat - for example international attempts to control recent protests, such as the ‘Occupy’ movement, have led to disproportionate policing and an undermining of the right to peaceful protest.
3. Individual freedom must be upheld:
   • a) Police powers, such as stop and search, have been used in a discriminatory way, which has caused a breakdown in relationships with the police and has been identified as one of the factors in the summer riots.
   • b) People must have equal access to justice for society to be free and fair.
4. The public’s right of access to information and individual private data must be protected:
   • a) Public organisations, and private companies contracted to deliver public services, continue to withhold information.
   • b) Police and other agencies tend to hoard private data, with risks to individual liberty as technology allows more efficient cross-referencing.
   • c) Government has a poor record of protecting private data from wider dissemination.

Conference therefore calls for:

1. The right to free speech to be protected through:
   • a) The repeal of section 5 of the Public Order Act, which creates ‘non-intentional’ speech offences, and the removal of ‘insulting’ from Section 4A of the Public Order Act, both of which have been used to criminalise legitimate freedom of expression.
   • b) Amendment of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 to include context and intentionality to prevent the criminalisation of jokes.
   • c) Review of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to ensure that it covers intentional conduct only.
   • d) The introduction of a libel reform bill in the next Queen’s speech to provide better protection for every citizen for free speech and protection of reputation.
   • e) The creation or development of effective public interest defences in relevant criminal and civil offences to protect and foster investigative journalism.
2. The right to protest to be restored through:
   • a) The repeal of the offence of ‘Aggravated Trespass’, as set out in Sections 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and used in the Fortnum and Mason trial.
   • b) A properly regulated right to protest in quasi-public spaces to balance the interests of citizens and landowners.
   • c) An end to threats being made against protestors who have done nothing wrong, such as the threatened use of rubber bullets before demonstrations.
   • d) The end of kettling large groups of people.
   • e) Resisting new powers to impose curfews on unconvicted people.
   • f) Not extending the existing powers on people covering their faces.
3. The restoration of individual freedom and policing by consent through:
   • a) Greater control of the use of stop and search powers; in particular provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which have been used indiscriminately and beyond their stated intent.
   • b) A review to reduce the use of civil orders, such as ASBOs, for criminal activity.
   • c) Stronger controls over the use of mobile fingerprint devices and non-lethal devices such as tasers, sound cannons and laser lights.
   • d) A guarantee that where citizens are not required to provide their name and address this will be made clear to individuals by the police.
   • e) Guidelines to regulate the collection, storage and use of videos and photos of innocent people taken by the police, particularly Forward Intelligence Teams.
   • f) A ban on high frequency Mosquito devices which discriminate against young people.
   • g) Tighter controls to ensure the ban on police covering their badges.
   • h) The introduction of safeguards to prevent pre-emptive arrests and pre-charge bail conditions being used to restrict civil liberties and stifle peaceful protest.
   • i) Full review of the powers of bailiffs and the repeal of the power for the Secretary of State to further enable bailiffs to use force against people.
   • j) An end to the ban on photography of police and preventing police from forcibly deleting photos with no grounds.
   • k) Oversight of undercover police tactics to protect citizens from unfair and unwarranted surveillance.
4. The right of access to information and individual data protection to be expanded through:
   • a) A review to reduce exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act.
   • b) A review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
   • c) Increased powers for the Information Commissioner and tougher sentences for breaches of the Data Protection Act.
   • d) An end to the Ministerial veto over information tribunal decisions.
   • e) The creation of one overall Privacy Commissioner with specialists leading on each separate area.
5. A second Protection of Freedoms Bill to enact any necessary legislative changes.

My View

I agree with everything in this motion. I’m not a Liberal Democrat, I’m not a member of any political party, but I fully support this motion and a lot of what Liberal Democrats do in the field of Civil Liberties.

I have lobbied myself in many of the areas mentioned, including on the police misrepresenting their powers, RIPA, CCTV, TASERs, extending FOI and the police stopping people taking photos. I have also described the Contact Point database as big-brotheresque.

I could go on, so much of what I’ve campaigned on is touched on, including the use of non-criminal penalties the use of stop and search and the retention of DNA by the police.

One thing which will be interesting to see, if the motion is passed, is if it will not only be used as a mandate for MPs including Julian Huppert to continue to pursue their pro-civil liberties agenda in Parliament, but if local Liberal Democrat councillors also pursue the policies agreed both via their councils and on other bodies such as Police Authorities.

The latest Star Radio Police Podcast is an interview with Superintendent Vicky Skeels, the new area commander for Cambridge.

Following operation redesign Cambridgeshire Police has aligned its organisational structure to the local authority areas. As I understand it Skeels took on the role in January 2012 but the re-organisation has been happening gradually and the new arrangements are going to be fully in place from April 2012.

Superintendent Vicky Skeels said she lives in Cambridge, has done for about twenty years and described herself as: “a cyclist, a motorist, a mum and resident of the City of Cambridge”.

TASER

The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police has made clear his intention to issue TASER weapons to non-firearms officers.

Supt. Skeels said she was:

taken aback about the level of interest, and level of concern, about this roll out.

She offered reassurance that governance of this tactic locally will comply with all the rules set by ACPO and the Home Office. Skeels told interviewer Emma Howgego she was commander who has authorised the use of TASER on a number of occasions over the last few years as a way of dealing with someone who is hostile, violent and threatening.

Skeels described TASER as a neuro-muscular incapacitant which acts by causing the contraction of muscle between the two barbs. My understanding is it has a much wider, systemic effect over the whole body.

When asked Skeels confirmed the weapons were “not going to be carried around as standard”. I think there needs to be clarification from the police on exactly how non-firearms officers will use these weapons, if they are not to be carried around as standard will they be kept at police stations, or in vehicles until they are authorised?

The roll out was described as an extension of what’s already in place as firearms officers carrying it since 2005; concealed in a pouch, with a lanyard attached, not something which would be very obvious.

Skeels confirmed something which had been mentioned by the Chief Constable, that non-firearms officers would carry the weapons in a concealed manner. Skeels said that as the weapon would be concealed it would not be hostile, and officers carrying TASER will be able to speak to, and engage with the public.

When asked what advice she would give to those faced with a police officer armed with a TASER Skeels gave an assurance the officer will do everything to use force as a last resort, only if someone was exhibiting violent threatening behaviour, if there was a need to protect the public or themselves.

Skeels stated most people would be familiar with TASER from TV and YouTube.

Knife Crime

This subject was raised in the context of the recent murder of Miciajah Brown.

Skeels said the incidence of knife crime in Cambridge is very low and reported significant reductions in admissions to Addenbrookes for all assault related injuries. I think it is excellent that our local police commander is looking at this statistic; I think that such injury related statistics are an excellent way to measure how safe an area is; it’s a hard statistic which is difficult to “game”.

We were told the police have reassurance plans, and will be keeping people updated and that there will be additional patrolling.

Skeels said the Knife crime campaign which has emerged is positive, focus efforts of those who want to support the police and deter young people from carrying knives.

Mobile Phone Thefts

Skeels confirmed the presence of active groups of thieves operating on Friday and Saturday nights in Cambridge and said the police were giving out bungee cords for people to use to attach phones to bags.

4 Bosworth Road in Cambridge is a property currently being used in a rather unusual manner; as a commercially let shared house which one can book some of the rooms in on an ad-hoc basis via the Arnies Guest House (Cambridge Guest Lodge) website.

The use of the property in this way is currently illegal as the required planning permission is not in place. On the evening of Monday the 5th of March 2012 I observed City Councillors at Cambridge’s South Area Committee vote against asking their officers to take any enforcement action.

The committee took their decision even after hearing from the owner of a neighbouring property who attended the meeting in person to tell councillors how he had been affected. He explained how he bought an adjacent house, unaware of the activities going on next door, and had subsequently been forced to move out, along with his partner and young baby, due to the way 4 Bosworth Road was being used. He told the committee he was now renting out the property he had bought as a family home and was himself renting alternative accommodation elsewhere as a result of the illegal use of the property.

One of the problems he described was people regularly approaching his home, looking in through the windows, and knocking on the door at all hours of the day and night apparently as they tried to locate the property in which they had arranged to stay.

Bosworth Road is opposite Cherry Hinton Hall, to find number four you have to turn immediately right off Bosworth Road as you enter it down a path/drive which isn’t very obviously a road leading to a series of properties.

Late Application

Councillors at the South Area Committee on the 5th of March were told by their officer that a last minute planning application to seek retrospective planning permission had been received just hours before the meeting. This came as a surprise to the meeting’s chair, Cllr Taylor, who told the committee that it hadn’t been mentioned during her briefing.

All councillors on the committee, except Cllr McPherson, took the view that taking enforcement action would be inappropriate given the fact an application had been submitted and they voted against doing anything.

My view is that this is yet another example of people doing dodgy and illegal things running rings around our weak councillors. My interpretation is that, as happens all too often, our councillors have again been outsmarted.

The application, cynically submitted at the last minute, will buy those running the property more time. The online record isn’t particularly clear but appears to suggest an invalid application form was sent into the council on the 1st of March 2012 and following patient handholding from a council officer the required information was obtained over the next few days enabling the application to be formally acknowledged on the 5th of March 2012.

History

The council received an application for the property to be used as a Bed and Breakfast in 2006 which they refused. Permission for a HMO was sought but not granted in 2011 and a further application was made to the city council but withdrawn.

On the 19th May 2011 someone complained to the City Council about the illegal use of 4 Bosworth Road, this prompted action leading to a Planning Contravention Notice being served on the 24th of August 2011 as a pre-requsite to formal action.

Councillors on the 5th of March 2012 were being asked to authorise the council’s head of legal services (Simon Pugh, Salary £70,263 / year) to issue an enforcement notice requiring the return of the property use as a dwelling house, but they voted against doing so.

Attempt to Prove Established Use

In November 2011 D Mapplebeck wrote to the council using a letter head describing himself as being from “UK Law Consultants Co”. seeking to prove the property had been used for more than 10 years as a HMO and B&B he included a pack of evidence including online booking records and statements from individuals.

If Mr Mapplebeck had been able to show the property had been used for the period he would have been entitled, under S191(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which was introduced via S10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, to a certificate of lawfulness for the existing use on the grounds it was established.

The council rejected the claim that planning permission was not required as the use of the property had been established over ten years.

The Applicant

The applicant currently seeking retrospective planning permission for the property is a company called Worldwide Financial Solutions Limited; which has given an address in Edgware, London, on the application form.

The record for Worldwide Financial Solutions Limited (Company No. 06856171) at Companies House shows it was incorporated in March 2009 but has never filed any accounts; this led to proceedings being started in December 2011 to strike it off the register of companies. The record also shows that David John Mapplebeck is a director of the company, other companies David John Mapplebeck is listed as a director of include:

• HOME FURNISHINGS CORP LIMITED incorporated on the 3rd of October 2011 giving 4 Bosworth Road, Cambridge as the registered office address.
• AUTOMATIVE COMMERCIAL PARTS LIMITED incorporated on the 27th of September 2011 giving 4 Bosworth Road, Cambridge as the registered office address.
• LEATHER FASHIONS LIMITED incorporated on the 14th of September 2011 giving 4 Bosworth Road, Cambridge as the registered office address.
• IMPEX INTERNATIONAL CORP LIMITED incorporated on the 4th of October 2011 giving 4 Bosworth Road, Cambridge as the registered office address.
• GLOBAL ELECTRONICS IMPEX LIMITED incorporated on the 3rd of October 2011 giving 4 Bosworth Road, Cambridge as the registered office address.
• DOMUS INTERNATIONAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED incorporated on the3rd of October 2011 giving 35 FIRS AVENUE, LONDON N11 3NE as the registered office address.
• DUBLIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED incorporated on the 14th of September 2011 giving 4 Bosworth Road, Cambridge as the registered office address.
• UKHAULAGECO LIMITED incorporated on the 5th of May 2011 giving 1st Flood, 2 Woodberry Grove, North Finchley, London, N12 0DR as the registered office address.

UK Law Consultants Co, the “organisation” Mapplebeck used to make the application to the council to recognise the established use of premises doesn’t appear to be a UK registered company at all; the letterhead gives an address in Edgware London, and in a manner reminiscent of the “Paris - New York - Peckham” painted on the side of Del Boy’s Reliant Robin lists associated offices : Dubai - New York - New Delhi - Beijing.

Sale and Value

The property was sold on the 21st of February 2011 for £522,500

The application form for the current planning application lists the owner (or person with 7 or more year’s of leasehold left) as Hugh Young, 16 Bernhart Close, Edgware, London.

Reviews

The reviews, on the Bed and Breakfast business’ own website, are astonishingly poor. They include:

filthy is an understatement.

the first thing that struck me was the smell, not unlike a tramps vest or so I’m told. The T.V. in my room failed after an hour, the electric shower worked for a minute and that too gasped its last. Toilet paper was in short supply but lasted til day three, kitchen, bathroom hall and lounge all dirty and generally untidy. Not so much guest house but a doss house for students.

The guest house was noisy during the night….We left as early as we could and went and had breakfast somewhere nice.

No one to greet us on arrival, no enough space in bedrooms, breakfast was cold, room didnt feel secure enough, hard to find, no staff present.

My room was next to the kitchen which can be used by guest in the evening. Suffice to say, people cooking and chatting at 11.30 at night was not very considerate. In all this was a poor experience and one i would not wish on anyone else! Go elsewhere!!!!!!!!!!!

It was a bit troublesom to find as there are no signs nether on the road nor the house itself.
The house spread an atmosphere of a shared flat in an poor condition.

Checked in had to move room due to mites and the same happened in the next room. Got bitten as did another guest and we packed and left within a very short time (so did the other guests)..

Reviews on TripAdvisor paint a similar picture:

Was more like a place where homeless people get put up. *

This was a bedbug infested dump. I fled prematurly; my body covered in large itchy lumps. The ‘full breakfast’ consisted of a few packets of cereal with dirty plates and utensils. The floors were sticky with dirt.

More like a student house sharing than a guest house; Over crowded, constant noice and music from kitchen and other rooms; poor general cleaniness; lingering smell of cooking; bed sheets and towels not changed on regular basis;

Any Objections?

One big flaw in the planning system is that old objections and comments are not automatically carried forward. If an applicant is submitting a series of applications; or makes and withdraws applications, objectors have to be persistent to ensure their view is heard if an application ever makes it to a committee.

Comments, including objections, to the current application can be made via the Cambridge City Council’s online planning portal.

Given the history of this property I’d like to see the proposal for enforcement action on the agenda for the committee meeting which considers the retrospective application so that if councillors refuse permission they can move straight to enforcement without any delay.

Not Just Planning

This is far from just a planning matter. I think a typical bed and breakfast, or a typical shared house, would pose no problem in this location. The issue is the way this particular property is being run. While some planning conditions could be imposed, for example requiring a prominent sign for the property if it is to be used as a B&B I don’t think that would go very far towards addressing the problems.

I would have liked to see the whole range of public sector bodies with responsibility for regulating the use of this property to have got together years ago. The police, fire service, Cambridge City Council planners, Cambridge City Council tourism officers, and trading standards officials from Cambridgeshire County Council along with ward councillors should have all taken a co-ordinated interest in tackling the problems being caused by the use of this property.

As so often one of the roots of the problems appear to be poor councillors who have failed to either push for action in this specific case, or failed to put the general processes in place to tackle these kind of matters as they arise.

The City Council’s planning department, headed by Patsy Dell (Salary £70,263/year) also has some explaining to do, and ought be more proactive and speedy at tackling those causing a nuisance while flagrantly breaching planning law.

Background Papers

• Report to the meting
• Property page on Cambridge City Council’s Planning System
• Online planning file for current application.

On Monday the 5th of March 2012 I observed City Councillors on Cambridge’s South Area committee consider a planning application to divide a property into two, enabling each part to be let separately.

This was an interesting case because almost all councillors ditched normal planning practice and made a decision on the basis of information which would usually be considered immaterial to the planning matter in-front of them.

Councillors were told that the property would bring in more rent if it was let as two separate dwellings, than as a whole. They were also told that the income from renting the property out would go towards the residential care costs of Mr. Francis Conmy, the applicant. Mr Conmy was paraded in front of the committee, in his wheelchair, by his son, who addressed the committee. Mr Conmy is already a resident of a residential care home on Queen Ediths Way.

The personal argument for special treatment has been redacted by the council from the planning application form, but it was included in the officer report to the committee and reiterated in person by the applicant’s son.

The application was for permission to split the property for a period of two years.

City Council planning officers had recommended refusal of permission on the basis that the properties would be a poor place to live for future occupiers if the two parts were let separately, one key factor being overlooking. The report raised the point: “It may be argued that it is for the future occupants to make the decision about living in such close proximity to non-related persons”.

Small planning matters like this are often dealt with entirely by officers rather than councillors, under so called delegated powers. Labour Councillor for Cherry Hinton Cllr Dryden called this one into the committee, to let councillors hear the representations on Mr Conmy’s behalf, and allow councillors to consider them.

The application was also subject to an intervention from Cambridge MP Julian Huppert who had written to the council’s head of planning asking that the personal circumstances in this case be considered; Huppert’s was the only third party representation on the application.

When addressing the committee Mr Conmy’s son briefly argued the overlooking wasn’t as bad as the officer’s report made out, but primarily focused on where the money would be going: to fund his father’s care. He said his father had made a significant contribution to Cambridge, as the director of a building firm employing many people, and urged councillors to put aside the formal planning process, find their hearts, and help him raise more money. The committee was told that even when rented in two halves, the rental income would only cover a fraction of Mr Conmy’s care costs.

Councillors, particularly Cllr Blackhurst, made emotive and rather pompous speeches about how they were going to bravely “do the right thing” by letting Mr Conmy make a bit more cash out of the property.

Cllr Shelia Stuart didn’t appear to have been following what was going on, she asked the planning officer very late in the deliberation: “Why can’t they just let the property as a whole?” “Why can’t this be treated like people renting rooms in a shared house?”. Cllr Stuart didn’t appear to understand that this was about the applicant wishing to maximise the return from his property at the potential expense of future tenants. Cllr Stuart’s question, which in my view was not rhetorical but based on genuine bafflement, was not addressed by the officer and Cllr Stuart didn’t push for a clarification.

Councillors voted to overturn the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. No councillors voted against, and only the meeting’s chair Cllr Amanda Taylor, abstained. During the debate, and before the vote, Cllr Taylor had explained her position by saying:

“The committee is supposed not to consider personal circumstances when considering planning applications”.

The other councillors made clear that the reason behind their votes was entirely down to the fact they’d been told the income from the rental was going to go towards Mr Conmy’s care. The officer told them their reason would be recorded and said that following their decision based on the personal circumstances of the applicant now, if the circumstances were the same in two years time they would be expected to make the same decision again (I’m not sure that’s right).

My View

While I too was influenced by the passionate and emotive case put forward by Mr Conmy’s son, I think, and hope, I would have discarded it as an irrelevant factor if I had been asked to consider the application. Mr Conmy’s financial position is not relevant.

The debate about if people ought have to sell their homes to fund their care; or if they ought be able to pass on a property to their sons and daughters is not one for councillors on the South Area Committee when considering a planning application. Helping someone maximise income from their assets is also not their role.

We shouldn’t in my view have a situation where councillors consider how good a cause the profits arising from the approval of an application in-front of them will be going to. Where would this lead? Developers promising to make substantial donations to charity and turning up to planning meeting with pictures of cute kittens, promising to spend some of their profits on rehoming? On the flip-side would councillors start considering the adverse affect on neighbours’ house prices, their impact potential retirement incomes, of proposed developments?

I would have focused on considering if when the properties were split, each provided an acceptable standard of accommodation. The planning officer’s view, presented in the report, was:

I consider that this arrangement of dwellings would not be considered acceptable for a new development or a converted property and that two years is a considerable length of time.

One concern I have is that when the door to the main property is blocked up, the annex would only have one door, located next to the kitchen area. If I was to live there I’d want to be sure I could escape through the windows of the bedroom and lounge if that the door become blocked, for example by fire. That’s something I’d have asked a question on, and if I was in a position to vote and my vote would have depended on the answer. I am mindful though that a window which might be an acceptable fire-esape for a young healthy person, might not be much use to someone whose mobility was limited. I would not be surprised to be told the whole question was a building regulations matter and not a planning one.

It appears from the plans and images available that the annex is properly built (I’ve been in some very shoddy extensions and annexes in Cambridge), and the walls between it and the rest of the property are the old outside walls of the house, confirming this would make me happier with splitting the property - I’d be opposed if the walls to separate the prospective unrelated tenants were plywood or plasterboard.

I note the size of the bedroom in the annex is very small, it’s smaller than the property’s single garage. I would describe it as a single rather than a double.

I think the councillors ought to also have considered how the exterior of the property is to be shared between the two new units. The planning officer appears to envisage that the resident(s) of the annex might end up parking in the road, and not having the use of any outside space.

In summary I think this annex provides a much higher standard of accommodation than many of the sheds, coal houses, and similar I’ve seen people in Cambridge living in, many of which I don’t think are habitable. I think it is likely (subject to the questions I’ve raised) this one is habitable and it ought be up to the market if anyone’s prepared to rent it. It might suit someone needing short term accommodation, or maybe a commuter needing accommodation during the week. Using planning conditions to restrict usage to a certain number of weeks a year, or even days per week, might be an option, but that’s likely just to create a nuisance to the eventual tenant and would be hard to enforce.

Ideally we would leave almost everything to “the market” but the accommodation situation is so dire in Cambridge that very many people are living in utterly unsuitable accommodation. There is a market for what planners, building inspectors, and I suspect a majority of residents, would consider uninhabitable, so regulation is needed to prevent overcrowding and to ensure accommodation is safe.

My own view is that even after discounting where any additional profits are to be spent this is a finely balanced decision. On the one hand I think the owner ought be as free as possible to do what they like with their property, and to do what the market is calling for, and provide a much needed extra unit of accommodation which may well perfectly suit someone’s needs. Against that is the question of if allowing the two separate units, which are so close, means that living in either becomes unpleasant; if it’s largely just unpleasantness, rather than the arrangement being unsafe I think I’d approve the application and let the market do its work.

There are much worse circumstances which arise where a householder rents part of their home out to a lodger; and that is much less regulated than this case. I’m aware of places in the city where lodgers don’t get access to kitchen facilities for example; that’s a really undesirable way to live.

Overall I support planning being a democratic process and if councillors want to throw away the large chunks of the rule book; that’s fine, they can then go on to stand on that record at the next election, and candidates can make clear if they’d do things differently. I’d like to see local councillors, (and magistrates for that matter) less constrained and freer to make what they see as the right choice based on the evidence before them.

Those councillors who thought it right that how the profits arising from granting a planning application ought be considered in this case were: Blackhurst, Al Bander, Ashton, Dryden, McPherson, Pippas, Stuart and Swanson.

I’d probably have voted the same way, subject to the clarifications to be sought noted above, but for very different reasons.

Julian Huppert’s Representation

Cambridge MP Julian Huppert had written to the City Council’s Head of Planning, Patsy Dell, (Salary £70,263/year) regarding the application:

Dear Patsy,

Ms Anne Fisher, 1 Greystoke Road, Cambridge CB1

I have been contacted by my constituent Ms Fisher who is concerned
about the planning restriction that is placed on her father’s house,
and separate self contained annex, that prevents the two units from
being let out separately.

My understanding is that Ms Fisher’s father has had to move into
residential care and that she and her siblings want to rent out the
two parts of the property to pay the not inconsiderable costs of his
nursing care. She is anxious for the current planning condition to be
lifted to enable the property to be used for this purpose.

I appreciate the reason for the City Council not wanting to lift the
planning restriction on a general basis. However, I would be grateful
if you could look into the issue that Ms Fisher raises about the
lifting of the restriction on a personal basis. Please find enclosed
a copy of the email that sets out the issues raised in full for your
perusal.

I would be grateful if you could look into the issue that my
constituent has raised and respond to me in a form that I can pass on
to my constituent.

Yours sincerely,

Julian Huppert
Member of Parliament for Cambridge

The attachment is not present. The council has an online only planning system now, there is no paper file to refer to, so this means councillors would also have had no access to the details. It is not clear if the attachment has been intentionally redacted or if a mistake has been made.

Background papers

• Report to the meeting
• Planning file - Cambridge City Council

On the 14th of October 2011 I responded to the consultation on a Government White Paper proposing introducing Individual Electoral Registration.

I support individual voter registration, which is what we have outside of the canvass periods now, as I generally think individuals ought be able to control their own voter registration and the supply of their details to the registration authorities.

I had a number of specific concerns with the proposals, my submission was as follows:

• I think that bulk voter registration ought continue in relation to institutional buildings such as student halls of residence. Those managing such institutions ought be asked to supply information of those residing with them after having given individuals the opportunity to opt-out. Arrangements for getting post within institutional accommodation can be unreliable, especially for bulk mailings, as I expect registration forms may be treated. In my experience personally addressed voter cards at election time for example are often left in large piles. I disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s contention that a move to individual voter registration could result in a larger proportion of students being registered to vote. I think an increase following the abolition of bulk registration is very unlikely.
• The role of the electoral roll in listing those eligible for jury service does not appear to have been considered in the preparation of this draft legislation. In relation to this point:
  • Students or persons working away from home may have multiple entries on electoral rolls and currently therefore have an increased probability of being called for jury service. The opportunity to correct this ought be taken.
  • The use of the electoral roll for selecting jurors is an important reason for keeping registration compulsory, otherwise people may chose not to appear on the roll to avoid jury service.
• I oppose retaining the household survey and the associated criminal offence of not completing the household survey form. Following a move to individual voter registration I think this form, and offence, ought be abolished. Currently the offence can criminalise individuals who cannot reasonably be expected to know, or find out, information about others living at an address. The household survey form can also require, or enable, someone to give information about an individual to the state when that individual might, quite reasonably, not want that to happen. I think individuals ought be able to control their own voter registration, and the supply of their details to the registration authorities.
• I am concerned that there will be no limitation on circumstances where the electoral registration officer will be able to issue a household form, and no clear restriction on what questions may be asked. I think if the offence is to remain these are significant issues. Officers shouldn’t be able to, for example, send forms on the basis of property’s registration history, or because a property is an a “student area” for example. There should be a specific and personal justification
• I think a system requiring the completion of both individual registration forms, and still retaining household forms, will be confusing and unnecessarily convoluted.
• The current common policy of refusing to accept individual voter registration forms, during the period of a canvas/audit via household forms is confusing and should stop.
• I support sending individual voter registration forms out, and including within them an insert for listing further individuals for whom additional individual forms can be requested.
• An offence which very large numbers of people are committing makes a mockery of the law and if some but not all face prosecution that opens up the risk of selective persecution on grounds unrelated to the offence. Care should be taken to avoid a situation where large numbers of people become criminalised through oversight, misunderstanding, or simply not being aware of electoral registration requirements. Every opportunity must be given to help individuals register, or show that they are in-fact registered, before any prosecutions are commenced. I think any offence should not be directly and primarily related to the non-completion of forms.
• While I note the draft legislation is designed to enable the use of online and telephone registration I would suggest going further and requiring registration officers to allow online registration.
• My local registration officer has sent out household surveys containing information as on the current register with the exception of the status of the opt-out from the commercially available version of the electoral roll, which was re-set removing previous opt-out indicators. I suggest that the legislation ought require such opt-outs to be enduring until/unless actively reversed by the individual concerned.
• Procedures and practices for removing individuals from the electoral roll ought be made clear. Electors who are already on the electoral roll should be accurately told what, if anything, will happen to their registration if they are not included on household survey forms, or individual voter registration forms.
• Where electoral registration forms contain statements such as “the law says you must complete this form”, a reference to the law being referred to ought be required to be included.
• It is very common for people who are named on council tax bills to assume they are registered to vote. Contrary to the view of the UK establishment this is not an utterly absurd thing to assume. I therefore suggest that when opening a new account for council tax purposes councils ought be required to work with electoral registration officers to add relevant individuals to the electoral roll.

Government Response

In February 2012 the Government published its response to the public consultation. The changes highlighted by the Government in their email to those who responded to the consultation were:

• The government is now planning to match the names and addresses of all individuals currently on an electoral register against the data held by public bodies such as the DWP and local authorities. If an elector’s information can be matched, the individual will be automatically placed onto the new IER register.
• The government is reconsidering an individual’s ability to opt out - looking to either tighten this provision or remove it altogether
• The proposal is now to reschedule the autumn 2013 canvass to spring 2014

In addition:

• It will remain an offence to provide false information to, or not to respond when required to provide information to an Electoral Registration Officer e.g. an annual canvass form.
• The government has rejected their idea of creating a new criminal offence, but is considering a civil penalty for non-response to an invitation to register.This is good, but in practice the difference between a criminal offence and a civil penalty will be largely academic.
• The government is considering making opting out possible, but difficult. My view is this is a bizarre stance to take; if the government offers something it ought be easy, and online. Offering an opt out, but only if you turn up in person at the offices of your local council during working hours is crazy.

As for addressing any of the concerns I, and no doubt others, raised:

• On jury service, the government have stated: “we would look to ensure that those recorded as opting out of registration continued to be eligible to carry out jury service.” This is of course excellent, it was surprising this was looked-over in the original proposal.
• There is a non-response on the issue of registration of students in halls of residents. The government has responded, but their response doesn’t say anything: “We acknowledge these concerns and are currently working with organisations representing these groups to establish ways that the registration process and the transition for these groups can be as simple and accessible as possible.”
• My other suggestions were ignored.

I was one of 806 members of the public to submit a response to the consultation.

What Next

• Legislation is during 2012 and Individual Voter Registration would be carried out during 2014 prior to a 2015 general election.

Given the number of points where the Government is still undecided, it may be that MPs will be left with a lot of work to do when the legislation is put in front of them.

The nearest hydrant to the 1920s built house I live in is just ~30m away. There are hydrants every ~100m or so throughout the area.

On Saturday the 3rd of March 2012 I received an email from Cambridge City Council’s executive councillor for planning, Liberal Democrat Tim Ward, stating:

…hydrants are a nice-to-have feature but that they are not a safety requirement.

The background is explained in the following email exchange:

On 22/02/2012 00:11, Richard Taylor wrote:
Cllr Ward,

I’m writing to you in your capacity as Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport at Cambridge City Council.

I observed a little of Cambridgeshire County Council’s full council on the 21st of February 2012. An oral question was asked to the representative of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority about provision of fire hydrants in new developments in Cambridge.

Both the questioner, and the individual responding on behalf of the authority, stated that Cambridge City Council had made a decision to cease requiring the provision of fire hydrants in new developments (either via planning conditions, or via S.106 agreements).

The representative of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority, the questioner, and various other Conservatives who jumped in, described the Liberal Democrats running Cambridge City Council as reckless for ceasing to ensure the provision of fire hydrants via its planning policies and called for the City Council to reverse its decision.

Can you let me know what has happened here?

I can’t find any relevant entry in recent decisions published on the council’s decision register or in recent council meeting papers.

–

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Cllr Ward’s reply:

From: Tim Ward
Date: 3 March 2012 15:26:54 GMT
To: Richard Taylor
Subject: Re: Fire Hydrants on New Developments

Richard,

The planning officers’ response is as follows:

“South Cambs have a policy that requires them but we don’t. In terms of recent development, they will be provided in Trumpington Meadows as that site straddles both council areas and is subject to both planning policies. As far as Clay Farm goes (which is within the City), the Fire Authority requested fire hydrant provision but the Planning appeal inspector who gave outline planning permission for the Clay farm development did not agree that they could be justified and did not include them as a s.106 requirement. In that area there won’t be any unless specific developers now agree to provide them. The difficulty from the planning policy position (that has to underpin our request for these requirements) is that there is no national planning policy basis to require these, they do not appear in our 2006 local plan or the Council’s 2010 planning obligations strategy.

“As I’ve said we will be looking at this as we move forward with local plan review. We will try to take a pragmatic view in negotiations but the planning basis for insisting on their provision is not there at the moment. The Fire Authority have asked that these are provided within new development proposals but are not in a position to advise the local planning authority that planning permission must be refused if they are not provided. I am very happy to meet the Fire Authority to discuss this and will be writing to them about that.”

Further I am told that hydrants are a nice-to-have feature but that they are not a safety requirement.

Notably Cllr Ward has distances himself from the decision; he has not admitted to being responsible for the city council having a policy of not requiring fire hydrants in new developments within the city and promised to correct it, in fact he’s not made any personal comment at all, simply passed on the officer’s response to my message.

The recently revealed situation makes me wonder if fire hydrants are present within recent and current large developments in the city, such as St Matthew’s Gardens, the Brunswick Site, the Vie Estate and the Station Area?

Clearly the Fire Authority - the experts here - are keen to see hydrants provided, it is astonishing that the Liberal Democrat run council are taking a position at odds with theirs.

As well as use in fires, there hydrants can also be used in times of drought. While Cambridge Water’s draft drought plan doesn’t mention the potential use of standpipes connected to hydrants; in previous UK droughts making water available only via standpipes was has been a tactic used to reduce usage.

Later today Cambridge’s West Central Area Committee will consider a proposal from Cambridgeshire Police to introduce a “dispersal zone” under S30 of New Labour’s Antisocial Behaviour Act into part of the city centre. If approved PCSOs would be able to order two or more people to separate, and/or leave the area, if it is thought their presence or behaviour “has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed.” Police constables would also gain the dispersal power in-relation to those whose behaviour was not alcohol related. (For alcohol related behaviour they already have such, and further, powers under s27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006)

The police proposal, and supporting evidence has been published on the committee webpage.

The committee will not take the decision. For the order to be made a senior police officer will have to put their name to it, and Cambridge’s Executive Councillor for policing, Cllr Tim Bick will have to agree to it. Despite being elected a Liberal Democrat Cllr Bick has indicated at previous area committee meetings he would be prepared to sign such an order, introducing provisions which he himself described in yesterday’s paper as resulting in:

“a regime which can limit people’s freedom of movement “

The evidence from the police focuses on the fact a dispersal zone would give their PCSOs, who predominantly patrol the city centre, powers they currently lack, enabling them to disperse groups of two or more people and require them to leave the area.

The Area

The police failed to provide a map of the proposed area as part of their proposal. I produced the one included with this article based on my attempt at interpreting the list of streets covered by, and forming the boundary of, the proposed zone.

I know the area very well and had a map in-front of me; it still took me fifteen minutes or so to identify the area; and I was left with some areas of uncertainty. One key question I have is if will those to be expelled from the area be given a map, or as last time such an order was in place, merely a list of streets. I think the list of streets is inadequate, and this is a view which was shared by magistrates called upon to sentence those who had breached orders under the provisions when they were last in-force. I want to know if the magistrate’s views have been taken into account.

Short Street and Elm Street appear to be missing from the area’s boundaries. The Elm Street omission is minor, it is clear what the intent was there, but Short Street is key because it has a junction with Willow Walk. Apparently due to the presence of the hostel on the street Willow Walk is excluded to allow residents to be expelled from the area and to return home. (Those who live in the area are not subject to exclusion from it). If Short Street is covered or not determines if hostel residents would be confined to the Willow Walk if they were expelled from the area.

There are three areas for which the evidence supporting the new zone applies to; but are omitted from the proposed area. These locations are the Brunswick area, Walkwoth Street and Claradon Street. It is unclear if this if the mistake is in the area covered by the proposed zone, or the area covered by the evidence.

Also, Mortimer Road is included in the list of streets despite being discontinuous with rest of the area and therefore not making any sense as a boundary road.

Authoritarian

I think any Liberal Democrats expressing support for the police proposals will effectively be joining Cllr Blair in jumping ship and moving to supporting the hugely oppressive New Labour authoritarian and oppressive approach to running society.

I intend to attend the meeting and use the public speaking slot to urge councillors to remember they’ve been elected as Liberal Democrats, to protect, not erode, civil liberties.

Police officers huge powers which can restrict individual freedoms. I accept that as a necessary part of running society, however in the case of the vast majority of those powers there are substantive safeguards, checks and balances. For example if I get arrested, I have to get taken to a police station, and trained custody sgt determines if he agrees with my detention; rest of the system kicks in too, I’m protected by the rules of the PACE codes and will rapidly end up in-front of a court where my fate will (on a good day, in most places) be determined following due-process.

I don’t think the appropriate safeguards are in-place in relation to the proposed zone. What can I do if I’ve been dispersed, or expelled. unjustly? There’s nothing I can do in the relevant time period the order will be in place. I could seek judicial review, but by the time that can be put in train the effect of the order will be over.

The proposal criminalises otherwise non-criminal behaviour, such as gathering in groups. I don’t want to see just gathering in a group criminalised. A gathering of people might cause alarm; be it a group of children, youths, adults, or homeless people, whoever it is, but that’s not in my view a reason to criminalise associating with others in public.

Signage and Operation

I want to know what the proposals are for signage of the area. Previous signage has been scrappy, A4 laminated sheets containing tiny black and white maps and dense text posted on lampposts. These were not posted as the areas came into force and were left in place well beyond the period.

I want to know exactly what will the orders issued to individuals will look like? Maps or a list of streets? What information about appeal routes will be included? (The orders have to be given in writing)

More Powers to PCSOs

Giving more powers to PCSO is by far the strongest argument being made in the police submission. They hardly mention the other relevant point, which is S30 applies to those causing non-alcohol related harassment alarm and distress. Cllr Bick, has been supported unanimously by the full council in giving more powers to PCSOs in another area, to tackle speeding, and at a previous area committee councillors called for more action against cyclists without lights (another area PCSOs lack powers to act on).

My view, which I have expressed in more detail elsewhere, is that we ought give those PCSOs capable of exercising them the full powers of a constable, ie. make them constables. We would keep them on duties similar to those they currently exercise via management controls restricting how they can be deployed and what they are permitted to do (in a similar way as the activities conducted by Special Constables are limited).

Reducing Arrests

I would like to know to what degree is the proposals are about reducing arrests? Many of the behaviours mentioned in the evidence are otherwise criminal, and could be dealt with by arrest; is this an effort to save money and meet the chief constable’s target of reducing the number of individuals taken into custody substantially?

Those Not Otherwise Criminal

If approved this order will end up criminalising people; who’ve not done anything criminal other than to disobey an order to disperse.

It may catch people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’ve had recent experience of this kind of thing, being evicted on threat of arrest from the public gallery at the council; because I was sitting in the same part of the room as someone who threw a paper airplane. I know how unjust that felt, it would be much worse if I was prevented from being in a large part of the city in which I live.

Notably the proposal is to include the guildhall in the area. The provisions could be used by the police when clearing the public gallery of the council chamber if councillors call them in, in the future.

Disaggregation

Lots of material, raising important matters, which have a massive negative impact on how safe the city centre feels, have been included in the evidence submitted by the police but utterly irrelevant to the question of imposing a dispersal zone.

I would like to urge councillors to:

• Ignore the evidence that’s about things that would be criminal, and could be adequately dealt with without a S30 order.
• Ignore anything that’s not specifically about why PCSOs need these powers; or identifying a non-alcohol related problem, needing dispersal.
• Ignore anything that can be dealt with by S27 Violent Crime Reduction Act

The debate shouldn’t deteriorate into a discussion identifying and accepting we have a serious set of problems in the city centre, which I agree we do, but then moving onto support the dispersal zone, simply because it is something councillors are able to do. Councillors ought only support it if they feel its the right and proportionate response to the problems facing the city.

Confidence in PCSOs Acting Alone

A key question for councillors will be:

How much confidence you’ve got in PCSOs, acting alone?

John Fenton, who runs Cambridge Crepes, has told the Cambridge News he has “total trust in the police”. I’d like to see councillors be more cautious. I have a reasonable amount of faith in the system, this isn’t about the system as a whole, its about individuals acting alone.
Some PCSOs are excellent; but many I’ve come access in Cambridge are not in my view capable of exercising this degree of unchecked power.

I have in the past come across a PCSO delivering postcards to every house where I live saying that the police have found the property insecure. This caused some of my neighbours substantial alarm when they returned home, wondering if they’d been burgled. I caught up with the PCSO asking her what she was doing and she said she hadn’t read the cards she was delivering, and was just doing what her sergeant had told her.

No Named Police Officer

A named senior officer should will need to put their name to these proposals before they are formally submitted to Cllr Bick. As yet no officer has done so.

Lib Dems vs Civil Liberties Campaigners

The Cambridge News coverage of the proposals notes that Civil Liberties Campaigners are opposed to them. We shouldn’t have a situation where the Liberal Democrat councillors, elected on a platform of protecting civil liberties are at odds with such campaigners, we should all be on the same side. Unfortunately many councillors, like recent defector Clare Blair, don’t appear to have any deep seated liberal views, any they do have are easily overturned.