Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Leader of the Council
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
To decide on the preferred direction for redeveloping Park Street Car Park.
Matter for
Decision
The report proposed the shape of the above ground
development of Park Street Car Park to include mixed development consisting of
an underground car park of 250 spaces, with social and market housing for sale
and rent above ground and commercial outlets including a modern cycle
park.
Decision
of the Leader
i.
Supported the redevelopment of Park Street car park
to incorporate:
·
A 250 space underground car park
·
Above ground a mixed development of market,
intermediate and social housing, including the option for commercial rental on
the ground floor, in conjunction with cycle parking.
·
the same or greater number of cycle parking spaces
ii.
Supported a strategy to mitigate the impact of the
redevelopment during construction works that included:
·
further consultation and liaison over the detailed
plans and for the redevelopment with key stakeholders, including businesses in
Bridge Street and the vicinity of Park Street car park
·
continuing consultation and involvement through
Cambridge BID
·
regular project updates
·
exploring ways to reduce the length of time of
construction, including possible re-opening of the underground car park while
work continues on the construction of the commercial and housing property above
ground, and re-opening in time for the 2018 Christmas shopping period
·
seeking possible provision of public use of the car
park under Castle Court 7 days a week during the construction (as well as the
weekend use of the Shire Hall car park), and a possible shuttle Bridge St bus
service to and from Castle Court and Grafton East car parks.
·
Liaison with the companies providing scheduled bus
services to see if routes can be diverted via Bridge Street
iii.
Instructed the Head of Property Services in liaison
with the Head of Strategic Housing to:
·
Evaluate a further option for a housing mix of 40%
social and 60% intermediate housing (the latter funded from the council’s
general fund for investment return).
·
Establish a realistic assessment of the capacity of
the site for above ground development, request the
Urban Design Team to prepare a full planning brief, analysing its context and
constraints in order to enable development value to be optimised within the
planning guidance.
·
Explore the preferred mechanism to secure the
redevelopment of the site to maximise the opportunities to provide affordable
housing on the site within the constraints of financial viability, and to
report back in the next committee cycle
·
Explore the preferred housing schemes, to enable
the council to decide whether to build the social housing itself or to sell it
to a registered provider, and to report back in the next committee cycle.
·
Explore the council developing the project itself, producing
the social housing as outlined in the report but retaining and letting out the
remaining housing.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Specialist Services.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Sought clarification regarding cycle provision and
whether the redevelopment would provide the same amount of cycle parking as was
currently provided.
ii.
Sought clarification what investigations had been
undertaken in relation to the capacity of other car parks whilst construction
of the new development was in progress.
iii.
Questioned the number of cycle parking spaces.
iv.
Expressed concern that the housing proposal was
driven by a desire to offset the cost of developing the car park.
In response to Members’ questions the Head of Specialist Services said
the following:
i.
Confirmed the number of cycle parking spaces would
at least match the number of spaces currently provided by the existing
development.
ii.
Initial meetings had looked at the possibility of a
shuttle bus during the construction period whilst Park Street car park was not
available.
iii.
The capacity of cycle parking provision may be able
to be increased but this was dependant on the layout of the development.
iv.
The development must take into account budgetary
pressures of the Council.
Councillor Bick
proposed the following amendment to the officer’s recommendation at 2.3
(additional text underlined):
In recommendation
2.3 insert before (d)
In addition to
those above ground options described in the report, also evaluate a further
option for a housing mix of 40% social and 60% intermediate housing (the latter
funded from the council’s general fund for investment return).
In order to
establish a realistic assessment of the capacity of the site for above ground
development, request the Urban Deisgn Team to prepare
a full planning brief, analysing its context and constraints in order to enable
development value to be optimised within the planning guidance.
On a show of hands
this was agreed unanimously
Councillor
Robertson proposed the following amendment to the officer’s recommendation 2.1,
2.2 and 2.3 of the officer’s report (additional text underlined).
2.1 To support the
redevelopment of Park Street car park to incorporate:
a) A 250 space
underground car park
b) Above ground a
mixed development of market, intermediate and social housing, including
the option for commercial rental on the ground floor, in conjunction with cycle
parking.
c) the same or greater number of cycle parking spaces
2.2 To support a strategy to mitigate the impact of the redevelopment
during construction works that includes:
a)
further consultation and liaison over the detailed
plans and for the redevelopment with key stakeholders, including businesses in
Bridge Street and the vicinity of Park Street car park
b)
continuing consultation and involvement through
Cambridge BID
c) regular project updates
d) exploring ways to reduce the length of time of construction,
including possible re-opening of the underground car park while work continues
on the construction of the commercial and housing property above ground, and
re-opening in time for the 2018 Christmas shopping period
e) seeking possible provision of public use of the car park under Castle
Court 7 days a week during the construction (as well as the weekend use of the
Shire Hall car park), and a possible shuttle Bridge St bus service to and from
Castle Court and Grafton East car parks.
f) Liaison with the companies providing scheduled bus services to see if
routes can be diverted via Bridge Street
2.3 to instruct the Head of Property Services in liaison with
the Strategic Housing to:
a) Explore the
preferred mechanism to secure the redevelopment of the site to maximise the
opportunities to provide affordable housing on the site within the constraints
of financial viability, and to report back in the next committee cycle
b) Explore the
preferred housing schemes, to enable the council to decide whether to build the
social housing itself or to sell it to a registered provider, and to report
back in the next committee cycle.
c) Explore the
council developing the project itself, producing the social housing as outlined
in the report but retaining and letting out the remaining housing.
On a show of hands
this was unanimously agreed.
The amended
recommendation was therefore put to the vote:
2.1 To support the
redevelopment of Park Street car park to incorporate:
a)
A 250 space underground car park
b)
Above ground a mixed development of market, intermediate and social housing,
including the option for commercial rental on the ground floor, in conjunction
with cycle parking.
c)
the same or greater number of cycle parking spaces
2.2 To support a strategy to mitigate the impact of
the redevelopment during construction works that includes:
a)
further consultation and liaison over the detailed
plans and for the redevelopment with key stakeholders, including businesses in
Bridge Street and the vicinity of Park Street car park
b)
continuing consultation and involvement through
Cambridge BID
c) regular project updates
d)
exploring ways to reduce the length of time of construction, including possible
re-opening of the underground car park while work continues on the construction
of the commercial and housing property above ground, and re-opening in time for
the 2018 Christmas shopping period
e)
seeking possible provision of public use of the car park under Castle Court 7
days a week during the construction (as well as the weekend use of the Shire
Hall car park), and a possible shuttle Bridge St bus service to and from Castle
Court and Grafton East car parks.
f)
Liaison with the companies providing scheduled bus services to see if routes
can be diverted via Bridge Street
2.3
to instruct the Head of Property Services in liaison
with the Strategic Housing to:
a)
In addition to those above ground options described in the report, also
evaluate a further option for a housing mix of 40% social and 60% intermediate
housing (the latter funded from the council’s general fund for investment
return).
b)
In order to establish a realistic assessment of the capacity of the site for
above ground development, request the Urban Design Team to prepare a full
planning brief, analysing its context and constraints in order to enable
development value to be optimised within the planning
guidance.
c)
Explore the preferred mechanism to secure the redevelopment of the site to
maximise the opportunities to provide affordable housing on the site within the
constraints of financial viability, and to report back in the next committee
cycle
d)
Explore the preferred housing schemes, to enable the council to decide whether
to build the social housing itself or to sell it to a registered provider, and
to report back in the next committee cycle.
f)
Explore the council developing the project itself, producing the social housing
as outlined in the report but retaining and letting out the remaining housing.
The Scrutiny
Committee considered the amended recommendations and endorsed them unanimously.
The Leader approved the
amended recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations
Granted):
Not applicable.
Publication date: 14/01/2016
Date of decision: 12/10/2015