Decision details

To agree the content of the draft Development Framework SPD prior to public consultation.

Matter for Decision

To consider and comment before decision by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor

i.       Agreed the content of the draft Mitcham’s Corner Development Framework SPD (Appendix A);

ii.      Agreed that if any amendments were necessary, they should be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation with Chair and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee;

iii.    Approved the draft development framework SPD for public consultation to commence in September 2016;

iv.    Approved the consultation arrangements as set out in paragraphs 3.9 to 3.11 of the report and the proposed schedule of consultees in Appendix B.

 

Reason for 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 Urban Design and Conservation Manager and the Planning Policy Manager. 

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.     Questioned what the process would be for the development of other sites such as Barclays Bank and the Westbrook Centre.

ii.    Requested further information regarding discussion that had taken place with Cambridgeshire County Council on behalf of the City Deal with regard to the road lay out.

iii.  Questioned whether it was possible for a bus interchange to be included in the plan.  An interchange would increase footfall for local shops and businesses and relieve congestion pressure with regard to the number of buses entering the city centre.  

iv.  Expressed concern that there was no provision for wider pavements to accommodate pedestrians.

v.   Questioned whether Section 106 funding could be released.

vi.  Questioned whether the Staples site would be developed in the near future.

 

The Urban Design and Conservation Manger and the Planning Policy Manager said the following in response to Members questions:

i.     Need to be careful as to how non allocated sites  are treated in the draft SPD in order to avoid developing new policy. Officers agreed to consider the presentation of other potential development opportunities in the draft SPD and make sure there was a clear explanation. 

ii.    Discussions had taken place with the County Council regarding traffic flow and highlighted that there was a difference between traffic flowing and the experience of road users and pedestrians being a good one. 

iii.  Widening of pavements to accommodate street-life would be incorporated within the plans.

iv.  The feasibility of a bus interchange would be considered during the detailed planning stage as bus routes and timetables would have to be analysed carefully.

v.    The owner of the Staples site had not come forward with any development proposals for the immediate future.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.