Decision details

To review representations made to the draft development framework and agree any necessary changes to the document prior to it being put forward for adoption pending the adoption of the emerging Local Plan.

Matter for Decision

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

 

Decision of Executive Councillor

 

·         To agree the responses to the representations received during public consultation and the consequential amendments proposed to the Mitcham’s Corner Development Framework;

 

·         To approve the Mitcham’s Corner Development Framework in anticipation of the adoption of the Local Plan, and to agree that it should be carried forward for adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document at the same time as the Local Plan.

 

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 Senior Urban Designer. 

 

Richard Preston from Cambridgeshire County Council City Deal Team was invited by the Chairman to assist with the answering of Member questions on the report.

 

 

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

 

i.         Noted that the Mitcham’s Corner gyratory was effective in managing the movement of vehicular traffic but was poor for pedestrians and cyclists.  It was also difficult for people travelling by bus as there were a number of bus stops spread over the area.  Members questioned the need to create a shared space for all road users.

ii.       Questioned how the project would be funded.

iii.     Questioned what safeguards there were to prevent a developer from constructing something that was contrary to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).   

iv.     Drew attention to the dangers faced by pedestrians and cyclists that travelled around the gyratory.  Members noted that there was no data on cycles or pedestrian movements and suggested that a comprehensive survey was carried out of pedestrians and cyclists to inform the design of Mitcham’s Corner.   

v.      Expressed concern regarding the funding of the project.  The City Deal could not be relied upon as the objectives were not entirely the same and more consideration should be given to alternative funding streams.

vi.     Highlighted the importance of capturing the views of students who travelled to college by bicycle. 

vii.   Drew attention to the representation made by Bidwells regarding the redevelopment opportunities of the Barclays Bank site and requested that the Council take a more proactive approach.

viii. Expressed concern regarding the modified wording on page 53 of the SPD that appeared to water down the linkages from Chesterton Road to Grasmere Gardens. 

ix.     Queried progress regarding the Tivoli public house.    

x.      Emphasised the importance at not only looking at what was happening with regard to cycling and pedestrian movements within the area, but also setting out the vision for what the area could be in terms of movement. –.  Has to handle a certain degree of traffic movements.  It is an important transport link and a place. 

xi.     Suggested that an application be developed for use on people’s smart phones that could track their movements that could inform any survey of pedestrian and cycle movements across the city and inform the design of the gyratory. 

 

 

The Senior Urban Designer said the following in response to Members questions:

 

i.         Explained that the stage of the design where cycle lanes should be routed has not yet been reached and that the design process should inform the most appropriate solution.    Drew Members attention to the key objectives for remodelling the gyratory set out on page 34 of the Framework. 

ii.       Drew attention to potential funding available in tranche 2 of the City Deal.  The City Deal had expressed an interest in contributing toward the cost of the project but it would require a clear business case for the investment that demonstrated improvements to transport and the public realm. 

iii.     Advised that planning application would be assessed in accordance with the current Local Plan and linked to the emerging Local Plan.  The adoption of the Framework would also demonstrate the Council’s position with regard to the development of the area.

iv.     Welcomed the suggestion of a survey of pedestrian and cycle movements and would discuss further with City Deal officers regarding a city wide study. 

v.      Explained that opportunities for alternative funding sources for the project were limited such as Section 106 funds or Community Infrastructure Levy.  The City Deal provided a great opportunity that was unlikely to be available again in the future. 

vi.     Advised that a meeting would take place with Bidwells following the Committee meeting. 

vii.   Explained that the wording on page 53 of the Framework was amended to reflect land ownership issues.

viii.  Advised that the specific guidance was contained within the Framework to enhance and repair the frontage of the Tivoli.  A pre-application meeting had taken place between officers and representatives of JD Wetherspoon regarding the site. 

ix.     Welcomed the innovative suggestion for a smart phone application to be developed to assist with surveying pedestrian and cycle movements and would discuss it further with consultants. 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.