Issue - meetings

Report to follow

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager setting out thirteen proposals for making use of devolved Section 106 contributions to improve open spaces and play areas in the South Area.  The report set out the background to the proposals, described recent S106-funded projects completed in the area, and asked the SAC to select which of the eligible project proposals to prioritise for each of the three SAC wards from the S106 funding available.

 

Sam Davies, Chair of Queen Edith’s Community Forum, pointed out that the largest project proposals for Trumpington ward were for Mill Park at CB1, part of the Brookgate development.  She posed three questions to Councillors:

a)    was it reasonable for Brookgate to assert that the use of this space in this location by this range of people could not have been envisaged from the outset

b)    was it reasonable for Brookgate to expect around 1,000 young people visiting the city, often on a temporary basis, to walk nearly a mile to Coleridge recreation ground

c)    was it reasonable to use funds levied to mitigate the impact of new development to offset problems which some said had been designed into the development from the start by a developer who was making a substantial profit from the development.

 

She said that if the use of the space and the need for recreational facilities should reasonably have been envisaged, and the problems which Brookgate wished to see addressed were of its own making, then in each case, there were no grounds for paying S106 money to Brookgate, and the funding should be spent instead on other deserving projects around Trumpington.

 

Andrew Roberts, speaking for Trumpington Residents’ Association, drew attention to two of the proposals submitted by the association, the Trumpington notice boards (proposal K in report table 2) and trim trail and outdoor fitness equipment (proposal L).  The notice boards had not been recommended to proceed at present, and it had been suggested that the trim trail could be funded from the available, devolved ‘informal open space’ S106 contributions.  The Association was grateful for the support for the proposals so far, and hoped that it would be possible to realise them in due course.

 

Antony Carpen asked to put on record his strong opposition to any application by Brookgate for S106 funding; the application was an insult to the taxpayer, who was being asked for an additional £150k.  Crime had been designed in to the development, and the community was being expected to deal with the problems. 

 

Members noted that S106 funding was money paid by developers to mitigate the impact of developments, not taxpayers’ money as such, though the same careful stewardship was needed for this as for any other funding; spending S106 funding on one project meant that it was not available for spending on another eligible project.

 

In discussion of the proposals for Trumpington, members made various comments

 

a)    Expressing strong agreement with the speakers’ sentiments.  Some considered that Brookgate was failing to do what should have been done at the outset of the project, and that the available, devolved S106 funding would be better deployed in other areas of the community

 

b)    Pointing out that something needed to be done to resolve anti-social behaviour issues which had arisen at Mill Park, which had been built following the grant of planning permission

 

c)    Acknowledging that the developer was undertaking some remedial works in Mill Park, and suggesting that time should be allowed to assess the impact of those remedial works

 

d)    Suggesting that it would be better to concentrate on the merits of the other proposals for the present, and disregard the CB1 Mill Park improvement works

 

e)    Pointing out that the available funding did not have to be spent immediately.  The Area Committee noted that officers continued to work hard to ensure that S106 expiry dates were observed, and that S106 funding was used on time.  Speaking from memory, the Urban Growth Project Manager said that the last instalment of S106 funding from the CB1 development had been received in 2013 and had to be spent within ten years*

 

f)     Saying that it was important to select projects for prioritisation on sound grounds, and to bear residents’ interests in mind.

 

Turning to proposals for Cherry Hinton and Queen Edith’s, ward members said that

 

a)    the two proposals for Cherry Hinton were of equal merit, and both were wanted; the seating on Fulbourn Road should be sited nearer to the road, rather than too close to residents’ gardens

 

b)    a great deal of work had gone into putting forward proposals for improving the Gunhild Close play area, and these should be prioritised. 

 

Councillor Taylor pointed out that she was not voting because, as a County Councillor, she was not eligible to do so, not because she was not interested in the matter.

 

It was resolved unanimously to select (from the list of eligible proposals set out in Table 3 of the report) the following local projects for the use of devolved S106 funding (subject to business case approval):

1. Fulbourn Road open space improvements
2. Tenby Close play area improvements
3. Gunhild Close play area improvements
4. Accordia open space improvements
5. Trumpington Rec Ground trim trail, skate park and climbing frame.

 

Members noted that the cost of the three Trumpington proposals would be £110k, leaving £90k for future consideration; there was no requirement to spend the money within the ward if using it over a ward boundary would benefit both the ward from which the money came and other parts of the area.

 

Councillor McPherson said that, in the view of the Cherry Hinton Councillors, the CB1 Mill Park improvements should not be funded from S106 monies, but be undertaken by the developers at their own expense, because the works were proposed to remedy a design fault.

 

 

* The Urban Growth Project Manager has subsequently clarified that the ‘informal open space’ and ‘provision for children and teenagers’ S106 contributions from the CB1 development do not expire until May 2024.