Issue - meetings

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 Mill Road Depot Planning and Development Brief (Appendices B and C);

 

·         To approve the Mill Road Depot Planning and Development Brief (Appendix D) 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 Urban Extensions Project Manager. 

 

Members noted the amendment sheet circulated in advance of the meeting.

 

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

 

i.         Drew attention to the garages located at the rear of the site that appeared to limit the sites potential and how it integrated with the wider area. Also questioned how they became a parameter and how the SPD could be amended to address the garages. 

ii.       Highlighted the provision of community spaces within paragraph 4.5.6 of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) requesting that they be properly integrated within the development and the wording of the paragraph be amended to ensure their connectivity with established developments to the north of the site

iii.     Queried the ownership of the library building and the status of its tenancy agreement with the current building occupiers.  Also sought clarification on the projected level of car parking for the area. 

iv.     Highlighted the importance of delivering more housing and the importance of the provision of open spaces within the development that were centrally located and drew people into the site and were easily travelled to. 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bick and seconded by Councillor Avery to defer the adoption of the SPD until a report had been submitted regarding the status of the garages, their potential development and its implications.  During discussion of the amendment, Members commented that due to the ownership of the site there were issues that needed to be clarified in the future, but they should not delay the adoption of the SPD.  On being put to the vote the amendment was lost, 2 votes in favour 4 against.

 

The Urban Extensions Project Manager said the following in response to Members questions:

 

i.         Explained that the SPD was intended to be a flexible document.  The garages were subject in some cases to long leases and discussions would continue regarding their status but there was not an immediate opportunity to take them on board.  The Executive Councillor confirmed that several owners of the garages wished to retain ownership and that made it difficult to incorporate the land. 

ii.       With respect to paragraph 4.5.6 of the SPD, acknowledged the needs of the community to north, but highlighted the importance of not being too constrained on the provision of community facilities as there was a balance to be achieved and flexibility is needed to aid delivery.

iii.     Explained the SPD was a design framework that supported the Local Plan and its policies.  The City Council as landowner would appoint architects that would develop a more detailed Masterplan for the area.

iv.     Confirmed that car parking provision would be determined as part of the detailed design stage.  The overall goal though was to reduce the level of available car parking in the area and support more sustainable transport modes.

v.      Explained that the library building was subject to negotiations with the tenants and its owners (Cambridgeshire County Council).

 

The Committee resolved 5 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention 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.