Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Matter for
Decision
The draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission (as amended)
designated the area around Fitzroy Street, Burleigh
Street and the Grafton Centre as the primary location for providing additional
comparison retail in the City Centre along with other mixed uses including
leisure uses under Policy 11: Fitzroy/Burleigh
Street/Grafton Area of Major Change. The
Council, as the Local Planning Authority, has been working in partnership with
local stakeholders to prepare an SPD for change for the Fitzroy/Burleigh Street/Grafton Area of Major Change (AoMC). The work has been guided by input from local
stakeholders, including residents groups, local Councillors and other interest
groups, at a series of workshops. The SPD
would help guide the development of the area, promoting a number of key
strategies for change. These aim to take advantage of the opportunities to
provide better streets and space as well as a positive and attractive
destination to support the vitality and viability of the centre for retail and
associated uses. The SPD envisages a phased approach to ensure the area
continued to perform as a City Centre location while ensuring phased
improvement would deliver the area’s longer-term strategy.
The draft Grafton AoMC - Masterplan and
Guidance SPD had been produced for public consultation. The document outlined aspirations for the
area, as well as the key issues, constraints and opportunities that would
influence how new development would take place.
Detailed local and stakeholder consultation had taken place which helped
inform the drafting of the SPD.
A six week public consultation was proposed to take place between 25
September 2017 and 6 November 2017. The
statutory minimum period for consultation on a SPD was six weeks.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and
Transport
i.
Agreed the content of the draft Grafton AoMC -
Masterplan and Guidance SPD (Appendix A of the Officer’s report);
ii.
Agreed that if any amendments were
necessary, these should be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation
with Chair and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee;
iii.
Approved the draft SPD for public
consultation to commence in September 2017;
iv.
Approved the consultation
arrangements as set out in paragraphs 3.9 to 3.11 and the proposed schedule of
consultees in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.
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 New Neighbourhoods Development
Manager. She had noted Member’s comments made in Chair/Opposition Councillor briefings
and would amend the draft Grafton AoMC to include
these comments then circulate the document to the Chair, Executive Councillor
and Spokesperson for comment before it goes out for public consultation. A
final comprehensive schedule of changes would be shared with the Chair,
Executive Councillor and Spokesperson for comment prior to the document coming
back to DPSSC.
Councillor Bick requested that Opportunity Sites shown on P64 of the
report pack be amended as follows:
i.
Site #1 northern boundary be extended to Salmon
Lane.
ii.
Site #4 be extended to include the whole East Road
entry area.
iii.
A new Site #5 be included to cover between Paradise
Street and the back of the building on Burleigh
Street.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
The Master Plan was an opportunity to address some
historic issues that local residents were concerned about since the Kite Centre
became the Grafton Centre. This was an opportunity to review how the shopping
area related to the residential area.
ii.
Comments about buses in the Spatial Planning
Document (SPD) focussed on Park&Ride more than
ordinary buses. Park&Ride services to the Grafton
Centre had been reduced.
iii.
Asked for the format of the SPD to be changed to
move the ‘vision’ section nearer the front of the document.
iv.
Sites around the Grafton Centre were in mixed
ownership. Councillors expressed a desire to work with the County Council to
invest funding and redevelop the area as a whole, not piecemeal.
v.
It was in the land owners’ interest to develop the
area in a positive way to attract investment.
vi.
The planning process set out a vision that would be
consulted upon, but developers could not be forced to implement it.
vii.
The SPD was a Master Plan that set out ideas, it
was not a (s106) Contributions Plan that set out how money would be spent.
Suggested some caveats could be included to prevent a mismatch in expectations
between residents’ expectations and reality as the SPD was only guidance for developers.
The New Neighbourhoods Development Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Some text could be included in the SPD to state
there may be opportunities to join up with areas outside the Opportunity Sites
shown on P64 of the report pack, to address issues such as access. The
intention was to encourage appropriate and not disjointed development. The plan
in Policy 11 of the emerging Local Plan could not be amended at this stage.
Noted that these changes would need to be carried out post-public consultation
because of time constraints.
ii.
The SPD would be amended to explicitly state which
sites were proposed for housing or retail in response to Councillors’ comments
that some areas were more suitable for housing than others.
iii.
Street clutter and cycle racks had been discussed
with the County Council Highways Authority. There was a need for short term
parking, plus a comprehensive audit to consolidate cycle parking provision in
limited locations in future.
iv.
The area between Fitzroy Street and Burleigh Street was adopted public highway. The City
Council would have to jointly work with the County Council Highways Authority
on development proposals.
v.
Cycle, vehicle and pedestrian access routes via
Fitzroy Street and Burleigh Street had been discussed
with County Council Highways Authority. These issues and others such as parking
on pavements and taxi access were subject to on-going to discussion. Cycle
provision was referenced on P91 of the report pack. Proposals would be updated
in the SPD when it was brought back to committee.
vi.
The number of cycling and servicing areas (agenda
pack P91) was an issue highlighted early in the SPD process. The County Council
were currently auditing service area provision, this would feed into the public
consultation process and final SPD. Redundant service areas in other city areas
had been turned into commercial use.
vii.
Rising bollards to restrict access in case of
terrorism had been discussed at transport meetings with the County Council
Highways Authority. There was a need to balance security with liveability in
the area.
viii.
The aspiration of the City Council was to carry out
significant improvements to the Grafton Area over the short to long term.
ix.
S106 developer contributions could be pooled
towards agreed projects eg public realm improvements
(P84, 86 & 88 of the report pack) subject to the CIL Regulations limitation
threshold.
x.
The City Council had on-going discussions with the
Greater Cambridge Partnership regarding the impact of investment. This would
sit alongside the SPD as it was not under the control of the planning process.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. He commented:
i.
Welcomed Councillor Bick’s suggestions regarding Opportunity
Sites shown on P64 of the report pack.
ii.
Welcomed the proposal to move the Vision section to
the front of the SPD. He asked for more of a foreword on how Officer’s saw the
area developing by 2031 as the Grafton Centre was a huge retail area for the
city.
iii.
There were various land owners in the area at
present. The SPD would be a City Council document, so Councillors needed to
ensure they were completely satisfied with it before the SPD received final
endorsement.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.