Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision 

The report referred to the Making Space for the People document prepared to act as a co-ordination tool to align thinking on future street, public space and movement projects between Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces and Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety.

      i.         Noted the Consultation Report which includes the representations from the 2019 consultation.

    ii.         Asked Officers to undertake further refinement of Making Space for People in light of comments raised at committee and by interested parties, to engage with relevant stakeholders as appropriate, and to bring a revised document to a future meeting.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development advised the Committee of an amendment to the recommendation (additional text underlined; deleted text struck through).

 

      i.         Note the Consultation Report which includes the representations from the 2019 consultation.

    ii.         Resolve to agree the updated Vision, Aims, Objectives and Strategies document.

   iii.         Invite Cambridgeshire County Council, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership to endorse the Making Space for People document and to use it to inform future scheme development within Central Cambridge. 

  iv.         Agree that the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development is granted delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any editing changes prior to finalisation and publication of the document.

    ii.         Ask Officers to undertake further refinement of Making Space for People in light of comments raised at committee and by interested parties, to engage with relevant stakeholders as appropriate, and to bring a revised document to a future meeting.

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Officer

 

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

      i.         Believed the phase in para 1.1.1 ‘to have the Cambridge address’ to be an unfortunate and cynical statement. Companies came to Cambridge for the purpose of clustering businesses and workforce. Terminology should be changed to describe the process.

    ii.         Demand management (paragraph 1.1.6, footnote no4) should have the term ‘and mode’ at the end, as looking at the different modes of transport.

   iii.         Paragrpah,1.1.3 needed to refer to the concept of dwell space, the document was not just about movement but wanted space for people to stop and talk and to sit. This area had not been represented by the transport of hierarchy. It was important to note this was an equality and disability issue.

  iv.         There should also be practical spaces such as spaces to park bikes, scooters etc.

    v.         Paragrpah,1.1.3 should reference other innovative modes of transport, such as e-scooters. Technology and legislative changes would take place over time which should be considered when building the public space.  

  vi.         The Vision Statement should also include ‘meeting the needs of the local community’.

 vii.         Aims and Objectives, paragraph 4.1, A5; the sentence ‘has an appropriate enforcement regime’ should be added.

viii.         Add a further bullet point under Aims and Objectives, paragraph 4.1, A5 a city centre which had materials, design, signage and street furniture and the fabric of the public realm which was a quality to the surrounding historic environment.

  ix.         Under Movement Focused Principles, 4.3 (s5,6,7&8) it was important to recognise the impact of change would have on those who live in the city centre.

    x.         The phrase ‘day and night’ should be changed to ‘day and evening’ under s17 and should be balanced with a statement connecting this to s11, regarding the dwell space and the enjoyment of the area.

  xi.         Surprised to note on p33 that the document had been endorsed by the City Council’s Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee before any scrutiny had taken place.

 xii.         Suggested the summary of the outline baseline report had missed the following and asked why these had been omitted from the report.

·      The city had lost ground compared with other cities.

·      The variable quality and maintenance of the public domain left much to be desired.

·      The quality of cycling, infrastructure, and facilities did not meet the city of cycling status.

·      Stakeholders (including retailers) had been left frustrated by current conditions in the city centre.

xiii.         The document had to look at the potential conflicts that would persist whatever changes took place in the city; suggested conflicts were:

·      Tension between pedestrian and cyclists.

·      Tensions between pedestrians and café and restaurant owners and street furniture.

·      Tension between large buses and small streets.

·      Tension between cyclists and delivery vehicles.

·      Tension between disabled persons and scatted A boards.

·      Tourism and the densification of people in the city centre.

·      The amenities of residents.

xiv.         The pandemic had provided residents an opening to experience changes to the city centre and recommended the consultation should be updated to reflect these changes. There should also be a report that considered LTN 1/20 which set a precedent for active travel, such changes had been:

·      Less traffic and vehicle movement in the city with more people home working.

·      Safety measures introduced by the highways authority some of which would become permanent.

·      The current road closure on Mill Road; could this become permanent and how could this space become a well-designed pedestrian space for all to visit. 

xv.         Noted there was no mention of the railway station.

xvi.         Would like to see Mill Road become a pedestrian route into the city.

xvii.         Signage and street furniture should be of the highest quality. 

xviii.         Would welcome a specific date when the updated document be brought to committee.

xix.         Stated if the finished report could not be brought back to the next committee could an update paper be presented.

xx.         Queried if the document would be changed into an SPD.

xxi.         Pleased to hear that there would be further stages to the document but would want the County Council onboard to move forward. Would like to be informed at a future meeting that the document had been discussed with the relevant county officers.

xxii.         Expressed concern that both pedestrians and cyclists must be comfortable and asked how and where clear separation would occur.

xxiii.         Would like to see practical detail where pedestrian areas could be potentially placed in the city and how these could work.

xxiv.         Important to ensure there was accessibility for people whatever their disability.

xxv.         Evident from the consultation response to note the difference of opinion from residents, businesses, and utility companies.

xxvi.         Would welcome officers to look at the consultation response and take away the evidence and introduce simplified guidelines that could be introduced in future planning policy.

xxvii.         Recognised the competition between different types of transport mode.

xxviii.         Suggested guidance be provided for developers for new and redevelopment and how this should be approached.

xxix.         Would like to see how some of the consultation responses could be achieved such as cycling all the way into the city centre.

xxx.         A final document should be succinct and sufficient with recommendations that could be applied within the planning framework, easy for developers to understand and apply.

 

In response the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.         Acknowledged there were long term challenges with the tensions highlighted which would be difficult to reconcile for all users of the streets and spaces in the city.

    ii.         The revised documentation would bring insightful and specific detail which addressed comments raised by the public, outside organisations, and the committee.

   iii.         The revised document would be taken to external partners for endorsement and commitment. This would assist the City Council to collectively work through the issues that needed to be addressed for the city to adapt to future requirements.

  iv.         The document sought to apply principles not just to planning decisions but to the wider range of responsibilities that both the City Council and its partners had.

    v.         The ambition would be to bring the revised document to the next meeting so that it could be taken to partner organisations to jointly commit to the core principles. If this were not possible there would feedback and an update provided.

  vi.         Recognised that areas such as heritage, changes to technology and possible legislation which could be captured in the further drafting. 

 vii.         Did not envisage a full round of consultation but moving forwards as the City Council’s partners contemplate further revisions to transport strategy and further activity with the GCP and would consider for the document  what was the most appropriate approach moving forward.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces welcomed all the comments made. Acknowledged the amendment that would have been proposed by Councillor Bick had the recommendation not been amended which would have been endorsed. The following points were then raised:

      i.         To achieve a spatially specific strategy would involve further evidence and study which could include a walking and cycling study; this would highlight some of the tensions that had been raised.

    ii.         Would encourage a programme of works aligned with broader works around the city and surrounding areas. 

   iii.         The revised document would be brought back to the Planning and Committee before wider consultation.

  iv.         Noted the comments of the dwell space and those individuals (including children) with hidden disabilities had to be recognised.

    v.         LTN 1/20

 

The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety in response said:

      i.         It was important that issues such as e-scooters and electric type vehicles were addressed.

    ii.         All comments received both in the meeting and outside of the meeting would be considered.

   iii.         The document needed to be right so if it was not ready for the March meeting, a progress report should be given.

  iv.         The COVID pandemic should be acknowledged and the ongoing effect this had, particularly on working and travel patterns.  

    v.         Needed to address what types of designs could be put in place to address electric vehicles misusing pedestrian space.

  vi.         Highlighted the Mill Road closure was not permanent and would be under review after six months.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to approve the amendment to the recommendation as proposed by the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to approve the amended recommendation.

 

Both the Executive Councillors 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.