Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

No declarations of interest were made.

 

To follow

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2017 would be reviewed in December.

There were no public questions.

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.