Decisions

Matter for Decision

The report sought agreement of the Proposed Submission North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (AAP) that establishes the Councils, policies, and proposals for managing development, regeneration, and investment in North East Cambridge over the next twenty years and beyond.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

      i.         Agreed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (Appendix A1) and Proposed Submission Policies Map (Appendix A2) for future public consultation, contingent upon the separate Development Control Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant being approved.

    ii.         Noted the Draft Final Sustainability Report (Appendix B of the Officer’s report), and Habitats Regulation Assessment (Appendix C of the Officer’s report) and agree them as supporting documents to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) that will also be subject to future public consultation.

   iii.         Agreed the following supporting documents to future public consultation: 

a.         Statement of Consultation, including the Councils’ consideration of and responses to representations received to the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (Regulation 18) consultation 2020 (Appendix D of the Officer’s report) 

b.         Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (Appendix (Appendix E of the Officer’s report) 

c.         Draft Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground (Appendix F of the Officer’s report)

d.         Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix G of the Officer’s report) 

e.         Topic papers (Appendix H of the Officer’s report). 

  iv.         Agreed the findings of the following background evidence documents prepared by the Councils that have informed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany future public consultation: 

a.         Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment (Appendix I1 of the Officer’s report); 

b.         Surface Water Drainage Core Principles (Appendix I2 of the Officer’s report)

c.         Chronology of the feasibility investigations of redevelopment of the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant (Appendix I3 of the Officer’s report).

    v.         Noted the findings of the background evidence documents that have informed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany the public consultation (see Background documents to the Officer’s report)

  vi.         Agreed that any subsequent material amendments be made by the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes, and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning, both in consultation with the Joint Local Planning Advisory Group (JLPAG).

 vii.         Agreed that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic in consultation with Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning.

 

 

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 Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

In response to Member’s comments the Principal Planning Policy Officer, Strategic Planning Consultant and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

 

      i.         As part of the AAP the retail and town centre evidence-based study had been updated, considering the revised development numbers and amendments to the spatial framework.

    ii.         Five local centres had now been proposed rather than the original four.

   iii.         All homes would be within a five-minute walk of the retail centre that would accommodate resident’s day to day needs.

  iv.         The shop policy had been designed to encourage a variety of individual retailers. In total there would be around 107 units available.

    v.         Appreciated that residents would need access to supermarkets and the AAP outlined five food stores to come forward within those centres.

  vi.         Advised that people’s shopping habits had changed with an increase in on-line shopping; were promoting consolidation hubs which would minimise vehicle movements within the APP area.

 vii.         With no onsite secondary school provision, safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes for children to access local schools in the area had been explored.

viii.         Welcomed the redevelopment of the Cambridge Business Park which would include a mix of business, residential and community use.

  ix.         One of the constraints of the Science Park was the lengthy leases that some of the buildings had, if development had been allocated on to those individual plots it would not be possible to demonstrate that the Plan was deliverable within the plan period.

    x.         Envisaged that residential streets in the AAP area would not be a place where vehicles would be parked, and the streets would become part of public life.  

  xi.         Reluctant to place a definition on the term ‘local people’ used in the AAP. However, there was a local connection test used for brownfield sites which could be applicable.

 xii.         Privately managed community facilities were secured with a community use agreement through planning permission which ensured community use. Those facilities also had to remain commercially viable.

xiii.         Affordable housing needed to be truly affordable. Housing officers would assist in setting the correct rent levels.

xiv.         Currently there were provision for three primary schools. Discussions were being held with County Council Officers to rethink how a school building should be designed, moving away from the single storey land hungry element, and becoming multi-functional.

xv.         A secondary school had not been proposed as The County Council forecast did not deem a secondary school necessary in the AAP area. This would also mean those living in the area would integrate more widely with those outside of the area.

xvi.         Secondary schools were incredibly land hungry and expensive to deliver and there would be significant implications on some of the delivery of the AAP should such a school be built.

xvii.         Agreed it was important to understand the delivery of spaces and the quantity of activities that could take place within them.

xviii.         Recognised the significance of the relationship between density, open space and the impact on residents including their mental health.

xix.         Officers had spent large amount of time over a number of years speaking with representatives from the Science Park to discuss how the space could be integrated within the community.

xx.         Acknowledged the comment that the Arcadia development was viewed as ‘insular’ by residents and had engaged with the landowners to ensure that new facilities were much more generous and open. 

xxi.         Noted the concern expressed regarding the amount of formal open space provision.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the following amendment to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through):

 

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

1. Agree the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (Appendix A1) and Proposed Submission Policies Map (Appendix A2) for future public consultation, contingent upon the separate Development Control Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant being approved; 

2. Note the Draft Final Sustainability Report (Appendix B), and Habitats Regulation Assessment (Appendix C) and agree them as supporting documents to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) that will also be subject to future public consultation; 

3. Agree the following supporting documents to future public consultation:  a. Statement of Consultation, including the Councils’ consideration of and responses to representations received to the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (Regulation 18) consultation 2020 (Appendix D);  b. Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (Appendix E);  c. Draft Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground (Appendix F);  d. Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix G);  e. Topic papers (Appendix H). 

4. Agree the findings of the following background evidence documents prepared by the Councils that have informed the North East Cambridge Page 762 Report page no. 3 Agenda page no. Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany future public consultation:  a. Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment (Appendix I1);  b. Surface Water Drainage Core Principles (Appendix I2);  c. Chronology of the feasibility investigations of redevelopment of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant (Appendix I3).

5. Note the findings of the background evidence documents that have informed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany the public consultation (see Background documents to this report); 

 6. Agree that any subsequent material amendments be made by the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes, and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning, both in consultation with the JLPAG; 

7. Agree that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic in consultation with Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning.

1. Defer decisions on the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) and Proposed Submission Policies Map for the shortest feasible period until options of alternative mixes allowing greater on-site achievement of the Local Plan policy standard for formal open space have been considered by members.

The Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development advised the work required to consider the alternative mix of land use and the consultation process would take a further twelve-months to develop and then to engage with statutory consultees.   A delay could create a risk that the Development Consent Order Process would not proceed until the AAP had been agreed which would impact the Local Plan and AAP timetable. The current trajectory for adoption of the Local Plan was that the Plan would be more than five years old. An out of date Local Plan would mean that local polices would be given less weight for planning decisions.

The amendment was lost by 3 votes to 5 votes.

The Committee

The Committee endorsed the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report by 5 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport 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.

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

                  i.       Agreed the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021 (included as Appendix A of the Officer’s report) for publication on the Councils’ websites.

                 ii.       Delegated any further minor editing changes to the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021 to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, including the final designed version of Appendix 3.

 

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 Senior Policy Planner and Principal Planning Policy Officer who in response to Members’ questions said the following:

        i.         The main reason the total number of completions of affordable housing was lower than 40% was that the policy only requires 40% affordable homes on schemes of 15 dwellings or more, a lower requirement of 25% affordable homes applies to schemes of 10-14 dwellings, and there is no requirement for affordable housing on sites with 10 dwellings or less in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

      ii.         It is important to differentiate between permissions and completions when looking at the affordable housing data. A planning permission that secures 40% affordable homes may not complete 40% affordable homes each year, instead the proportion of affordable homes completed on a development will vary each year. 

     iii.         Out of the 850 completions so far at the Eddington site, 686 were affordable, therefore currently at 81% affordable homes. The policy is for 50% affordable homes on this development, and therefore this is what we would expect to see when the scheme is completed.

    iv.         The reference to life expectancy in the city was looked at in terms of general impacts of our policies and therefore is considered at district level.

      v.         The AMR currently looks at delivery of new developments in terms of new homes and new buildings, but can look to include wider information in future, such as delivery of other infrastructure like the bus route through Darwin Green. Also, in terms of transport schemes, the AMR does not provide an update on all schemes, it just highlights those where progress has been made in the monitoring year, which is why the Greater Cambridge Partnership Milton Road Scheme has not been specifically mentioned.

    vi.         With regards to the local centres with below 50% retail, the 6 centres had been referenced on p298 of the Officer’s report.

   vii.         The purpose of the AMR is to look backwards and therefore reports up to April 2021. There is also now an obligation to report on s106 outcomes each year. Neither would pick up outstanding works, but this was something that could be looked at for future reporting.

 

The Committee

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officers recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

Matter for Decision

At the June Planning and Transport meeting, the Executive Councillor approved the undertaking of a review in relation to the Council’s Transport Initiatives. This would include the City Council’s Taxicard Scheme, Cambridge City Bus Subsidies and Cambridge Dial-a-Ride.

 

The review was to have been undertaken working with the Council’s partners including the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) but had been completed without input from the GCP due to resource constraints.

 

The report referred to the recommendations in relation to the review.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

      i.         Approved the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme for Taxicard members to be implemented from 1 April 2022.

    ii.         Agreed to stop the provision of the City Council’s subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus Service from 1 April 2022.

   iii.         Approved the continuation to fund Cambridge Dial-a-Ride with a Grant Agreement for the 2022/23 financial year to the value of £40k.

  iv.         Noted future joined up working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) and the GCP regarding existing City bus subsidies linked with the Bus Service Improvement Plan and City Access projects.

    v.         Continued to approve the Head of Human Resources’ delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning and Transport, and consultation with the Chair and Spokespersons for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any changes that may be necessary to support the transport initiatives and schemes going forward, until such time as a wider decision around the policy and strategy decisions is agreed

 

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 Head of Human Resources and the Corporate Business & Executive Support Manager.

 

The Corporate Business & Executive Manager informed the Committee there was an error in the report at paragraph 3.2, in respect of the times of operation for the Stagecoach Citi 2 and 3 services, in so far as the times not all being shown as a 24-hour clock.  For the Citi 2, ‘1046’ should have read ‘2246’ and for the Citi 3, ‘1032’ as ‘2232’. To confirm, the Citi 3, 2240, 2310 and 2340 departures from Cherry Hinton Tesco run as commercial services.   

 

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Head of Human Resources, the Corporate Business & Executive Support Manager and Executive Councillor said the following:

      i.         In respect of Citi 2 and 3 bus services the times had not been converted to the 24-hour clock.

    ii.         As the Taxicard scheme continues a report should be brought to committee at a later date to provide an update on how the changes to the scheme had met the original aim of increasing Taxicard membership and to feedback on how the scheme was being promoted which to date had included Cambridge Matters and Open Door.

   iii.         The taxi card scheme is relevant to an individual; if there are two members of a family eligible to qualify for a Taxicard they could apply and receive vouchers in their own right.

  iv.         Would hope there would be an increase in the number of individuals using the scheme when the next report was brought to Committee.

    v.         Noted the comment that the budget for the provision of Bus Subsidies would be reduced if the recommendations were approved to stop the provision of the Citi 1 Nightbus.

  vi.         Noted the concern expressed at the equalities audit in relation to the Taxicard scheme which had looked at the scheme in general but did not address what would happen to those individuals who run out of vouchers.

 vii.         Advised that the budget for the Taxicard scheme had been underspent for many years and there was no proposal to cut the budget for this scheme; the vouchers could only be used in the full amount and therefore with the revision of different denominations of voucher value, the option to use as many vouchers per trip and the changes made to the eligibility criteria on the application form would mean greater flexibility for members. 

 

Councillor Porrer proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the following amendments to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through):

 

1. Approve the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme for Taxicard members to be implemented from 1 April 2022 – see 3.1.1.

Defer the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme until a full report of the budgetary context of the reduced value of vouchers provided to eligible participants has been considered by councillors, along with further feedback on how those who will run out of vouchers can be supported, in particular those on lower incomes and with protected characteristics, and a revised Equalities Audit provided which fully notes the survey responses and the reduction in allowance per scheme member.

 

2. Stop the provision of the City Council’s subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus Service from 1 April 2022 – see 3.2.1

Councillor Bick then proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the following amendments to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through):

2(a) Review and decide the future of the subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus only when information on users, costs and contract can be presented for consideration;

2(b) Seek to recover the subsidy paid over the period that the service was not operated and to recommence payments as soon as Stagecoach is prepared to re-start the service. 

3. Continue to fund Cambridge Dial-a-Ride with a Grant Agreement for the 2022/23 financial year to the value of £40k - see 3.3.1.

4. Note future joined up working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) and the GCP regarding existing City bus subsidies linked with the Bus Service Improvement Plan and City Access projects – see 3.4.1

5. Continue to approve the Head of Human Resources’ delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning and Transport, and consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any changes that may be necessary to support the transport initiatives and schemes going forward, until such time as a wider decision around the policy and strategy decisions is agreed.

A vote on was taken on both amendments which was lost by 3 votes to 5 votes. 

The Committee

The Committee endorsed the Officers recommendations by 5 votes to 3 Votes.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport 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.

To agreed the adoption of the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document as amended.

Matter for Decision

The report recommended that the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as amended was adopted, to be used as a material consideration in planning decisions supporting implementation of the adopted Local Plan.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

      i.         Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received and agreed proposed changes to the SPD as set out in the Statement of Consultation (appendix 1 of the Officer’s report).

    ii.         Agreed the adoption the amended Greater Cambridge Biodiversity SPD (appendix 2 of the Officer’s report).

   iii.         Agreed to delegate to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, the Chair and Opposition Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, the authority to make any necessary editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.

 

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 Natural Environment Team Leader.

 

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Natural Environment Team Leader, Nature Conservation Projects Officer, Principal Planning Officer and the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

               i.         Noted the Committee’s positive comments on the statutory 10% and the aspiration of 20% biodiversity.

             ii.         Suggested the SPD could be reviewed at the point of adoption of the new Local Plan; if additional guidance on biodiversity net gain was required at this point this would be an option to explore.

            iii.         One of the challenges writing the SPD had been the changes in national legislation and guidance as the document developed.  These changes would continue to evolve over time; therefore, it was important to note these changes and determine if reassessment would be required as and when. 

           iv.         Confirmed that when scrutinising applications against policy on both large and small sites that biodiversity was being achieved and documented.

             v.         Started to reference best practice with the appropriate links throughout the SPD, however, it was not possible to provide the whole spectrum of solutions that officers advised on individual applications. This would have also increased the length of the SPD; some feedback received during the consultation process was that the document was too lengthy.

           vi.         There was an intention to show best practice on the relevant pages of the city council website rather than in the SPD which meant these pages could be updated regularly.

          vii.         Developments that successfully met the statutory biodiversity had done so with collective conversations with officers and support of the council. As this continued it would be likely the additional ambition of biodiversity would be taken forward.

        viii.         With regard to S106 and offsetting, officers were investigating the possibility of offsite biodiversity net gain where it was not possible to meet onsite biodiversity.

           ix.         The emerging Local Plan was an opportunity to develop and assist with infrastructure contributions towards the delivery of green infrastructure and biodiversity net gain.

               i.         Noted the comment it was important to acknowledge the harm of biodiversity and habitat located on the perimeter of a development site; work should be undertaken through survey data and written into policy the protection of those areas so developers could not build on the boundaries.

             ii.         Officers were working with other local authorities to develop best practice for long term biodiversity through clear extended ownership and cohesive planning.

            iii.         Currently there was little guidance from Central Government on long term biodiversity.

           iv.         It was critical going forward that monitoring for sustainable quality biodiversity was in place; this would emerge from national legislation which the department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) were assembling.  The balance of onsite and offsite biodiversity was complex and was not without challenges.

             v.         There was best practice on biodiversity net gain (the principles could be used when looking at offsite provision) one of which was on good governance, this could be used as an interim while waiting for further Government guidance.

           vi.         There was no reason why the SPD could not be used as a guide to determine if enforcement action should be taken.

          vii.         Noted the request for a report on the progress of policies and long-term net gain term biodiversity.

 

The Committee

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officers recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport 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.

Matter for Decision:	The purpose of this decision is to confirm and approve the Council’s representation to the Public Inquiry on the application by Network Rail made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for the Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements scheme (including the new Cambridge South Station) submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport.   The matter for decision is to confirm the Council’s Statement of Case and to approve the Proof of Evidence reports prepared by three witnesses to appear at the Public Inquiry on behalf of the Council (see documents attached).  The decision is also to give delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to agree a Statement of Common Ground and to agree any planning conditions to be attached to the development with the applicant before or during the course of the Public Inquiry.   The Statement of Case presents the full case for the Council building on the issues raised in the Council’s initial response to the public consultation, and confirming the Council’s position as supporting the scheme in principle, but objecting to matters relating to the use of Hobson’s Park and the proposed exchange land, the impact on trees, the proposals for biodiversity net gain, and other matters requiring submission of further information.   The Proof of Evidence reports have been prepared by the Council’s witnesses and expand on the objections raised in the Council’s Statement of Case which have not been resolved through discussions with Network Rail.  The Statement of Common Ground is envisaged to agree the policy context, the site description and draft planning conditions that have been discussed with officers, and other matters as appropriate.
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	The submission of Proof of Evidence documents is required by 7 January and the Statement of Common Ground should be agreed asap and preferably before the Public Inquiry opens on 1 February.     All documents referenced can be viewed at the link below:  https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13492
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	To confirm and approve the following documents, namely: the Statement of Case representing the City Council’s representations to the Public Inquiry examination of the above proposal and the Proofs of Evidence of Charlotte Burton, Alistair Wilson and Guy Belcher with delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to secure any non-substantive amendments to the Proofs of Evidence which are considered to be appropriate and necessary.   To delegate to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development: (i) authority to agree the Council’s case with respect to the proposals at the forthcoming examination and to facilitate the delivery of that case, including but not limited to agreeing and settling the Statement of Common Ground; (ii) settle the  draft planning conditions to be included in the planning permission; (iii) negotiate and settle the heads of terms for any necessary planning obligations under s106 (or any modification under s106A in respect of any existing planning obligation) of  the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and (iv) to complete any deed settled under 2(iii).
Reasons for the decision:	To ensure that Cambridge City Council’s interests are effectively represented at the Examination
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokespersons of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee and the Chair and Spokespersons of the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee were consulted on this matter.
Report:	Statement of Case and Proof of Evidence reports (3).
Conflicts of interest:	None known.
Comments:	Comments were received from Councillor Bick Lib Dem Spokes who had requested the points below were considered.   ·       We feel that the BNG of 10% is really insufficient in this situation especially because some of what is proposed is not on/near site and experienceable by those using the area and other is proposed as via green roofing/walls which few believe is durable over time. Can the submissions be flexed to incorporate this aspiration? ·       There is dissatisfaction with the intended layout of the station itself whereby taxi ranking and car drop-off is positioned far closer to the terminal building and more obviously than bus stops and bike parking. We think it is inevitable that the station will not only be used for the CBC as a destination, but by others who live in or want to access a much wider area of the city and beyond. For this reason, it does not seem so obvious that the design should assume the hierarchy that it does. Can the council’s objection be broadened to include this point? ·       Given the desire to constrain incremental vehicle space at the station, can a marker be put down in these representations which might facilitate a requirement for developer contributions to resident parking schemes in surrounding areas?    The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development responded direct to Councillor Bick.   No further comments were made.