[Members] Planning advice re Cambridge Leisure Centre plans; Reminder of Parking Petition

[Wendy Blythe]

Dear All,

*Re:*

*Developer plans for the  Cambridge Leisure Centre 16/0594/FUL *
For those wishing to object we have had some helpful  advice  from Peter
Studdert. He was Director of Planning in the City Council at the time of
the planning applications and building of the Leisure Centre. He lists the
planning policies he thinks contravened. The Open Space policy is key.

*Policy basis for objections*



*Loss of Open Space*

This is overwhelmingly the most important policy objection, supported by
the following policies:

NPPF   - para 70 2nd bullet – loss of valued facilities

- para 74 – loss of open space

2006 Local Plan – Policy 4/2 Protection of Open Space

2014 Draft Local Plan - Policy 67, The whole Leisure Park square is listed
in Appendix C Ref CIV 04 as a Civic Space, and shown as a Protected Open
Space on the Policies Map and Figure 3.11.



*Making good use of open spaces*

NPPF – para 23 5th bullet – Ensuring the vitality of town centres by, where
appropriate, introducing new (street) markets (?)



*Poor Design*

The proposal contravenes a number of design policies:

NPPF – para 64 – ‘Permission should be refused for development of poor
design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the
character and quality of an area and the way it functions.’

2006 Local Plan Policies:

3/4 Responding to Context

            3/7 Creating Successful Places

            3/11 Design of External Spaces

            3/12 Design of New Buildings

            4/4 Loss of trees

2014 Draft Local Plan Policies:

            55 – Responding to context

            56 – Creating Successful Places

            57 – Designing New Buildings

            59 – Designing Landscape and Public Realm

            71 – Trees

73 – Community, Sports and Leisure Facilities – Loss of Facilities (both
the loss of the civic space for leisure activities and the potential
detrimental impact on The Junction as a major cultural facility).



*A reminder of Smarter Cambridge Transport's suggestion of a six-month
trial of city-wide neighbourhood parking schemes, allowing local
communities to choose the most suitable parking controls for each area. *


This is about quality of life, addressing congestion and giving people
choice. You can support this by signing the petition at Cambridgeshire C.
Council's  website

http://www.smartertransport.uk/street-parking/



Some have requested a paper petition (see attached). It is important to
involve local shops and businesses. On-street parking affects them too.
<http://www.smartertransport.uk/street-parking/>



*Roger Crabtree Chair Rustat Neighbourhood Association  writes*:


My Resident’s Association has, for several years, been lobbying the County
Council, for action to be taken on commuter parkers. Vast swathes of the
city have their roads filled early morning to early evening by all day
parkers, who enjoy free parking and walk to work (or in our case the
station). And who could blame them? I would do the same if I were in their
position. But they clog up our streets and add to congestion.



The County Council, till now, have adopted a rigid stance, saying the only
choices are a full residents parking scheme or yellow lines. All our
efforts to get them to take a more flexible stance and include a one hour
parking ban as an option (the favoured solution in our area) have failed.



It is encouraging that Smarter Cambridge Transport are now lobbying for a
city wide approach to all day parkers with local areas being able to choose
from a range of options. This clearly makes sense as the optimum solution
differs per road depending on whether the road is 2, 3 or 4 vehicles wide,
and the availability or otherwise of dropped kerbs. We need a range of
options, not a one size fits all.



I

Best wishes,


Wendy



Wendy Blythe
Chair, FeCRA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fecra.org.uk/pipermail/members_fecra.org.uk/attachments/20160428/b450dfe3/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Basic petition.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 587792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://fecra.org.uk/pipermail/members_fecra.org.uk/attachments/20160428/b450dfe3/attachment-0002.pdf>