<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Dear All,<br><br></div><b>Re:</b> <b><u>Developer plans for the Cambridge <span>Leisure</span> Centre <span>16/0594/FUL</span><span></span></u><span><u> <br><br></u></span></b><b><span></span></b></div></div><div><span>For those wishing to object we have had some helpful advice from Peter Studdert. </span><span><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">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.</span></font> <br></span><br><b><span>
</span></b><p class="MsoNormal"><u><font size="2"><b><span>Policy basis for objections</span></b></font></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Loss of Open Space</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is overwhelmingly the most important policy objection,
supported by the following policies:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">NPPF <span> </span>- para 70 2<sup>nd</sup>
bullet – loss of valued facilities</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:36pt">- para 74 – loss of open space</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2006 Local Plan – Policy 4/2 Protection of Open Space</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Making good use of
open spaces</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">NPPF – para 23 5<sup>th</sup> bullet – Ensuring the vitality
of town centres by, where appropriate, introducing new (street) markets (?)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Poor Design</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The proposal contravenes a number of design policies:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.’</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2006 Local Plan Policies: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:36pt">3/4 Responding to Context</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>3/7
Creating Successful Places</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>3/11 Design
of External Spaces</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>3/12 Design
of New Buildings</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>4/4 Loss of
trees</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2014 Draft Local Plan Policies:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>55 –
Responding to context</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>56 –
Creating Successful Places</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>57 –
Designing New Buildings</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>59 –
Designing Landscape and Public Realm</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>71 – Trees</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">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).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>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.</u> </b><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">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</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.smartertransport.uk/street-parking/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Consolas">http://www.smartertransport.uk/street-parking/</span></a>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Some have requested a paper petition (see attached). It is important to involve local shops and businesses. On-street parking affects them too.<a href="http://www.smartertransport.uk/street-parking/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Consolas"></span></a>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Roger Crabtree Chair Rustat Neighbourhood Association writes</b>:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"> 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.
</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I<br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Best wishes,</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Wendy<br></p>
<br><br><br>Wendy Blythe<br></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Chair, FeCRA<br></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>