For the Cranoraks here are the full minutes of the discussion at CBC's Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 17 January. See my highlights where it refers to the the site being identified for a school at the last moment. We are still trying to drill down to where this last minute change came from. More to the point, if a school is not built, does that mean the land is available for housing? Who put the school in there?
We went through a lengthy site allocations process with the Parish Council eventually backing Central Motors over the airfield on the weight of numbers, three years ago. But there was never any question of a school going in there, at the time. See further below, the minutes of the Parish Council planning committee meeting from November 2009.
-->
We went through a lengthy site allocations process with the Parish Council eventually backing Central Motors over the airfield on the weight of numbers, three years ago. But there was never any question of a school going in there, at the time. See further below, the minutes of the Parish Council planning committee meeting from November 2009.
Agenda item - 17 January 2013
Land Rear of Central Garage, Cranfield, Development Brief
To
consider the draft Development Brief prior to consideration by the
Executive for adoption as technical guidance for Development
Management purposes.
Minutes:
The Head of
Development Planning and Housing Strategy introduced a report that
outlined the development brief for the Land Rear of Central Garage,
Cranfield. An additional paper was also
circulated to the Committee that provided a response to several
issues that had been highlighted at the Chairman’s
Briefing.
In accordance with the
public participation procedure a member of the public was invited
to speak. The speaker raised issues as
Chair of Planning for Cranfield Parish Council including:-
·
Development in Cranfield should be sustainable.
·
Access to the proposed development site from Flitt Leys Close was
insufficient.
·
Access for residential cars.
·
The proposed location of the school was unacceptable.
In
addition to the issues raised by the speaker, Cllrs Matthews and
Bastable raised the following additional concerns:-
·
The potential unsuitability of the proposed school
site subject to a survey that was being undertaken. The delivery of a school on this site would create
issues relating to access. It was noted
that the requirement for a school on this site had only been
identified at the last minute. The
Development Brief was imperfect but it was the best possible option
for this site if the school could not be located on the west side
of the development.
·
The importance of adequate staff parking being made
available on the proposed health centre and school
sites. It was suggested that a lack of
available parking would result in parents using the village hall
car park or parking on the road. The
roads in the area were narrow and the development brief would make
access more difficult. It was noted
that the NHS presently did not have the funding available to
deliver a health centre.
·
Council policy stated that drop-off points would not
be permitted outside of schools, a suitable traffic management
scheme would be required however if a school were provided,
otherwise access would be sub-standard.
·
Although access through Flitt Leys Close was
imperfect the proposed traffic management scheme did go some way to
alleviate concerns.
In
response to the issues raised by the public speaker and other
Members the Committee discussed the following:-
·
The possible inclusion of on/off residential parking
bays during specified hours that would allow normal movement along
the road and use of the footpath. Further guidance was provided to
Members in relation to proposed access/ traffic management
approaches.
·
Whether a development could commence in the
knowledge that it could create problems, specifically in relation
to access to a potential school.
·
The principles of the Council’s adopted
Parking Strategy relating to the number of parking spaces to be
provided per dwelling which had been applied to the development
brief.
·
Problems relating to the readability of the maps
contained in the development brief and it not being clear if those
sections of text highlighted in red were to be included in the
brief or omitted. It was clarified that
those comments highlighted in red were to be included in the
development brief.
The
Committee discussed the possibility of a school being provided on
the site and the impact this would have on safe
accessibility. Members discussed
whether they could recommend the endorsement of the development
brief in light of the uncertainty of the development including a
school and the traffic problems that it could create. It was not clear when the Council would know
whether a school was required but it was noted that potential
traffic management schemes could be discussed at the planning
application stage if it was decided that a school was
required. The Committee also noted that
if the development brief was not adopted by the Council, its
absence would not prevent a planning application coming forward for
a school on the proposed site. Having
an approved development brief in place would give the Council more
control over the development of the site if the school was
necessary.
RECOMMENDED TO EXECUTIVE
1.
That a suitable traffic management
scheme be in place in the event of a new lower school being
provided.
2.
That a single large play space be
provided rather than several small play spaces.
1 November 2009
1.1. PCllr K Matthews
reported upon Site Allocations – Cranfield
Last
week (27th October) the Sustainable Communities Overview &
Scrutiny Committee at Central Beds endorsed recommendations of a specially
constituted Task Group setting out proposals for residential and employment
site allocations in the former Mid Beds area.
You will recall that the LDF Core Strategy was recently
the subject of an Examination in Public, undertaken by a Planning
Inspector. The Inspector has now
published his report and there are two significant implications for
Cranfield. Firstly, Cranfield has
been designated as a Minor Service Centre with a possible allocation of 150-250
dwellings. Secondly, the Village
Settlement Envelope was extended to include the properties at 1&2 High
Street and the immediate curtilage.
I attended and made submissions at two of the three
meetings of the Task Group (and Alan Bastable attended and made submissions at
their first meeting). I drew the
attention of the Task Group to the Parish Council’s response to the Talk to Mid
Beds consultation in 2008 – namely that the Parish Council opposes all further
development in Cranfield.
Nevertheless, the Inspector’s Report clearly indicates that Cranfield
would be expected to receive further development in line with its designation
as a Minor Service Centre. In the
circumstances I deemed it expedient to try to minimise any proposed development
to the lower end of the 150-250 range.
In the circumstances, the Task Group has recommended the following:-
H104
(1&2 High Street) – development of 20-25 dwellings
H040 (Rear of
Central Motors) – development of 100 dwellings and doctors’ surgery
H133
(Rear of High Street) – development of 25-35 dwellings
The Task Group thus supported the development of a total
of approximately 160 dwellings in Cranfield.
In addition, E82 was supported – development of 10ha of
employment land.
The recommendations
will be submitted, firstly, to Central Beds Executive on 10th
November and then to Full Council on 19th November.
No comments:
Post a Comment