To consider the draft Development Brief prior to consideration by the Executive for adoption as technical guidance for Development Management purposes.

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.