Councillors meet Network Rail

Last night at a well attended meeting, three Network Rail representatives (covering commercial development and project management) talked to Councillors and Council officers about their plans for Cambridge Station.

The good news is that Network rail (or rather the government via network rail) is investing £17m in a new Island platform for Cambridge station - the main motivation being to support 12 carriage trains to help relieve overcrowding on the routes to London.

The main elements of the plan are to remove two of the underused lines at the station and to create a new island platform, approx 250m long and 9m wide in their place, with a track and platform on either side (to be called platforms 7 and 8). They are also planning a new footbridge to the island, from just north of the current station building (this seems to be the only place they can make it work). As well as supporting longer trains, the new platform will reduce problems with manoevering trains around the station, so could support more frequent services in future.

The plans could move forward quite quickly - Network Rail intend to seek planning permission next month - they don't usually need permission to develop on railway land, but do in this case as the station is a listed building. Construction would take 5-6 months next year - with small numbers of closures to the line hopefully coinciding with other engineering works. The new platform is planned to open on 12th December 2011, to coincide with the new winter timetable.

Less good news is that Network Rail really don't seem to understand just how many cycles use Cambridge station. We are in a unique situation nationally in terms of the high levels of cycle usage in the city, and failure to support journeys involving cycling and rail adequately (through lack of cycle parking and lack of support for bikes on trains) is holding back further takeup of cycling. If Network Rail doesn't get this right and lots of people go back to using their cars to get to the station, all commuters would suffer from increased congestion and longer journey times around the city.

Network Rail admitted they were using standard models for passenger movements through the station (to identify where the 'pinch points' like the booking office will be as passenger numbers increase), without taking specific account of the high levels of bike movements at Cambridge station. Their proposed footbridge is also a standard modular design that would require bikes to be carried up steps or put into small lifts. Along with other Councillors, I made the point that the new footbridge would need to be designed specifically to cope with high volumes of bikes and make it easy for people to cross the line with their bike. They have promised to let us have more details about their modelling of passenger movements for use of the new platform, and will have been left in no doubt that they need to rethink the footbridge. Councillors also urged Network Rail to work on this issue with Cambridge Cycling Campaign. It would be interesting to know how stations in places like Holland are setup to support cyclists...

Another topic of discussion was how a new entrance to the station could be created from the Coleridge side of the station. I support access to the station from this part of Coleridge, as long as it is mainly for pedestrians and cyclists - it would clearly need to be accompanied by some measures to stop commuter parking.

The area of land east of station is currently underused - mostly for the train washer, and the rail authorities are working on a longer term plan to redevelop this area all the way up to Mill Road. I would like to see a new Eastern access earlier than waiting for complete redevelopment of the area, but there are two problems - getting across the line next to the new platform 8, and the train washer (which apparently could cost over £1m to move elsewhere!). Hopefully network rail are going to think about possible solutions to this.

Finally, Coleridge Conservatives have been calling for much better communication from Network Rail about their plans for some time - it has taken a long time from when I first started asking Network Rail for a meeting for this meeting to be setup. I hope that in future they can be much more proactive in engaging both with locally elected representatives and the wider public about their plans to develop the railway network in Cambridge. I would like to see a new station at Chesterton, and the Chisholm Trail cycle route taken forwards. If the local Councils could find a way to raise funding for projects such as these (perhaps from existing developer contributions for transport), combined with funding from other sources, e.g. the government or train operating companies, these projects could happen earlier and issues like cycling facilities considered much earlier in the design process - all of this will require better channels of communication between all relevant groups, so hopefully yesterdays meeting was just the beginning.

Station Bus Interchange takes shape

The County Council held a briefing meeting today to update Councillors on latest plans for the new bus interchange at the station.

Progress is being made - the current plan is for the whole of the station area south of Station Road to be developed by the end of 2012 - a planning application for the bus interchange should be brought forward in May. There is some urgency as the County Council has secured £4.5m of grants to develop the bus interchange and new bus link road to Hills Road, and the money must be spent soon.


View Larger Map

The good news is that this should bring significant transport improvements to the area:

- a new bus and cycle road from the Brooklands Avenue junction on Hills Road to the bus interchange
- a new bus interchange that will double the bus stop capacity at the station
- numerous new pedestrian and cycle routes in and through the site south of station road.

The details of the new bus interchange appear to be high quality, with good materials, and features such as real time bus information.

But my view remains that the station area plans are a wasted opportunity. The bus interchange will be surrounded close by on both sides by high density student accommodation - if nothing else it effectively rules out indefinitely using the station area as a significant new bus station due to space constraints - the whole area looks quite cramped - a problem that will be exacerbated when the new trees planned for the area mature. I fear it is too late now to change this.

In other developments, I have been trying to arrange a meeting with Network Rail to discuss a range of railway related transport projects - the City Council are currently taking this forward and trying to arrange a meeting for Councillors focusing on plans for a new island platform - giving local people a say in how these plans develop remains a key objective.

What next for the station area?

View Larger Map

A period of exciting changes to the station area are planned for the future, that could be vital to transport infrastructure for the City.

To the west of the station, the Council finally signed off the s106 agreement for the CB1 development at a recent planning meeting. This gives the development permission to go ahead. We have blogged previously on the merits of the scheme as a whole, but the arguments go on about the financial viability of the whole scheme, what the Council knew about the previous developers Ashwells financial problems, and why even now their is a risk that only parts of the development will be built (like the student accommodation that appears to be most profitable), with some of the vital transport infrastructure never being built. The recent serious fire affecting listed buildings on the site only clouded the situation further.

But independently of the CB1 development, network rail has plans for the Coleridge side of the site. They would like to build a central platform, that will open up a range of options for accessing the station from Coleridge. They also have a vacant site that appears to be ripe for development, and could provide much needed housing in an area that is well served by transport links.

Further afield, we understand development of the former Cambridge Water site on Rustat Road could be about to be picked up again, and there is scope for improvements to the Leisure park.

What is the Conservative approach to the station and leisure park area?
Firstly, public consent - we need meaningful dialog with local residents before decisions are taken.

Second, we need high quality development - in such a key strategic part of the city, we must have a very high quality built environment. The Travelodge on the Leisure Park clearly fails this test - we mustn't make the same mistake with other sites.

Finally, we must develop the best possible transport links - and this means getting the agreements right when granting planning permission, and making sure developments are viable with the improvements to transport that must be provided to make the developments work without putting local residents in Coleridge to any greater inconvenience than they are already from problems such as commuter parking .

What are we doing about this?
I spent considerable time with network rail trying to setup a meeting to discuss a range of issues of public interest - what are their plans for a second platform? how will it connect to the main platform? How will it link to Coleridge? Will they help improve cycle parking at the station? Will they support the Chisholm Trail that could significantly improve cycle links from our ward?  What are their plans for the vacant sidings? How can the public get involved? After emails with many people with 'communications' in their job title, I was no nearer speaking to anyone who actually had a meaningful role in decision making in these areas, and have asked the Director of Planning at the City Council to try setting up a meeting. It appears network rail, whilst enjoying all sorts of statutory protections and operating in many respects like a public body, operates outside of any type of democratic scrutiny. This needs to change!

We will be keeping up the pressure on the planning system at the Lib Dem run City Council - it isn't delivering quality, and we fear the station agreements will turn out to be a terrible deal for taxpayers - who have already funded much of the site through the bank bailouts prior to Ashwell's going bust, and who are now likely to pay for a lot of the transport infrastructure on the site as well. Our planning policies need to change, to ensure a quality build environment is not an unaffordable luxury after all the Council's other requirements have been met. Our planning policies also need to support and encourage better transport infrastructure, particularly on key sites like the station area.

Last week I also met with the owners of the Cambridge Leisure Park, along with other local Councillors. We pressed the case for better usage of the site, and talked about some of the transport issues - like how to encourage leisure park users into the multi storey car park rather than surrounding roads, and how to improve access to the site from the station area. I support some type of bridge (and/or possibly a connection to the new platform) - I could never understand why the Lib Dems allowed this to be taken out of the original planning permission for the Leisure Park in the first place...

Ashwell's discussed at East Area Committee

The topic of Ashwells and the station redevelopment was discussed at East Area committee last night - amidst the concerns I have already raised that the transport improvements forming part of the scheme are now at risk - in particular the issue of cycle parking. I thought it was quite a successful meeting, we agreed to summon the Director of planning to our next meeting so we can question what the transport situation is now, and to request that the section 106 agreement is reviewed in light of the administration of Ashwell's.

I wouldn't normally respond to posts on other partys' blogs but Lib Dem Cllr Nichola Harrison has taken my comments made last night and misrepresented them in such an amusingly ridiculous way I can't resist.

As much as I enjoy, on occassions like last night's East Area committee, hearing Cllr Harrison's explanations of 'how things really are' and how with her great knowledge she is able to 'correct' my misunderstandings, I see the situation rather differently.

She says on her blog: "Chris Howell’s diatribe last night was based on the strange reasoning that the system is a tax and is therefore unfair on developers."

Firstly on the question of what s106 payments are.

If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, I tend to call it a duck, even if other people insist on calling it something else.

In this case s106 agreements result in money or value that developers have to pay to the local authorities in order to get planning permission on a new development. Thats why I call it a developers tax.

To correct the biggest error in Cllr Harrison's blog post. No, I don't want to see this system completely abandoned with all developer payments stopped, just recognised for what it is, and for the Council to therefore act accordingly so we can start having the type of new developments people want and would welcome.

My argument is that if you accept the system is a tax, the Council will stop treating it like free money that no-one has to pay for (apart from developers of course who don't really count), and start considering both the economic effects of the Council's demands on developers and what this means for people who have to put up with the pokey overpriced rabbit hutches and inadequate transport infrastructure that results from our current broken planning system.

The suggestion that s106 agreements are purely there to mitigate the effects of a new development as Cllr Harrison claimed last night is laughable when you see what happens in practice - it is a system whereby the Councils' try to extract as much of the uplift in value from a developer being granted planning permission because they can, and don't seem to have any sense or scrutiny of whether the taxpayer gets good value for money from this huge tax burden. If these payments really are vital to mitigate the effects of development, why has the Council been busy renegotiating them over the last few months?

The fact is that new development has got into a vicious cycle, aided by local Councils, of which Lib Dem run Cambridge is a prime example - and it is going to take something dramatic to get us out of this.

• People see how horrible many new developments are so seek to oppose them (it doesn't help that the history of new house building in the UK for decades has been littered with hideousness)
• Planning permission is therefore hard to come by, so the uplift in value of the land when it is granted is significant (and the house prices in the free market are extortionate - yes Nichola, the other big error in your blog post, it is not big business, it is the ordinary people looking to buy market houses in and around Cambridge that are paying for all this nonsense)
• The Council through the s106 system has the power to tax this uplift in value, sees it as free cash so tries to extract as much of this uplift as it can, to spend on all sorts of things - 40% so called 'affordable housing' being one of the biggest costs for developers.
• Developers then need to extract as much value as possible from their open market housing, so don't allocate sufficient physical space for public open space and transport links, and build private sector housing to a low spec, with poor design and poor materials.
• The Council meanwhile thinks that community facilities are only things that Council's run, like community centres and libraries, and don't even think about providing things like a local shop or a local pub - nor do they necessarily think about the ongoing revenue implications of the things they spend their one-off capital payments from developers on. (Orchard Park springs to mind)
• The result is new developments that are hideous - and the cycle starts all over again.

The whole system has been even more broken over the last few years, as property valuations have been based on what effectively was a pyramid scheme, bearing no relation to underlying value, rather values inflated by the prospect of someone else coming along willing to pay even more than you have just paid, thanks to a buy to let mortgage fraudulently obtained from a now bankrupt bank. But the Councils were still lapping it up, and ramping up the s106 shopping lists for schemes getting approval, such that now the inevitable crash has happened, developments like Northstowe are on hold, Ashwells has gone bust, and developers around the city are seeking to renegotiate what were previously claimed to be vital payments. In other words, we are still in a high demand area for housing, there are sites available ready to go, and the Council's demands are stopping development from happening - it is a tragic irony that Council demands for affordable housing are probably doing most to keep housing unaffordable for the vast majority of the local population.

The Conservatives have proposed a different way (see policy green papers 9 - Control Shift, returning power to local communities, and 10 Stong foundations, building homes and communities) - s106 type taxes clearly won't go completely, but there will be less interference from government over how developments occur, with control passed to local residents, and local incentives for new development. Hopefully developers will start to focus on what people want, rather than what Councils want, and we can see high quality new developments around Cambridge, with appropriate transport that are welcomed by local residents.

Ashwell's Goes Bust - what now for the Station Area redevelopment

The Cambridge Evening News is reporting that Ashwells, developer for the CB1 station area redevelopment, has gone bust. It is as yet unclear what impact this will have on the development plans, but it seems inconceivable that it won't delay things, if not changing the plans more radically.

I commented at the time the application was approved on how much faith the Councils had put in this application from an early stage, and how much they had at stake in terms of meeting their transport infrastructure objectives - so this is yet another fiasco for the Lib Dems running the planning system in Cambridge.

Now it has failed, we need answers to how this transport infrastructure will be provided - not least the very urgent problem of cycle parking which is an absolute disgrace (bike finally released after 3 days - no thanks to the station authorities or the police).

I have just written to the Director of Planning at the City Council:

"Following the financial collapse of Ashwell's reported in the CEN, I would appreciate an urgent update on the Council's current assessment of the impact this will have on the transport infrastructure elements of the project, and in particular the multi-storey car park and increase in cycle spaces. I would describe the latter situation as a crisis, and one that reflects very poorly on Cambridge as a cycling city. Cambridge Cycle Campaign are due to hold a meeting this week to discuss this problem and it really now needs urgent action."

UPDATE: Not sure what Council officers are doing answering emails from Councillors late on Sunday evening, but I've had a reply back already indicating that the latest news isn't expected to be a problem "I believe the announcement last week actually brings the prospect of the scheme forward rather than making it less likely." Have to say I'm a little sceptical at that suggestion...

Grrrr....

There is something very wrong with this picture. On the right is my bike (the battle bike). Amazingly when I got to the station at 5pm on wednesday, there was a spare rack for me to lock it to. When I returned at midnight, the bike on the left had appeared, locked to the rack through my frame, leaving my bike 'kebabed', unable to be moved.

Thursday morning, offending bike still there - and I get a rare insight into the world of bus travel in Cambridge. Thursday afternoon - offending bike still there. Even more remarkable - a British Transport police office was on hand to ask what I could do.

His manner gave every impression of someone who has been asked this a number of times before, I wasn't going to like the answer, and he didn't particular like the answer he was giving either.

Basically, the rules have recently changed, and neither the police nor station staff will help remove the offending bike, for fear it could be deemed 'criminal damage'. He suggested I ask the station supervisor, and put in a complaint - he also suggested I point out the bike to him so he could let his colleagues know 'what is going on'.

Inside, the supervisor confirmed a rule change, and insisted there was nothing they could do, and I should just wait for the offending bike to move.

This situation if frankly ridiculous. The sign clearly indicates that there are powers to remove bikes causing problems, I suspect they just couldn't be bothered coming up with a proper procedure that will involve storing the removed bikes. If they really are worried, they could change the sign to say something even more obvious like 'permission to park your bike here is conditional on you not locking other peoples bikes - if you lock your bike in these racks such that other bikes are disabled, we reserve the right to remove your bike to storage at the owners cost' or something similar that their lawyers will like.

The whole situation with station cycle parking makes Cambridge look like a joke when it comes to supporting cyclists - the root cause of the problem is the woeful lack of spaces. With the CB1 redevelopment some way away (if ever with the current economic mess), they need to take urgent measures to increase cycle parking.

A letter of complaint will be on its way, and if I can't get my bike back today, I will be along with some boltcutters later (unless anyone has any better ideas...)

Station Area thoughts

After speaking at the Station Area planning meeting yesterday morning, I sat through almost the whole day, but had to leave just before the decision was made around 7pm. Although I wasn't surprised to hear the result - I had predicted the result and who would vote which way in early afternoon.

Personally, I am very disappointed with this decision. The scale of development proposed with its lack of on-site parking is going to cause chaos for car parking in Coleridge, and I think traffic levels generally in Tenison Road and Hills Road will prove to be a problem.

This is also a missed opportunity, and will leave future generations with very little to show in terms of open space and space for transport interchange. It effectively precludes the bus station ever being moved to the station from Drummer Street. And whilst cyclists have more spaces available, they may turn out to be less than happy that they will now be further from the station entrance.

It was an eye-opener to see how such a major application was effectively forced through the planning process. From a very early stage, officers at the City and County Councils had clearly decided that after the wholly inappropriate previous application this application was a 'flier', and all stops were taken out to try making the application acceptable with numerous meetings and discussions behind closed doors between Council officers and developers. The Councils had good policy reasons to want this application to succeed - the area desperately needs redevelopment, and be in no doubt there will be major improvements to transport infrastructure as a result. Not to mention the shopping list of other goodies the Council will insist the developers pay for as part of the permission - new CCTV systems in the area, £1.5m for public art, £1.3m cash in lieu of the lack of open space, contributions towards education, £3m for the Guided Bus, the truly astonishing cost to the developer of providing nomination rights to the Council for a small number of subsidised rental homes etc etc - in the context of the City Council (and even the County Council), these are big sums of money, all effectively a form of tax, all agreed by officers prior to going through a democratic scrutiny committee - in contrast at other times Councillors spend hours discussing a few hundred pounds for environmental improvements at meetings like the East Area Committee.

How I thought planning applications were supposed to work is the application is made, the City and Council Council officers provide a generally independent view on whether the application satisfies the multitude of relevant planning policies providing advice during the course of the application. During the meeting itself, planning committee members review the application and come to their own personal decision as to whether or not it is acceptable. But in this case, the advice of the City and County officers is in no way shape or form independent - there was just too much at stake for the policy objectives of these organisations, and objectivity of the advice was seriously at risk. It is arguable that the Councils took an iterative approach until something acceptable was in place, after which the Councils were effectively campaigning on behalf of the applicants to get the decision through.

I don't know if the Lib Dem members of the committee had discussed the application before the meeting and expressed opinions as to whether or not it might be acceptable. But it was a remarkable co-incidence about how the members split on the final vote. And the applicants certainly looked quite relaxed all day! Personally, I am concluding that yesterdays decision was in fact a party political decision, that could well have been made some time ago, but who knows. In a way, if the officers had been allowed to effectively negotiate with developers and present the application in the way it was without agreement in principle from the ruling group, I would be even more worried about how the democracy of the this decision worked.

So I would like to congratulate Ashwells all those involved at the City and County Councils - a tremendous amount of work has gone into this major planning application, and the dilligence and professionalism of the officers will doubtless have resulted in numerous changes to this application for the better, and, credit-crunch permitting, Cambridge can look forward to a significantly improved transport interchange. But I can't help remaining disappointed at what this application could have been.

We look forward to seeing the detailed planning applications for specific buildings that Ashwell’s brings forward, and in view of the credit crunch, when they will be looking to make this development happen.

Station Area Application Accepted

The city council's planning committee accepted the 'cb1' station area redevelopment application shortly before 7pm.

The vote was 6-2 in favour.

The two votes against were by the only two opposition councillors and were on the following grounds from Cambridge's Local Plan:

• Insufficient open areas and recreational spaces
• Urban design criteria
• Co-ordinated development
• Impact on conservation area
• Mixed and balanced community considerations

More later...

Station Area Planning Application Decision Meeting in progress

The planning meeting for the station area redevelopment is currently at lunch. The objectors, applicants and local ward councillors (including myself) have had their say – I reiterated my objections to the scheme, raising concerns about the lack of public open space, and the traffic and parking problems that the large scale of the development would cause.

Members of the planning committee are now going through the various aspects of the plans, questioning officers on the detail of the application, and some sceptical points are being made by the planning committee.

Cllr Hipkin made his usual rant about lack of family homes planned for the development. Usually this is a valid criticism, and one I would support. However in a central business district close to the station, it is difficult to think of an application where this criticism is less appropriate.

There are concerns being raised about the transport effects, and about how sufficient the transport interchange will be. There is also a very good point that the applicants are being expected to foot the lion share of the bill for the station transport exchange, when this is a key bit of public infrastructure that arguably should have much greater contributions from the County Council, the Government, Network Rail and the bus companies. This to my mind is a very important point as commercial viability of the scheme is being used as a reason for requiring the very high density and lack of open space.

But it is still early, and the decision could go either way!

Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives the power to literally anyone to request information (with limitations) from public authorities and there is an obligation for authorities to respond within 20 working days.

Today I submitted an FOI request to the county council to discover what communication took place between the council and the applicant in the course of assessing the traffic implications for the CB1 station area redevelopment plan.

The traffic assessment is supposed to be an analysis by the transport authority, the county council, of a planning application being put before the planning authority, the city council. It seems that in this case the county's consultants, Atkins, were working with the developer to ensure that the plan would be acceptable.

Coleridge Conservatives are concerned that this relationship might render the traffic impact analysis insufficiently independent. We hope that the FOI response, when it comes, will shed light on the extent of interworking.

The progress of my FOI request can be tracked on the excellent WhatDoTheyKnow? website - one of the many really useful open source tools from mySociety for improving democratic scrutiny and empowerment.

Meeting Delay Call rejected

The City Council is has rejected calls for the Ashwell's planning meeting to be delayed, saying:

The Council policy is to make committee reports available to the public at least five full working days before a committee and this has been done in relation to the CB1 scheme (in fact the report was published a day early on Tuesday, 7 October). I appreciate that the main report is lengthy (156 pages) but this is not unusual for a major scheme of this type. Indeed reports on matters such as the local plan tend to be lengthier. The report is structured in such a way to make it easy to locate topics so that if a member of the public has a particular concern then a topic can be readily located in the report.

The Council has made considerable efforts to allow the public to be briefed and to make representations on the CB1 scheme. A series of public meetings and Development Control Fora have been held over recent months. The report sets out all the representations made during this extended process.

In view of these considerations, I believe that the City Council has followed its own policy and set out all therelevant considerations for the Planning Committee so that a decision can be made at the scheduled meeting on 15 October.

I have the feeling this is their final word on the matter...

Call for Meeting delay

I have written to the Council today to ask that the planning meeting scheduled for 15th October to look at the Ashwell's CB1 station area redevelopment application should be delayed.

It has become clear following the public meeting on Tuesday to discuss the transport implications that there simply hasn't been enough time for the public to digest the huge volumes of information, some of which has only been available at a very late stage, and to comment on the final amendments that were only submitted by Ashwell's. These were only finalised at the end of September and are yet to be subject to a formal public consultation period.

Transport Assessment for Station Area Redevelopment

There were some astonishing claims repeated at the public meeting last night about the county's traffic impact assessment for the CB1 station area redevelopment. Chris Howell, Richard Normington and I were all present to help scrutinise the report. Considering the short notice for the meeting it was very well attended.

The central claim is that there will be "only a modest increase in vehicular traffic (16%)" on account of the restricted opportunities for parking - there would be one fewer parking spaces after the redevelopment! When quizzed about this figure (since the baseline figures used were questionable) the consultant admitted that the real figure was more like 35%, although apparently even a report by the developer, Ashwell, suggests that it would be 65%.

I questioned the validity of the report's assumption that car usage could be suppressed simply by having severe restrictions on parking within the development and asked for examples of any other developments that had such limited provision for parking. The consultant had nothing to say on this point - the assumption is essentially justified by assertion.

I also asked why the report does not include any analysis of the likely extent of overspill parking in Coleridge on and around Rustat Road. The response was effectively that reactive work could be considered on consulation with residents after the development has gone ahead but that this did not need further consideration at this stage.

The transport assessment has clearly failed here - its very naive assumptions about how easy it is to limit car use may well suggest that the development would be self-contained but no evidence has been presented as to how this development would be different from any other in that regard.

Despite its flawed assumptions, the report is otherwise quite thorough, and to be fair, it is suggested that the extra vehicular traffic that is conceded will not manifest itself at the peak times and so will not be such a problem.

This transport assessment forms part of the report to the central planning committee of the City Council which will consider the CB1 application on Wednesday 15th October at 9.30am in the Long Room at New Hall.

Chris Howell asked how independent the traffic impact assessment process had been from the applicant's drawing up of the plans and it was revealed that there had been an iterative process between the two parties. While this approach may have seemed like a practical solution for saving time and effort by all we are worried that the council officers and their consultants may unintentionally become inclined to compromise their assessment as a consequence of being involved in the development of the plans.

Station Area Public Meeting

As hoped, the Council is holding a public meeting to discuss the transport elements of the station area redevelopment plans.

The briefing by officers of the County Council on the transport implications of the Ashwell proposals for CB1 will be held on Tuesday, 7 October 2008, 1900-2130 hours, at Main Hall, Hills Road Sixth Form College, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 8PE

There will be an opportunity for questions after the presentation.

The short notice is due to the decision being considered by the Planning Committee of the City Council on 15 October. The Committee meeting will be held in the Long Room at Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall), Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DF and will start at 0930 hours. This is also a public meeting, see here for more details of the (limited) public speaking rights.

D Day for Station Area redevelopment

The planning application for the CB1 Station Area Redevelopment will be considered at a special meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 15 October 2008 at a venue to be confirmed.

The City Council's website will be updated with this information as soon as possible.

Another Piece in Station Area Jigsaw

Another piece has been put in place for Ashwell's mega station area planning application, as the County Council Transport team has published its response to the application. As the local highway authority, it has a duty to look at the plans and assess if the impact on the local highway network is acceptable. More details are published here (towards the bottom of the page), In summary, I looks like the County Council believes the application is OK on highways grounds.

I spent yesterday afternoon with other Councillors listening to Atkins, the County Council's consultants on how they came to this conclusion. The application will see significant improvements to several junctions, including a new bus/cycle access road from the Brooklands Avenue junction, and resiting of the war memorial to improve the Station Road/Hills Rd junction. But a key factor in the County's conclusion is Ashwell's decision to severely restrict car parking spaces on site, which it is believed will reduce car traffic to the site. Overall, the effect of the plans in terms of increased daily journeys to buildings on the site is expected to be as follows:

Vehicle movements (mostly cars) Up 17% from 3,212 to 3,749

Cyclist movements Up 192% from 3,145 to 9,199

Pedestrian movements Up 556% from 1,322 to 8,666

Public transport passengers (excluding rail) Up 173% from 2,112 to 5,757

With total movements up 180% from 9,791 to 27,371.

In other words, with the high development density planned for the site, journeys to/from the site will rocket, but only a tiny part of the increase will come from car movements. Frankly I'm sceptical. The wholly erroneous claim that the station area is surrounded by controlled parking zones so car parking won't be displaced to neighbouring area was again made - this completely ignores Coleridge ward across the bridge, a large part of which is a short walk from the site - it could end up being renamed 'Ashwell's car park ward'. But new development with so few parking spaces is untried, and there will be severe pressure from users of new buildings particularly the offices. Existing car parks are currently lightly used - in the new development every square inch of parking space allowed by the planners will be full. I also think there will be significant unmodelled traffic movements from people being dropped off to offices on the site. So despite this new report, I see no reason to withdraw my objection to the application.

The work that has gone into this report is significant, with lots of experimental work and modelling, but as in any work of this nature, as noted above there will be some key assumptions made that could be seen as controversial. I support calls for a further public meeting to discuss the implications of this traffic report before the planning application is decided (pencilled in for an October planning meeting). This issue is just too important for Cambridge, we need to give some real scrutiny to these plans. And on the topic of scrutiny, the multi-million pounds of spending that the Council demands from planners like Ashwells in so-called s106 agreements shouldn't be just left to Council officers to agree with developers - these agreements are really a form of taxation, and in view of their importance should also be subject to democratic scrutiny by Councillors.

Station Area Comments

Prior to the deadline for comments last week, I have submitted the following comments on the amended Station Area planning application for Ashwell's CB1 scheme:

I am writing to object to the above (revised) planning application.
The essence of the objection is that the density of the proposed
redevelopment for the whole site (in terms of total sq ft of
floorspace) is too high, with the following adverse consequences:

1. Lack of sufficient public open space. The area dedicated to public
open space generally, and the new station square specifically is
insufficient.

This is particularly important for this application in view of the
need for space in station square for a transport interchange, coupled
with the need for an area suitable for welcoming visitors to the City,
and providing facilities appropriate to waiting for and accessing
transport.

If we do not get this right now, and require extra space for transport
in the future in the station square, it will not be possible to extend
the square with the buildings proposed.

A commuted sum in lieu of sub-standard public open space would not be
acceptable in this instance. The space is needed in this area, and
there is already considerable unspent s106 funds available in the City
for public open space from other schemes and other developers, so it
is unclear how a commuted sum could be used to increase public open
space elsewhere or even be used at all sensibly.

2. Height of the proposed buildings is out of character with the area
and Cambridge generally, and will dominate the skyline.

3. The high density increases the number of people that need to access
buildings on the site, so will add to the traffic management problems
of the site.

The suggestion that severely limiting car parking will control car
access to the site may prove to be naive, and will add to already
significant parking problems in Coleridge ward, particularly in the
Rustat Rd area. To mitigate this, if permission is granted, I would
request conditions or agreements are made to ensure the developers
will fund and implement consultations with residents and parking
control measures if appropriate to reduce the problems for Rustat Rd
area residents.

Whilst I believe the high density will have an unacceptable impact on
car traffic levels in the area, if the application is accepted, I
believe these impacts can and should be mitigated by further
improvements and access to the site for sustainable transport such as
cycling and pedestrians. The connection from Carter bridge needs to be
quick and convenient. I am concerned that the cycle parking proposed,
whilst a significant improvement on current levels may still prove to
be inadequate and fail to support future demand. Also, the cycle
parking should all be at ground level and as near to the entrances as
possible. Finally, to encourage non-car access to the site, I believe
a new pedestrian and cycle bridge should be built as a condition of
the application to connect the Leisure Park area to the station area
more directly than the already overcrowded Hills Road Bridge.

Other issues and comments:
Management - That acceptability of the plans will depend crucially on
management of the site going forwards. Assurances from the applicant
that they will manage relevant parts of the site themselves so far as
is possible should be backed up by appropriate planning conditions. In
particular, I am concerned about the usage of student accommodation
during the summer holidays, and how problems experienced elsewhere
with a succession of short term occupants of the accommodation over
the holiday period can be avoided. There also needs to be stingent
conditions to reduce noise concerns from the student accommodation,
and strong enforcement on prohibitions of car ownership by students.

I have serious concerns about the appropriateness of the 'modernist'
design vision implied in the application supporting documents to date.
Design should be distinctive, high quality, with exceptional quality
of materials and construction, to reflect the high profile of the
area, but must be consistent with the architectural heritage of the
City of Cambridge (which is not the City of London).

On the plus side, this is an area that desperately needs
redevelopment, and I welcome the proposed improved transport access to
the site in general (without commenting on the specific details of the
implementations proposed) in so much as the application provides
additional access to the area, both for cars and cyclists, strongly
support the increased number of cycle spaces, and recognise that the
application as it stands is a significant improvement in terms of the
transport interchange at the station site.

Spinning the Station Development

When I wrote that final amendments had been submitted by Ashwells, the developer behind the proposed CB1 station redevelopment, I was certainly a bit confused by what had actually happened.

The notification to Councillors of the amendments did not appear to amount to much in terms of scale - the biggest change being a proposed northern access road to the site. So it was surprising to say the least to read the spin in the local papers - final amendments had been submitted, and the plans had been scaled back 25%, implying those final amendments had significantly reduced the scale of the development.

In fact, nothing of the sort had occured. The first Ashwells planning application a year or two ago had been for a huge overdevelopment of the site, and was rejected by a Cambridge record number of planning reasons for refusal. A new application was submitted earlier this year, with a reduction of around 25% in building floor area, that Ashwells are currently trying to get through the planning process. The latest 'final' (although they probably won't be) amendments that were the basis of the stories in the local press did not make significant changes to floor space from the original resubmission earlier this year.

I would be very interested to know how the local press came up with its spin that the 'final amendments' represented a huge reduction in scale. If I was being cynical, this could be one of the oldest tricks in the book. Submit an application for a really gross overdevelopment of the site that is soundly rejected, then significant reductions in scale can be made sounding like a huge compromise, when in fact it is still more than the site should have.

What do I think of the application? I am not going to be making the decision on the planning committee, so am free to make my views known. (Cue repeat of my rant about Area Committees)

This still looks like an overdevelopment of the site to me.

The open space element is less than the City Council's planning standards require, and the proposal is for the developers to pay a 'commuted sum' to the Council, to spend on open space elsewhere in the City to compensate for this. Except the Council already has almost £4m in the bank for formal and informal open space previously paid by developers in similar situations -I don't know what this will be spent on, or even if the Council will be able to spend it, but it certainly won't be compensation for the fact that the station development needs more open space, particularly in front of the station in the new station square.

The development density also raises transport concerns - the plan to massively restrict car parking could result in huge additional parking pressure in Coleridge ward, and if we are going to make this work there needs to be huge improvements to cycle access to the site, including in my opinion a new southern cycle/foot bridge.

But the Council is to some extent being blackmailed - if we don't deliver the additional density and the sub-standard open space, the desperately needed redevelopment of the transport interchange at the station is at risk as Ashwell's claim the whole development won't be 'commercially viable'. As Mandy Rice-Davis might say if she was interested in planning and development control, they would say that wouldn't they.

We need to look very carefully at such claims by the developers, but we also need to look carefully at all the obligations being placed on the developers of the site, and what they are costing the developer. As ever, the Council is trying to get as many allocation rights to 'affordable' housing on the site as it thinks it can get away with, by forcing the developers to provide 40% of the residential land free to a housing association. But if the scheme really is on the borderline of commercial viability, it could well be the case that the subsidised rents enjoyed by the Council's chosen tenants on the site are far from costless - they could be being paid for by the travelling public in Cambridge suffering from an overdense site lacking public open space. As downward pressures continue on both the residential and commercial property sectors, Council's will have to stop seeing developers as a costless resource to meet their policy aims (which they never have been), and start to think about the economic effect of their planning obligations and how the policy objectives can be met in today's very different commercial environment.