Petersfield Area
Community Trust

• PACT:
• Homepage
• Events!
• Join us...
• Board of Trustees
• Newsletters
• Contact us
• Tour Petersfield
• Meet your neighbours
• Local Links
• Supporters
• Internet Access
• PACT in the papers
• Photo Gallery
• PACT ISSUES:
• Community Centre
• Planning Issues
• Local Amenities
• Millennium Project
• Traffic
• Local Shopping
• Homelessness
• Vandalism & Crime
• The Cemetery
• Youth Activites
• Older People

Present: see attendance list

Apologies: Dorothy Runnicles, Lesley Tubb

Trustees present: David Ousby (Chairman), Philly Owles (Treasurer), Daniel Gordon (Secretary), Anna Lindsay (Minutes secretary), David Clouter, Lou Boughie

1. Welcome, AOBs, and Introduction

1a. The Chairman welcomed those present to the formal part of the PACT AGM, particularly given the fact that this is the first AGM to take place in the summer, following the motion to move it. Lorraine Hart and John Aldenton were welcomed

David welcomed the team from Joint Urban Design and the city and county councillors present (Lucy Walker, Gail Marchant-Daisley; and Nicola Harrison of the County Council.)

1b. AOB: discussion of a letter from the Council re., art in Mill Road Cemetery

2. Matters arising from minutes of last AGM

None highlighted, except the underspend of £250 which has been returned to the City Council after we failed to use it for the Cambridge Celebrates Age event last year. Lucy Walker mentioned that funding will no longer be granted in retrospect: this grant application has now gone through, but will be kept in mind. The delay was due to the hiccoughs in the transition from former PACT Chairman to our new Chairman, as well as the extent of the paperwork required by the grant applications.

3. Chairman's Report

David read out the Report

4. Treasurer's Report and accounts.

James Oram (Chartered Financial Planner) has approved the PACT accounts.

Philly read out the report, and announced that the Summer Event made £385.39 on Thursday. The remaining Tombola prizes will bring in further income when the tickets are sold at the Big Weekend.

No questions raised for the Accounts: accounts approved.

5. Election of Trustees

• David Ousby: proposed & seconded: elected
• Philly Owles: proposed & seconded: elected
• Anna Lindsay: proposed & seconded: elected
• David Clouter: proposed & seconded: elected
• Daniel Gordon: proposed & seconded: elected
• Lou Boughie: proposed & seconded: elected

Election of Working Party

no additional volunteers

AOB

City Council: public art project for Mill Road Cemetery. What local themes and cultural references should be reflected in it: and what kind of things would be UNsuitable for public art in the cemetery? Harmke will forward the questionnaire for comments and suggestions.

Lucy Walker mentioned that she is on the steering group and is therefore v. interested in people's opinions.

End of the formal part of the AGM 19:50

PUBLIC MEETING

Sarah Chubb from the Joint Urban Design team introduced herself and recapped what has happened so far, and where the study area lies (East Road, Newmarket Road, roundabout and underpass, plus the land on both sides of Newmarket Road up to Coldham's Lane/Tesco's.)

A draft visionary document has been produced but not brought along this evening because needs to be taken to the Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-committee, (DPSS) which is open to the public. (Harmke attended last time)

The next meeting for this is 9:30a.m Tuesday 13 July. The agenda etc will be available to view online from the week before that. Sarah promised to send the links etc to the Trustees and councillors affected.

SPD split into 2 main parts: visionary document: and then progress that (work it up) into an SPD process (Supplementary Planning policy Document) which is a formal planning document which forms part of the local plan. It has a greater weight than guidelines without it. Key projects attract financial investments, and guide where that money should go.

Frontload the visionary document: ie., explores the particular issues which affect this area, test it, revise them, agree to them with residents, and THEN progress it quickly to a supplementary planning document.

The AGM in November produced a very successful public workshop, with many suggestions and comments. These have been used to inform the visionary document. Once have the draft approved by the DPSS, then will be opened up to scrutiny from the public: hope to do this the week beginning 19th July. 8 weeks allocated for the public consultation - longer than usual because it's summer holidays so many people will be away. EVERYONE please comment.

This will be followed by public workshops etc.

All comments will then be amalgamated and used to produce the final visionary document in October (when the next DPSS meeting will take place)

Good progress so far.

Hoping that the document will be adopted in March 2011 as key guidelines for future planning. It will be a material consideration for future planning: ie., when applications within that area come up for planning permission, the document will have to be complied with. Differs from the Local Plan which is a strategic planning document for the entire city: but this would focus specifically on THIS area, to further articulate the policies, eg., securing co-ordinated development and "creating successful places" (policy 3.7) ie., a more coherent approach to development of the area. "Articulate a clear vision and build consensus" "Establish a framework for planning development" "Identify a series of key projects to guide investment". All those so far identified are public realm: Newmarket Road currently divides the community, not brings together - the roundabout is hostile, needs to be made a better gateway to the City, etc.

To make all people aware of this document:

• 1) it will be up on the City Council website
• 2) leaflet drop for everyone within the affected area
• 3) posters on public noticeboards, and included in community newsletters and other such channels

Sarah pointed out what the likely layout of the website will be like, and passed out the hard copies of the summaries of the November meeting which she has brought along.

Question: if a developer proposes wholly inappropriate development, will this document make it more difficult for them?

Answer: the document will provide parameters for land use, size, height, strategies for greening streets, where can better links to open space be made? So the development framework will add these parameters.

Nicola chipped in: in planning policy there's a hierarchy. Planning committee and officers need to pay attention to Planning Document (which has been through public enquiry) Next tier down is such a Supplementary Planning Document: still carries considerable weight ("material consideration") although not as much as a National Planning Policy / Local Plan. ie. will influence but NOT control developers. These supplementary documents will simply be ONE of the factors and circumstances taken into consideration.

The planning inspectorate examines the supplementary planning document and use it if a developer has ignored the guidelines contained within.

Housing density targets (including S.106 monies) - how likely will it be upheld given the current turmoil in government policies?

Eric Pickles has removed density targets, and might get rid of the 2004 development frameworks: how will it be upheld?

Answer: the area-based policy SHOULD reinforce the aspirations to return the power to the local residents affected by it, so will hopefully remain.

Harmke : once the visionary document comes into force, what kind of status will it have? Answer: currently exploring this issue, to get a definitive understanding of its status.

Nicola: It develops more weight as it continues through the process. But it will always come under scrutiny in each case.

Lucy: how much dialogue is there with Mackays, planning department, and Joint Urban Design team?

Answer: they're very aware of current situations in brownfield sites, and work together with the case officer.

Nicola: how is the County Council involved?

Answer: Absolutely crucial. One of the reasons for the visionary document is precisely to provide tool for discussion and engagement. County Council is a key portfolio holder.

Eastern Corridor transport plan: another benefit of the visionary document and the SPD is that has identified key projects and suggested that make their way into the Easter Corridor Transport plan.

How will it affect S.106 monies? In the past they've been siphoned off to other areas of Cambridge, and this is a great concern to Petersfield residents given our lack of open space and connections between them. Nicola claimed that it was "perfectly ok and acceptable" for the monies to be used wherever a project can benefit "in the wider area" NOT necessarily in the affected area!... [Note from minutes taker: No comment]

Previous government had specific dictates about S.106 monies, which the County Council contravened by NOT funnelling straight back to the affected areas. How is that going to change with the new government? Answer: Obligation strategy SPD sets out the framework.

Lou: S.106 monies should be annually audited and publicised on how and WHERE it has been spent.

Answer: this is one of the reasons for the SPD - by identifying public areas which need investment.

The document gives the County Council ideas of where the money will be invested.

David O summed up: we have poor quality and paucity of open space, which gets used by drug dealers who are thriving in such dead spaces: we need to transform our open space into active vibrant spaces.

Meeting closed at 9pm