Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Requests the improvement of the City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document.

(b)        Requires that the document is proactively used and reference by project managers during the development of relevant City Deal transport projects.

(c)        Requests that the document is updated periodically to reflect any significant changes in highway and planning design policy.

(d)        Requests officers to investigate the process of all future City Deal schemes being considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Design Panel.

(e)        Requests officers to investigate the introduction of a facility that invites members of the public to provide photographs of aspirational ideas and ideas to be avoided for a website-based montage.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Joint Assembly.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

Question by Jean Glasberg

Jean Glasberg asked whether the City Deal would be conducting a skills analysis to ensure that the teams who would deliver this programme had the full range of competencies necessary to deliver good placemaking and sustainable development, as well as functional transport infrastructure.

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that the City Deal partnership had a range of skills available within all three partner Councils and that consultants could also be appointed as and when required.

Question by Penny Heath

Penny Heath asked why the City Deal did not set up a Design Panel, like the Design and Conservation Panel such as that used by the City Council’s planning department and in line with principles of Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth.  She was also concerned that the document did not include enough reference to Cambridge’s heritage.

Mr Menzies reported that Cambridge’s historic environment sites were clearly covered by other policy documents at the County Council.  In respect of the City Council’s Design Panel, he explained that City Deal highways projects came under a different legislative framework to that of the planning application process.

Question by Nichola Harrison

Nichola Harrison did not think that the proposed Design Guidance document did enough to protect and enhance Cambridge’s environment and community life, stating that it needed to develop as a locally relevant, flexible and practical tool.  She felt that this could be achieved through a website where people could upload photographs and discuss design issues.  She therefore asked the Joint Assembly to recommend to the Executive Board that it adopts a method, perhaps a website, which got the public involved in developing the document as a tool that inspired very high design standards in all City Deal schemes.

Councillor Hickford made the point that this issue was likely to be debated as part of consideration of the item.

Glen Richardson, Urban Design and Conservation Manager at Cambridge City Council, and Andrew Cameron, Director or Urban Design at WSP consultants, presented a report which set out the principles to be followed and guidance that should be taken into account during the development of City Deal transport infrastructure projects on the major roads into Cambridge and city centre access routes.  A copy of the proposed guidance document was appended to the report which officers took Members through as part of a presentation.

The Joint Assembly was asked to recommend that the Executive Board:

(a)        endorses the City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document;

(b)        requires that the document is proactively used and referenced by project managers during the development of relevant City Deal transport projects;

(c)        requests that the document is updated periodically to reflect any significant changes in highway and planning design policy.

Councillor Bridget Smith was very pleased that this piece of work had been commissioned, but was extremely disappointed with the document that was presented.  She said that it contained no reference to heritage, which for a city that had world heritage status was a significant omission, and also had no reference to best practice, no vision, a lack of detail and did not promote quality.  She therefore called for the document to be vastly improved.

Mr Cameron disagreed with the comment regarding reference to best practice, stating that the document contained examples from around the world and the country of schemes considered as best practice.  He made the point that Cambridge as a city was very restrictive and the guidance reflected that, seeking to strike a balance between these restrictions and the needs of users.  He added that the brief was to produce a short, high-level guidance document referencing other good pieces of guidance which he felt was the appropriate thing to do.

Councillor Smith responded by saying that she did not see the point in this guidance document referencing other document and said that it did not recognises sympathies of the city.

Mr Richardson confirmed that the document sought to highlight the other important documents that had been produced locally, by Cambridge based officers, that would influence design principles in Cambridge.  Mr Cameron added that it was specific to Cambridge as it made reference to restricted streets, a key characteristic of the city.

Councillor Tim Bick thought that the City Deal was better with this document in place than without it, but he was not convinced that it included everything that it could and regarded it as a starting point.  He did not think it was aspirational enough and reflected on the suggestions put forward by public questioners in respect of the use of a Design Panel and the idea that the public could be invited to submit ideas and examples they considered as good practice, as well as those that they considered should be avoided.  Councillor Bick therefore moved an amendment to the officer recommendation, replacing the word ‘endorse’ in paragraph (a) with the words ‘requests the improvement of’ and the addition of the following new paragraphs:

(d)        requests officers to investigate the process of all future City Deal schemes being considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Design Panel;

(e)        requests officers to investigate the introduction of a facility that invites members of the public to provide photographs of aspirational ideas and ideas to be avoided for a website-based montage.

Councillor Maurice Leeke seconded the amendment.  The amendment was unanimously agreed.

The Joint Assembly, therefore, unanimously RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Requests the improvement of the City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document.

(b)        Requires that the document is proactively used and reference by project managers during the development of relevant City Deal transport projects.

(c)        Requests that the document is updated periodically to reflect any significant changes in highway and planning design policy.

(d)        Requests officers to investigate the process of all future City Deal schemes being considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Design Panel.

(e)        Requests officers to investigate the introduction of a facility that invites members of the public to provide photographs of aspirational ideas and ideas to be avoided for a website-based montage.