Councillors did ask about the timing but got no sensible reply from officers - other than to be told it wasn’t a result of enforcement action.

The meeting’s chair stressed that the committee could “only consider the application in-front of them” so they all pretended to have no knowledge of the future plans.

I was surprised to see Cllr Smith, the Executive Councillor responsible for green spaces, vote on the application her department were putting forward. She declared her interest but decided it was not prejudicial.

It would be interesting to know if this application has been prompted by enforcement action against the council, by the council. If this was an application from a member of the public the report would make very clear it was an application in retrospect, or in respect of a site which had been in breach of planning rules.

As the permission appears to have expired for so long, it really raises the question of why the application for the new works, and the application to make the site permanent, have not been taken together.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=816

I submitted comments on the application; I clearly checked the “comment” box and not the support or object box and my email receipt from the council shows this yet I have been listed as an objector. I was not objecting - the full text of my representations are in the first comment above.

The decision is being made, by councillors, in public, though which was one of the main things I was calling for. I believe my comments and the two objections will have been key in ensuring this happened and preventing the decision from being made, by officers, behind closed doors.

I was concerned that the councillors making the decision might not be in full possession of the facts. The report makes no mention of the City Council’s plan to refurbish / renew the skate park; and doesn’t confirm if the proposed additional works will require an additional planning permission (though the Community Services committee have been assured a new application will be submitted). I’m aware of the principle that councillors ought only consider what’s put in front of them; but I’m left wondering why what I said wasn’t included in the report.

As the council owns the space, and can remove the skate park at any point should it become a problem, I think the application is largely a bureaucratic exercise.

A write-up of a meeting involving Cllrs Smith, Blair and Dixon and Rosenstiel on the 3rd of February says:

All welcome to attend meeting to support planning approval of current skate facility – Going to West/Central area committee Thursday 8th April at 7.30pm at Castle Mission (planning matters usually come up at the end – possibly as late as 9pm

(Via Jesus Green Skatepark Facebook Group.)

The council website confirms the 8th April committee date.

Only those who have formally objected to or supported the application will be able to speak, so the “All welcome to attend meeting to support” line is misleading.

Council Officer Declan O’Halloran has published the following notice on Facebook:

Declan O’Halloran Hi everyone..

I don’t know if the full message has got through about the SkatePark consultation meeting next Monday (15th February) at Jesus Green, starting at 3.30pm and then moving on to the Methodist Church, Kings Street (see Google map link below)?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?layer=c&cbll=52.207470,0.126930&cbp=12…,,,1,&ved=0CBoQ2wU&sa=X&ei=v7BxS-m7HpCnOLG_5a4G

This is a one-off opportunity to MEET with a number of representatives of LEADING SKATEPARK COMPANIES in the UK who have said they will be there in order to find out what you want, so that they can provide a winning design!

Please pass the message on to as many SkatePark users as possible. I’ll keep you posted with any more details as they come.

Best,

Declan O’Halloran
Cambridge City Council

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/leisure-and-entertainment/parks-and-playgrounds/jesus-green-consultations.en

The council haven’t written to those of us who have responded to previous consultations relating to Jesus Green to make us aware of it. I spotted it while using the council website to search for another item.

I think this application ought be decided by councillors, in public, on the grounds that there is a lot of public interest in what the council does with respect to Jesus Green.

I think whoever considers this application ought be made aware of the council’s proposals to expand and improve the Jesus Green skatepark. A report to the January 2010 Community Services Scrutiny Committee stated:

“At this stage, and subject to clarification from the user forum, it is proposed to retain and improve the existing structure, with the possibility of a small surround extension. Full planning permission will be a required and subject to permission being granted, it is proposed that improvements are scheduled for spring 2010 and funded through S106 ”

I think it would be useful if it was made clear to the public what potential scale of improvement and extension, if any, would be permitted if the current application was approved.

I would prefer it if, when considering proposals relating to the city’s green spaces the council didn’t primarily use the planning system as a means to give the public an opportunity to comment on proposals.

It’s currently the 28th of January and I’m wondering, given the plethora of expiry dates on the City Council website if my comments are in-time. The council website states:

Expiry Date for Neighbour Consultations: 30/01/2010
Expiry Date for Standard Consultations: 23/01/2010
Expiry Date for Latest Site Notice: 01/02/2010
Overall Expiry Date: 01/02/2010

I am not someone who has been sent a “consultation” so I presume those like me reading the site notice and responding to it before its expiry date will have their comments considered.

As for the application itsself I certainly think permission for the skatepark to remain ought be granted, but the questions are:

*Ought it be granted permanent planning permission? Temporary permission gives a route for removal of the facility if it falls into disuse, disrepair, or causes a problem to residents and others using the green. That said, it is on city council owned land so there are other democratic routes to pursue if problems emerge.

*Ought extensions and improvements be required to go through another planning process?