Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
To consider the key issues arising from the Issues and Options consultation and provide a steer on the approach to take forward. Topics include housing, employment, retail, tourism, higher education, community facilities, open space.
Matter
for Decision:
The Local
Plan is a key document for Cambridge, and the review of the current Local Plan
is currently underway. Following on from consultation on the Issues and Options
Report, which took place between June and July 2012, officers are working on
the analysis of the comments received to the consultation and developing the
preferred approach to take forward into the draft Plan. It has previously been
agreed that future reports would be brought to Development Plan Scrutiny Sub
Committee to analyse the comments received and options to take forward in more
detail in order to seek a steer from Members on the approach to take forward in
the draft Plan.
This
report considers the approach to be taken forward in relation to the Airport
Safety, Higher and Further Education, Tourism, Open Space and Community
Facilities, Transport and Infrastructure sections of the Issues and Options
Report as part of developing the content of the new Plan.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning
and Climate Change
The Executive Councillor resolved:
i.
To consider the key issues related to Airport Safety,
Higher and Further Education, Tourism, Open Space and Community Facilities,
Transport and Infrastructure as set out in Appendices A,B, C, D and E of the
Officer’s report; and
ii.
To endorse the response and approach to take forward
in the draft Plan, as set out in Appendices A, B, C, D and E and tables 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 f the Officer’s report.
Reason for the Decision:
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations:
The Committee received a report from the Senior Planning
Policy Officer regarding the Cambridge Local Plan – Towards 2013 – Airport
Safety, Higher and Further Education, Tourism, Open Spaces and Community
Facilities, Transport and Infrastructure.
Airport Safety
The Senior Planning Policy Officer used a map of the area to
explain the zones around the airport and the twin issues of Public Safety Zones
and Air Safeguarding Zones.
Members raised concerns that residents around the area of
the airport had not been able to extend their properties due to concerns about
the airport. The Officer confirmed that the airport would be a consideration of
such planning application but would not preclude development in the area.
Option 75 would seek to inform the public and a balanced approach would be
taken.
Higher and Further Education
The Principal Planning Policy Officer introduced this
section of the report. He suggested that the current needs of the University of
Cambridge were well provided for by developments at West Cambridge and NW Cambridge.
The two central sites in the current plan also provide a useful framework.
However, there was an emerging picture of future need on part of the Colleges
to provide hostel accommodation to meet the University’s forecasts of future
growth in undergraduates and postgraduates. Consultation was on-going with the
College Bursars Committee and some needs can be met within the existing College
confines. The shortfall is for around 4,016 student rooms by 2031 but 1,000 of
these could be found within the 2,000 rooms allocated at NW Cambridge. The
Colleges would be expected come forward in the current consultation with other
sites suitable for allocation as student hostels for consideration. Anglia
Ruskin University was also reported to be facing a similar shortfall of
available space for student hostels. The University are also about to initiate
discussions about a shortfall in faculty space on their East Road campus.
Members questioned the number of units set aside in the
North West development for students and key workers. Questions were asked about
position of Post Graduates and Post Doctorate individuals working for the
University. Were they classed as students or key workers? The Principal
Planning Officer indicated post doctorates are not included in the undergraduate
and postgraduate figures quoted. In addition, would other college workers, such
as porters, be allocated any of the properties? The Head of Planning stated
that these decisions had already been made elsewhere. She would supply written
follow up information if required.
In response to Member’s questions the Officers present
confirmed the following:
i.
There was a capacity allocation for an additional
college in the master plan. However, the funding for this was currently
unclear.
ii.
The Department of Education favoured University
Technical Colleges and funding was available. This could be considered at a
later date.
iii.
Anglia Ruskin University playing fields on White House
Lane were not an option for development as they were on Green Belt land.
iv.
Development on other college playing fields was not
currently being considered and open spaces would be vigorously defended.
Tourism
The Principal Planning Policy Officer introduced this
section of the report. Members discussed the need to manage in impact of tourism
on the City. Councillor Hipkin questioned why a full discussion on an
alternative use for the Guildhall had not been considered. The Head of Planning
stated that the owners of both the Guildhall and the Shire Hall had made it
clear that they were not currently supportive of a change of use. However,
should things change in the future, the fact that it was not included in the
plan would not preclude a change of use.
Open Space and Community Facilities
The Senior Planning Policy Officer introduced this section of the
report.
Members asked for
more details on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the requirements
this would make for on-site and off-site open space provision. The Head of
Planning stated that the development policy would define the CIL requirements.
There were tensions, as some sites could not accommodate on site provision.
This problem was greater in some wards and future policy would provide guidance
to protect the interest of those wards. Members expressed a preference for
on-site provision where possible, and suggested this be considered at the
design stage of future developments.
Transport and
Infrastructure
The Planning
Policy and Transport Officer introduced this section of the report.
Members asked for clarification on how the
plan would fit with the County Council’s Transport Strategy. The Head of
Planning confirmed that the two authorities had been working closely together
and that the documents would go forward together. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate
Change added
that once the transport strategy had been agreed, the land linked to it would
be protected.
In response to Member’s questions the
Officers present confirmed that best practice in urban design would inform
issues such as pedestrian safety. However, puddles and maintenance were beyond
the control of this committee.
Members discussed the merits
of developing outside the City Centre as opposed to infill sites. The Head of
Planning stated that the first choice was sites where there were existing,
non-car choices. However, other locations would not be ruled out if
infrastructure could be put in place.
The Committee resolved by 2 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
dispensations granted)
Not applicable.
Publication date: 18/02/2013
Date of decision: 29/01/2013