Decision details

Matter for Decision

The current local plan was adopted in July 2006 and runs to 2016 and beyond.

 

The Officer’s report updated the strategic context for the preparation of the new local plan through the agreement amongst the authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to endorse the adoption of a Memorandum of Co-operation on a spatial approach.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

       i.          Agreed that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Memorandum of Co-operation (and the technical work that as fed into that approach) be used as the basis for identifying the objectively assessed needs for homes and jobs in the Cambridge Local Plan 2014;

2. Agreed the Tranche 4 draft plan sections to be put forward into the composite full draft plan;
3. Considered feedback from this committee on the accompanying policy justification documents for each draft policy, which will be published alongside the draft plan as an audit trail of how the policy was evidenced, consulted on and assessed;
4. Endorsed the content of the associated evidence base documents for use as an evidence base for the review of the Local Plan and as a material consideration in planning decisions comprising:

·       the Employment Land Review Update 2013,

·       the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment update 2013,

·       the Retail and Leisure Update 2013,

·       City Centre Capacity Study 2013,

·       Student Accommodation – Affordable Housing, Financial Contributions Viability Study,

·       SHLAA and Potential Site Allocations High Level Viability Assessment 2013,

·       Technical Background Document – Part 2 Supplement

    v.          Agreed that any amendments and editing changes that need to be made prior to the draft Local Plan version being put to Environment Scrutiny Committee and Full Council in June should be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson.

 

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 Head of Planning Services regarding the draft Local Plan. She said a professional proof reader would review the document and pick up omissions, style changes and typographical errors prior to publication

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change, Head of Planning Services, Urban Design & Conservation Manager, Principal Planning Policy Officer, Consultant, Senior Sustainability Officer and Senior Planning Policy Officer said the following:

 

Appendix A

       i.                    DPSSC had viewed this appendix in previous meetings and it reflected comments thus far.

 

Appendix B

     ii.                    DPSSC had viewed this appendix in March 2013 and it was brought back for comment.

   iii.                    The County Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire was being developed on a parallel timetable to the Local Plan. Members would be updated on progress at June 2013 Council, including the progress of neighbouring authorities in addressing strategic needs such as housing and transport.

 

Appendix C

   iv.                    The County Council were looking at the impact of the Transport Strategy on the city.

    v.                    The Area Action Plan looked at how the City Council could work with neighbouring authorities on the wider regeneration of the city.

   vi.                    Supplementary Planning Documents would still have a role in the planning process supporting the Local Plan with additional details.

 vii.                    It was noted that the public consultation had not supported development of the green belt, however alternative sites had not come forward to meet the identified need. Various sites needed to be considered to meet the council’s identified development needs. The experience from other local plan examinations elsewhere was that Planning Inspectors were strictly applying the NPPF requirements and could penalise the Council for not planning to meet its needs.

 

Appendix D

viii.                    A surcharge could not be imposed on top of the Community Infrastructure Levy charge for student accommodation.

   ix.                    It was difficult for Officers to specify if the provision of affordable housing or payment of a commuted sum was preferable; this would depend on circumstances. The 2006 Local Plan allowed the use of either option, this position could be reviewed as part of the consultation process for the plan.

    x.                    Homes in multiple occupation (HMOs) could be used for accommodation by students and others.

   xi.                    It was hard for local plan policy to be used to limit the number of class 4 HMO properties in an area.

 

Appendix E

 xii.                    Permeable paving to mitigate surface run-off was encouraged where gardens were converted into car parking spaces.

xiii.                    The City Council was jointly working with the County Council on transport and public realm.

xiv.                    Officers noted Member’s concerns about developing open/recreational space. Officers explained that the policy will clarify the conditions that would be acceptable for relocated open spaces. Open space could only be developed if further open space, or better alternative recreational facilities were provided within 800m of housing.  Members believed that a 400m threshold was a more appropriate distance from the original site for replacement open space.  Officers agreed to amend the policy accordingly.

xv.                    The policy tried to be flexible to provide quality open space. Officers undertook to review the wording of Policies 67 and 68 to ensure open space was protected, this amendment would be brought back to Environment Scrutiny Committee in future.

 

Councillor Marchant-Daisley formally proposed an amendment to the text of paragraph B of Policy 68: Open Space and Recreation Provision Through New Development as follows:

 

“if, taking into account the accessibility/capacity of existing open space facilities and the circumstances of the surrounding area, the open space needs of the proposed residential development can be exceptionally met more appropriately by providing either new or enhanced provision off-site”

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the amendment shown in bold.

 

xvi.                    The Planning Committee would judge the merit of protecting trees or not in individual planning applications. It was not appropriate to specify a generic policy position as part of the strategy document.

 

Appendix F

xvii.                    Policy 83 text amendments were set out on the amendment sheet. Health impact assessments would be completed as part of the planning application process.

 

Appendix H

xviii.                    The justification of why sites had been identified as suitable for development were set out in Appendices A and B of the Local Plan; and Appendix H of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

xix.                    The Abbey Stadium was considered as a suitable site for housing in earlier stages of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment work but this had not been the case in the 2006 Plan. However the decision not to allocate a site for a community stadium meant it should not be identified as suitable for housing at this stage.

 

Appendix N

xx.                    The Memorandum of Co-operation summarised the technical work that Councillors on the Cambridgeshire wide Planning and Strategic Transport Governance group have signed up to. The technical work pulled together a number of forecasting models into one evidence base. This was supplemented by the strategic housing market assessment work.

xxi.                    The City Council had been involved in the development of the Memorandum of Co-operation. It needed to be adopted by the council as part of the evidence base for the preparation of the local plan.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee unanimously approved recommendation (i).

 

The Committee approved recommendation (ii) by 3 votes to 0.

 

The Committee approved recommendation (iii) by 3 votes to 0.

 

The Committee approved recommendation (iv) by 3 votes to 0.

 

The Committee unanimously approved recommendation (v).

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.