Decision details

John Meed

John Meed addressed the Committee and made the following points:

 

·       Bird surveys indicate that the loss of the Green Belt would have a significant impact on wildlife.

·       The ecological richness of the environment would be lost.

·       The policies within the plan appear contradictory. For example, Policy 70 and Policy 26 are contradictory regarding skylarks.

·       Data from the Wildlife Trust regarding sites GB 1 – 4 have been disregarded.

·       There appeared to be a lack of detailed evidence regarding wildlife, such as what variety of bats inhabits any given area.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded with the following comments:

 

·       Where necessary, sites would be subject to further investigation before development proceeds.

·       Investigating the Green Belt was a huge undertaking and all sites in the plan had been investigated.

·       Feedback had been gathered from many advisors and issues raised were listed in the audit trail document and representations section of the report.

·       Changes had been made in the size of the sites being recommended and in the detailed mitigation requirements to protect wildlife habitats.

·       The character of Wort’s Causeway would be protected and numbers on that site had been reduced.

 

John Meed suggested that more evidence was needed and that the loss of meadows would have an impact on wildlife.

 

Roger Crabtree Chair of Rustat Road Resident’s Association

 

Roger Crabtree addressed the Committee and made the following points about the Clifton Road area :

 

·       Local residents have concerns about transport issues.

·       The proposals would see a development almost as large as CB1.

·       There were concerns that local jobs would be lost as the area was developed into high rise apartments for London commuters.

·       Access issues lack clarity.

·       Lessons learnt from CB1 need to be applied to this site.

·       Transport strategies of both South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Cambridgeshire County Council are disappointing and lacking in action plans.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded with the following comments:

 

·       There is a requirement to identify and meet development needs and this had led to a reassessment of this site to make the best use of the space.

·       A wider plan would be needed for the long term future of the area.

·       The area would be developed with a supplementary planning document/ master plan and a transport study to ensure a quality development.

 

Roger Crabtree stated that residents were not opposed to the development of the site but that there were concerns about the size and scale of the proposals.

 

Councillor Swanson

 

Councillor Swanson commented that Cambridge Water can move the major water main that crosses GB2 at the developer’s expense. She also questioned what had happened to other Local Authorities who had failed to meet identified development targets.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded. The NPPF and experience from elsewhere was clear that every effort should be made by councils to meet identified need. Joint working with neighbouring authorities had identified the number of homes and jobs needed. The Local Plan had demonstrated an inability to fully meet the need within the existing non-greenbelt locations and had necessitated a review of the Green Belt.

 

The risk for the council in failure to produce a plan to meet needs was that this could lead to the plan being found to be unsound. This could result in decisions being taken out of City Council control and could result in speculative development plans coming forward.

 

Councillor Herbert

 

Councillor Herbert addressed the Committee and made the following points:

 

·       Station Area East appeared to be a sudden late addition to the plan of a further 400 homes.

·       This was a large site, close to the railway and a cap on housing numbers was needed.

·       Parking capacity on streets in Coleridge would be lost.

·       While recognising the need to develop the site, there appears to be a lack of local consultation.

·       An Area Action Plan was needed.

·       Developers will make false promises.

·       This is a high value site and there would be pressure to increase density.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded and acknowledged that the timeframes for the plan had been tight. However, the site had been carefully considered. Not all parts of the site would be suitable for residential use but the site offered potential. The site is different from CB1 and would become a part of existing communities. Lessons had been learnt and a cap would be set.

 

Councillor Birtles

 

Councillor Birtles addressed the Committee and made the following points:

 

·       The bio-diversity of sites GB1 and GB2 deserve protection.

·       Local residents were against the development.

·       The impact on wildlife had been underestimated.

·       Why had sites been re-examined just to fill the shortfall of numbers?

 

The Head of Planning Services responded. Officers who had examined the plan were comfortable with the proposals. Concerns had been taken into account and further survey work was planned.

 

Matter for Decision:  

The report concerned the new draft Cambridge Local Plan.

 

The Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee considered the draft Local Plan on 29 May. The purpose of the report was to present the complete version of the Plan as currently drafted, including appendices and the changes requested by the Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

 

The report recommended that the Plan should be considered by the Environment Scrutiny Committee and then by Full Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

 The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

       i.          To agree the draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014 subject to any changes recommended by Environment Scrutiny Committee on 11June and Full Council on 27 June (including the adoption of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Memorandum of Co-operation approach for plan making under the duty to co-operate (Appendix H of the Officer’s report));

     ii.          To recommend to Full Council that the Plan is approved for the purposes of publication under Regulations 19 and 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

   iii.          To agree that any amendments and editing changes that need to be made to the draft Local Plan (and associated Sustainability Appraisal and other appendices) put to Full Council be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

 

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 Cambridge Local Plan – Toward 2014. The Committee considered the plan section by section.

 

Section 2

 

Dearbhla Lawson, Head of Transport & Infrastructure, and Jeremy Smith, Transport and Infrastructure Strategy Manager both from Cambridgeshire County Council were present and gave an update on the Transport Strategy. The City Council would be invited to respond to the consultation. Members noted that the delivery of  the Local Plan was dependant on the Transport Strategy.

 

       i.          If building is permitted on the Green Belt this would set a precedent and others would seek to do the same.

     ii.          Loss of Green Belt would result in the permanent loss of a means of food production. Adding text to reflect the use of Green Belt land for agricultural purpose was agreed.

 

Section 3

 

       i.          The increase in number for the station area was questioned. Officers confirmed that the plan had evolved and the site had been reviewed in line with identified needs and identified as an efficient use of land. The number of units suggested could change.

 

Section 6

 

Officers confirmed that work had been commissioned to look into the Affordable Housing thresholds. Findings would be reported to Full Council on the 27 June.

 

Section 7

 

       i.          The Committee did not oppose tall buildings but welcomed the policies in place to ensure high quality developments and amenities.

     ii.          In response to questions, officers confirmed that Policy 56 sets out criteria which could assist in deterring the development of gated communities.

   iii.          Concerns were expressed that the wording regarding open spaces in Policy 67 appeared to have changed and no longer required mitigation in the same area. Members sought confirmation that the wording would be amended to reflect the need to reprovide open spaces in local the area.

   iv.          Members requested an addition to Appendix C Section 7 of the plan to identify open spaces on a Ward by Ward basis.

 

Section 8

 

       i.          The Committee asked for additional wording to Policy 73 regarding sports facilities.

     ii.          It was noted that boundary changes had addressed previous concerns regarding the status of the Cambridge Leisure Park as a Local Centre.

   iii.          Adding a positive statement regarding sustainable transport options for deprived areas was suggested.

   iv.          The Committee discussed the merits of limiting parking spaces in new development and possible overspill problems this causes elsewhere. Councillor Ward confirmed that there had been a deliberate policy to discourage car use and added that the new plan is slightly more relaxed on this issue than the old plan.

 

The merits of residential developments with no parking were discussed. Jeremy Smith stated that the County Council Transport Strategy would examine this issue.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 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.