Decision details

To agree an updated Local Plan timetable.

Matter for Decision

This report provided an update regarding the Local Plan Timetable (previously called the Local Development Scheme (LDS)), of a new or revised development plan documents that set out the planning policy framework for Greater Cambridge.

 

The report also provided an update of the timetable for the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP), considering the latest timetable for the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant (CWWTP) Development Consent Order (DCO) process seeking to relocate the CWWTP to Honey Hill.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

 

      i.          Agreed that The Local Plan Timetable Update at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report be added as an Addendum to the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme 2022 and published on the Greater Cambridge Planning website.

     ii.          Write to Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District Council, providing an update on the plan making timetable for Greater Cambridge reflecting the contents of this report.

   iii.          Agreed that the Greater Cambridge local planning authorities should explore further with Government the opportunity to be a ‘front-runner’ pilot for the new plan-making process.

   iv.          Agreed that a further report with a proposed specific timetable for both plans be brought to Members when there was clarity on the external dependencies of water, transport the CWWTP DCO, the new plan-making system and Cambridge 2040 Programme.

 

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 Planning Policy Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy Manager, Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.          The Water Scarcity Working Group (WSWG) consisted of representatives from various organisations, such as the Environment Agency, Ofwat, Local Government officials and industry stake holders and was nonpolitical.

     ii.          The WSWG were focused on finding practical solutions to mitigate water scarcity. Promoting water efficiency measures to reduce demand and collaborating on long-term infrastructure planning to ensure sustainable water supply.

   iii.          The group were aware of the need to have tested schemes in place on all developments that reduced demand and would assist in changing water use habits.

   iv.          Currently WSWG were exploring pilot schemes to test how these measures were applied and measure the impact over time.

    v.          Was aware of other projects looking at evidenced solutions, for example Officers were working with water industry representatives  exploring water recycling measures, the implementation practicalities and cost of the scheme. The evidence would be used for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

   vi.          Discussions were being held with Cambridge Water regarding monitoring, particularly the efficient application of the delivery of smart meters. Monitoring data from a smart meter could identify ‘constant flow’ issues within a property which may be due to faulty equipment.

 vii.          There had been work nationally on the proposed implementation of water labelling. This would allow consumers to make informed choices when purchasing water-using products. By understanding the water efficiency of these products, people could be encouraged to select options that saved water. 

viii.          The WSWG were aware of common issues with dual flush toilets; that these did not necessarily save as much water as had originally intended.

   ix.          Cambridge Water had recently published an updated draft of their Water Resources Management Plan. Believed there were more significant commitments in this plan such as the roll out of smart meters.

    x.          Cambridge Water’s latest draft Water Resources Management Plan sought to engage with concerns regarding what would happen if the measures for leakage reduction and water conservation were not effective, including the consideration of the supply for non-domestic water. 

   xi.          The Water Resources Management Plan would be reviewed by the Environment Agency amongst others and agreed by the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

 xii.          The Water Resources Management Plan highlighted an accelerated and enhanced campaign to promote effective water usage. Education was key to highlight that every drop of water mattered, and people should consider how it was being used.

xiii.          Anglian Water’s Water Resources Management Plan outlined proposals to build a new reservoir in the Fens and to bring supply of water from Grafham Water reservoir to the Cambridge area. 

xiv.          Agreed that there had been questions at how effective the monitoring of performance of water usage had been in the past.

xv.          Cambridge Water drew water from thirty-one abstraction points around the Greater Cambridge area. The Environment Agency closely monitored these points and were in many cases, imposing caps on the abstraction levels. These figures were compared to the level of commitment regarding the levels of abstraction of water from those resources.

xvi.          There was a much tighter focus in the Water Resources Management Plan on highlighting the trigger points for action during very hot summers such as when to impose a hose pipe ban. 

xvii.          The Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement allowed local authorities to establish tighter water usage standards, if justified.

xviii.          It would exceed a planning authority’s power to limit water usage or shut off drinking water to a particular property. There may be additional requirements for washing, consumption of water for health or medical reasons, as each household’s circumstances were different. 

xix.          Noted the suggestion that a limit on water usage per household could be set and if exceeded, an increase in the cost of consumption should increase but pricing was a matter for Ofwat and not for a local authority to determine. Performance against the Water Resources Management Plan would be a matter for Ofwat as the industry regulator.  

xx.          The resources required to monitor the water usage on the total number of homes in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire would be significant with no obvious enforcement in the event of water usage being exceeded.

xxi.          Following the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s decision not to pursue Making Connections, Officers had asked Cambridgeshire County Council to re-run the traffic model that underpinned the Local Plan First Proposals. The Planning Policy Team was waiting for the final report which would advise of the impact in terms of any quantification of percentages or trip numbers.

xxii.          Early findings from the model indicated that assumptions associated with the wider GCP City Access scheme would have effectively reduced the number of vehicles on the city road network. The effect of not introducing a scheme of this kind (that would suppress the number of trips) would accordingly lead to additional trips from existing traffic remaining. This would impact assessments of additional capacity as part of any re-run modelling.   

xxiii.          One of the key elements of the emerging Local Plan was responding to climate change. This included reducing private car use by directing new development to locations that enable residents and workers to travel cycling around the city by sustainable means, including by public transport, walking and cycling.

xxiv.          If private vehicle trips were not reduced this would result in existing and proposed public transport solutions becoming less effective, since the buses would be held up in private vehicle congestion.

xxv.          Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) had committed to prepare a Greater Cambridge ‘child’ document to the wider Local Transport and Connectivity Plan that covered the entire area covered by the CPCA. This document was expected to sit alongside the emerging Local Plan.

xxvi.          With the proposed thirty-month deadline timescale for councils to produce their local plans there would be an element of risk in meeting those deadlines, as not all the details were yet known. However, a key benefit of the new system is a set six-month period for the examination process. In comparison, the examination of the current Local Plan had taken four and half years; within the current system there was no guarantee of the examination timetable to enable quick progression towards adoption.

xxvii.          Regulations for the new local plan process were still awaited from Central Government. Government has yet to confirm which Local Planning Authorities might be ‘front runners’ in this process.  However, the Shared Planning service is already engaging positively with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUCH) on a range of topics including regarding digitising the plan-making system, on which the planning service which had been doing innovative work.

xxviii.          Officers were working on projects highlighted to DLUCH to improve the planning process and services, such as how representations could be processed quicker and had held discussions on how a templated approach to plan making would work.

xxix.          Suggested that as the changes to the local plan process became implemented, Officers would continue dialogue with DLUCH ensuring the system worked and a new plan produced as quickly as possible.  

xxx.          Several sites in the Northeast of Cambridge were covered by an allocation in the adopted Local Plan for employment led use.  Officers were using the evidence base that had been prepared in compiling the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP) to assist, where relevant, in the responses to the planning applications received for this area.

xxxi.          A team of Officers had been appointed and overseen by a senior officer to deal with the planning applications in NEC to ensure a consistent approach in the development to the area.

xxxii.          The Joint Development Control Committee were receiving an increase in developer presentations in the North East area to understand the connection of all these schemes.

xxxiii.          There were challenges of the delivery of a comprehensive infrastructure in the North East area and Officers were working with the County Council to resolve these issues. Work was being done to determine if this area was appropriate to bring forward a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) such as for strategic transport contributions.

xxxiv.          In pre-application discussions Officers referred to the NECAAP to provide guidance and to measure the achievement of the outcomes that the developers were bringing forward against the objectives in the action plan.

xxxv.          Officers were also tracking the variances between the NECAAP, and the proposals being brought forward, to “sense check” whether the schemes deviated or met the goals set in the action plan.

xxxvi.          Although the NECAAP held very limited weight as a planning policy document it outlined the Council’s clear ambition for the area.

xxxvii.          There had been a huge amount of material evidence used to underpin the NECAAP at the draft Plan stage but also Regulation 19 Proposed Submission stage. This evidence covered a range of issues from ecology, noise, infrastructure provision and mode share. Reiterated that Officers would stress the importance of NECAAP when discussing pre-applications with developers. The evidence would also be used as a reference point when planning applications came to committee.

xxxviii.          Agreed to the suggestion that there should be a reference to Central Government’s Cambridge 2040 Programme (likely to change to Cambridge 2050 programme) at the Officer’s recommendation point iv.

xxxix.          It would not be possible to bring a further update on both plans to the next scrutiny meeting scheduled for June.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor informed the Committee that currently she would not recommend passing planning powers to a  Development Corporation as referenced in the Government’s Cambridge 2040 programme. The planning process should remain as the democratic process that was currently followed. 

 

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

None