Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Leader of the Council
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
To note the report.
Matter for Decision
The report
updated Members of Strategy and Resources Committee on the recent developments
with Central Governments project for the growth of Cambridge.
Decision
of Leader
Noted the
update on the progress of the Cambridge Delivery Company implementation.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
See Officer’s report.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Joint Director of
Planning.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Ministers were visiting other parts of the city,
not just Cambridge City Council. This needed public scrutiny. Ministers
appeared able to change housing delivery figure targets for the City Council to
deliver. Ministers should be invited to visit the City Council to hear the
views of local Councillors on the practicalities of delivery.
ii.
Queried if more power would be given to Mayors
in future which would take planning decisions away from the City Council?
iii.
There appeared to be two rival processes
described in the Officer’s report:
a.
The Local Plan developed through the joint
planning service.
b.
Central Government ambitions for Cambridge City.
c.
Appropriate infrastructure was required to
deliver proposed housing.
The Leader said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Cambridge Growth Company had established an
Advisory Council. Quarterly updates could be provided to Cambridge City Council
Committee(s). These were process discussions that were outside public scrutiny
as occurred with some City Council processes.
ii.
Ministers were visiting other parts of the city,
not just Cambridge City Council, about issues that could affect the Council eg
water. The city was the focus of ministerial attention.
The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said
water scarcity was a known issue in the east of England so this would affect
Local Plan housing figures that could be delivered. If Central Government
wanted more housing than was listed in the Local Plan they would need to put in
substantial resources to deliver extra housing. The speculative figures
mentioned in the media could not be delivered without supporting
infrastructure.
iii.
Would ask Peter Freeman to attend future
Cambridge City Council committee meetings.
The Joint Director of Planning said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Referred to P87 of the agenda pack. Officers
were seeking clarification regarding the relationship between the Local Plan
(as a statutory development plan) and Central Government ambitions from Central
Government and the Cambridge Growth Company.
ii.
The Local Plan was the foundation for future
growth and had prominence through legislation.
iii.
The Joint Local Plan was in place until 2045.
The Cambridge Delivery Company should accelerate the delivery of planned growth
strategies.
iv.
The planning phase to deliver appropriate
infrastructure for housing should conclude by spring 2026. Separately the
Council would consult on various strategies such as transport. Details would be
confirmed in future. Separately, the Combined Authority was also undertaking
some consultation to conclude by 2026.
v.
Ministers had mentioned housing targets in the
media eg 150,000 but there was no set amount in plans. The City Council
followed a set process for developing the Local Plan as set out in law. The
Cambridge Development Company had a different type of plan and processes. It
was not a ‘plan’ in the same way as the City Council Local Plan.
vi.
The Cambridge Delivery Company had no statutory
role so could not supersede the Local Plan. They had to follow the Local Plan
unless there were exceptions such as Ministerial guidance.
vii.
The relationship between the Mayor of
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s Spatial Development Strategy and City
Council’s Local Plan was set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and
subsequent amendments). The Local Plan set out allocated sites for housing.
viii.
The whole country had infrastructure stress.
This was an opportunity to improve infrastructure in the Greater Cambridge area
and make the case for need to the Treasury as part of delivering housing. This
would show what could be delivered over and above the Local Plan if appropriate
resources were in place.
ix.
Robust policies were in place to manage water
supply, the challenge was to deliver.
The Committee resolved nem con to endorse the
recommendation.
The
Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts
of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations
Granted)
No
conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Publication date: 21/05/2025
Date of decision: 31/03/2025