Issue - meetings

This item will not be considered until at least 6.30pm.

 

The Cambridge Local Plan Appendix documents are too large to attach to the agenda in hard copy format. All documents are published on the Council’s website:

 

       i.          Main report and Appendices A & C are attached to the agenda document.

     ii.          Appendix B is accessible via the following hyperlink (please copy all lines as the address is split over several):

 

Appendix B: Schedule of Proposed Changes

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/ldf/draft_submission/Schedule/Appendix%20B%20Schedule%20of%20Proposed%20Changes%20FINAL%20for%20ESC.pdf

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Dr Pellew raised the following points:

      i.          Cambridge Past Present & Future (CPPF) welcomed the Local Plan in general, specifically the aims of remaining a compact city, and balancing the competing needs of growth plus protecting the green belt.

    ii.          Queried some perceived contradictions between the Local Plan vision and details:

·       Supported the principle of developing brownfield sites before green belt (where possible) in policy #2.26 .

·       The Council should consider other sites to develop before the green belt.

·       Referred to eight urban locations proposed for development by CPPF in their representation as alternatives to green belt sites.

·       Asked for a statement to be included in the Local Plan stating that green belt sites would not be developed before brownfield sites.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded:

       i.          Referred to a briefing note on CPPF’s proposed brownfield sites in urban areas of Cambridge.

     ii.          Sites in the Local Plan had been reviewed by Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee and Environment Scrutiny Committee to a level above statutory requirements.

   iii.          Sites needed to meet legal tests to be included in the Local Plan. CPPF proposed sites did not meet these criteria at present. If they were included in the Local Plan, it is likely they would be overruled by the Planning Inspector.

   iv.          Officers had already looked at and discounted CPPF proposed sites.

 

Dr Pellew raised the following supplementary points:

      i.          A lot of land ownership issues could be resolved through public-private partnership to get sites ready for use. He suggested this option be investigated further.

    ii.          Asked for a statement in the Local Plan to show that green belt sites are options of last resort to only be used after other sites had been investigated and discounted.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change responded that officers had discussed putting sites into a priority list for use. There was no legal basis for prioritising sites without appropriate planning reasons to do so.

 

2.    Ms de Blois raised the following points:

      i.          Spoke as a Mill Road resident.

    ii.          The character of the area was being eroded from mixed shop and housing use by changing to more retail development.

 iii.          Queried how developments would affect the area.

  iv.          There was a need to balance pedestrian and road traffic needs. Roads should be appropriate for the area.

    v.          Requested that family housing be protected on Mill Road and the needs of inhabitants considered in future policies.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer responded:

       i.          Referred to representations by Ms de Blois, plus strategic level detail in the submission stage Local Plan and amendments shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Streetscape (ie operational level) detail would be covered in other documents.

 

        As a supplementary point Ms de Blois said that the “wall” between public and private property realms was stronger in the past than now. This needed to be re-instead to protect the character of the Mill Road area.

 

3.    Mr Lucas-Smith raised the following points:

      i.          Took issue with the Local Plan and suggested it did not reflect public representations.

    ii.          Referred to the discussion at 17 December 2013 Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee.

 iii.          Felt that policies on sustainable transport were too weak.

  iv.          Took issue with the s106 consultation.

    v.          Suggested cyclists’ needs were not being met.

  vi.          Took issue with the Local Plan process.

vii.          Asked for planning issues to be looked at locally and not by Central Government.

     

The Head of Planning Services responded:

       i.          A clear public consultation had been undertaken.

     ii.          The Local Plan process was paused as required by the Council Constitution to check the Plan was appropriate to go forward.

   iii.          The role of Environment Scrutiny Committee was to look at representations when considering if the Local Plan should go forward.

   iv.          The City Council Local Plan and County Council Transport Strategy would support each other.

 

Mr Lucas-Smith raised the following supplementary points:

      i.          The City Council and County Council Transport Strategy were at different stages of development. Therefore it was difficult to discuss how they would mesh.

    ii.          The Local Plan felt like it was led by Officers instead of publicly discussed by Councillors.

 

        The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change responded that Councillors had been given the opportunity to discuss the Local Plan at Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee.

 

4.    Councillor Herbert raised the following points:

      i.          The City Council had two Local Plans (2006 and 2014) which needed to join up with the County Council Transport Strategy.

·       Asked for reassurance that infrastructure is in place for Local Plan development sites. These will have to cope with current and future traffic levels to be sustainable.

·       There is no evidence base at present of strategic join up between the City Council Local Plan and County Council Transport Strategy.

    ii.          Queried

·       If proposals made best use of funding.

·       What was on offer for the city centre.

·       If the County Council Transport Strategy would be available for debate at Council 13 February 2014.

     

The Head of Transport, Infrastructure Policy & Funding responded:

       i.          The Transport Strategy was in the final stages of development. It would be considered by Cabinet 4 March 2014.

     ii.          The City Council Local Plan and County Council Transport Strategy used the same transport modelling to look at ways to make the city centre more accessible and reduce car numbers.

   iii.          The City, South Cambridgeshire and County Councils were jointly working on the public realm.

   iv.          Cycling and Walking Strategies are future operational level considerations.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council’s Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee has over the last three years considered and commented on the evidence base and individual draft sections of the new Local Plan, prior to it being approved by Full Council for publication for the purposes of public consultation on 27 June 2013. That ‘draft plan’ is known as the ‘Proposed Submission’ Plan.

 

Consultation on that Plan has taken place (19 July – 30 September 2013) and 2,995 representations have been received and considered by officers. The Council now has to decide whether to continue to progress with the Plan, with or without amendments. If so, and if the amendments were not too extensive, the council could agree to formally ‘submit’ the Plan to government for independent examination. If the amendments were extensive (e.g. significant rewording of policies, new sites added or existing ones deleted), then the council may decide to re-consult before ‘submitting’ the Plan for examination.

 

The purpose of the Officer’s report was to present:

·       A summary of the Key Issues raised during the consultation on the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission document – see Appendix A;

·       A Schedule of ‘Proposed Changes’ to the Plan – see Appendix B;

·       An evidence report in respect of ‘Duty to Cooperate’ – see Appendix C.

 

The report also sets out the options available to the council in order to progress the Plan through its final preparation stages.

 

For this committee, the key recommendation is that the Plan should make its way to Council on 13 February 2014.

 

If Full Council approves the Plan, it will then be submitted to the Secretary of State for public examination by an independent planning inspector.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

Approved (prior to consideration at Council 13 February 2014) that:

       i.          The Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission document and Proposed Policies Map (as approved by Full Council on 27 June 2013) be ‘submitted’ for examination in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, together with the sustainability appraisal and associated evidence material in support of the Plan, and including the Key Issues (Appendix A) and Schedule of Proposed Changes (Appendix B).

     ii.          The Duty to Cooperate Report (Appendix C), be agreed and submitted as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan.

   iii.          In the interests of expediency, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services to undertake appropriate negotiations and make further minor additions to the Schedule of Proposed Changes during the examination of the Local Plan (i.e. post ‘submission’) if in the opinion of the Head of Planning Services it is appropriate and necessary to do so to facilitate the smooth running of the Plan through the examination period, (except where changes would be of such significance as to substantially alter the meaning of a policy or allocation). The exercise of this delegation to be reported back to Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee through the course of the examination process.

   iv.          The Head of Planning Services is authorised to prepare and submit reports, proofs of evidence, technical papers, statements of common ground and other such documents required in the presentation of the Local Plan through the examination process and reflecting the council’s agreed position on these matters and to take such other steps as are conducive or incidental to the submission and examination of the Local Plan.

    v.          Any changes to Appendices A, B and/or C required by Environment Scrutiny Committee be agreed by the Chair and Spokes of Environment Scrutiny Committee and the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change.

 

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.

 

Members of the committee discussed the report section by section.

 

Councillor Kightley asked if a bus lane could be put in Madingley Road. The Transport and Infrastructure Strategy Manager said the character of Madingley Road and cost of work would affect the implementation of a bus lane. He offered to work up a proposal for future consideration.

 

Councillor Blencowe summarised the Local Plan process to date and how consultation fed into it. Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee had reviewed and commented on the Local Plan to date.

 

The Head of Planning Services said that Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee had commented on the County Council Transport Strategy in September 2013.

 

Councillor Saunders asked the City Council had been able to offer the County Council a site that could locate a school. The Head of Planning Services said The City Council did not have a suitable site in its Local Plan for a secondary school in the city, hence the County Council’s objection to the City Council’s Local Plan. The City Council was discussing how to overcome this with the County plus South Cambridgeshire Councils.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

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.