Issue - meetings

The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) which all local authorities are obliged to publish every year.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

      i.         Agreed the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2019-2020 (included as Appendix 1) for publication on the Councils’ websites.

    ii.         Delegated any further minor editing changes to the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2019-2020 to the Joint Director for Greater Cambridge Shared Planning.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Senior Policy Planner.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.         Stated the decision made on the first item considered by the committee negated the information on p197 under ‘spaces and movement supplementary planning document.

    ii.         Noted city was first in terms of prosperity but dropped down to 232 for happiness and welfare of its residents according to the Grant Thornton UK LLP Vibrancy Economy Index 2018

   iii.         Sought clarification on the percentage figure on p213 related to the 110 litres per person per day in new developments. 

  iv.         Welcomed the data provided but asked why certain data was only available to South Cambridgeshire District Council.

    v.         Queried whether the housing trajectory reference to deliver 14,000 residential units in Cambridge was correct (p194).

  vi.         Noted the aparthotel on Milton Road School site was not completed; the report needed to reflect this.

 vii.         Enquired if the projections were correct for the right kind of businesses on the employment sites; how do we consider those people working from home.

viii.         Welcomed the comments regarding student accommodation since the adoption of the approved Local Plan was tied to educational institutions.

  ix.         Noted the report referred to the potential loss of hotels (p225) but was conscious of the loss of guest houses and bed & breakfast.

    x.         Asked how reliable the figures regarding the types of employment (p338) were.

  xi.         Noted jobs to be provided between 2011 and 2031 was 22,100 jobs, yet over the plan period (2011-2018) 24,000 jobs created. Asked how these target figures were calculated. 

 xii.         Highlighted the land allocated to employment without planning permission and would welcome comment from officers on this.

xiii.         The report concluded there was no need for a Gypsy and Traveller site but did not believe this to be true. There was an unmet need, particularly for transit travellers and this needed to be measured for both local authorities.

xiv.         Questioned whether the Council’s affordable housing policy should be reviewed.

xv.         Requested further information on renewable energy that had been installed and asked why had more been installed in South Cambridgeshire.

xvi.         Asked what the percentage increase of hotels in terms of space was.

xvii.         Asked for further information on the Council’s hotel policy.

xviii.         Noted there was data on biodiversity and questioned how successful the Council had been in protecting biodiversity in the City.

 

In response the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development and Senior Policy Planner and Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following:

      i.         Acknowledged that any changes to the decision on the Making Spaces for People Document would mean changes to the monitoring report.

    ii.         The two local authorities had specific monitoring indicators through their own Local Plans which had been responded to.

   iii.         The Local Plans do not have a flat line housing trajectory. A lower level of housing delivery in 2019-20 was expected but delivery is projected to pick up again over the next few years.

  iv.         Because the aparthotel was not opened did not mean this was not complete, discrepancy in the definition of complete. We consider buildings complete when they are ‘watertight’.

    v.         The existing policies for employment projections were being monitored and there would be different ways in which people worked and how technology has been adapted; this would be picked up in the emerging Local Plan which would be evidence based. 

  vi.         Water efficiency: The figure of 29% was based on permissions with conditions. Measuring dwellings permitted through those conditions would give a higher figure. 

xix.         Would look at the Grant Thornton UK LLP Vibrancy Economy Index 2018 which had been referenced.

 vii.         Employment floor space sometimes, because of the nature of development, came forward in big blocks of square meters at a time; developments were completed in different time frames and figures went up and down each year.

viii.         Employment figures had been taken from the Business Register & Employment Survey; it would be beneficial to look at the longer-term trends.

  ix.         The existing Gypsy and Traveller policy was continually monitored; a new needs assessment was being undertaken which would inform the new Local Plan.

    x.         Appendix 2 (data tables) of the report showed the installed capacity of renewable energy by type and the potential.

  xi.         Could not give the increased percentage of new hotel space. The hotel future work sought tenders for consultants as part of the new Local Plan, but no suitable bidder was found. This work would be revisited.  

 xii.         Acknowledged that the housing affordability ratio was a challenge. The new Local Plan would consider whether there was a capacity to increase the percentage of affordable housing compared with current policy objectives.  Housing developments also need to consider wider objectives such as biodiversity, infrastructure and community facilities, therefore the cost of delivering affordable housing needs to be balanced with the costs of implementing these other objectives.

 

The Committee

 

Resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to approve 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.