Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service (GCSP) committed to reviewing its design review service in its 2020/2021 Business Plan. Last year, GCSP appointed the independent expert Esther Kurland, from Urban Design Learning (UDL), to review the two panels.

 

The report sought approval for the proposed arrangements (including charges) which are informed by the recommendations of that review.

 

The proposal was to replace the two separate design review panels with a new single panel, operating in a consistent manner across Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, with a common charging regime.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

      i.         Agreed the proposals to introduce the new design review service offer and charging schedule set out in the Officer’s report for the Greater Cambridge Area from January 2022. Given that the report was also going to South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Cabinet, delegated powers were sought should there be any minor changes made by that process to be delegated to the Joint Planning Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

    ii.         Agreed the proposals for Cambridge City Council to introduce interim changes to the Design and Conservation Panels terms of reference from July 2021 until the launch of the new design review panel. But discontinue the existing traffic light classification scheme only at a point when an alternative quick reference summary format had been agreed to replace it, which is qualitative within a spectrum and indicative of progress made.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

 

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee considered a report from the Principal Urban Designer and Built Environment Team Leader.

 

In response to questions and comments from the Committee the Principal Urban Designer and Built Environment Team Leader said the following:

      i.         Cambridge City Council was unusual that it did not charge for the Design Review service.

    ii.         During the review process applicants and agents had indicated that they valued the services and would be willing to pay for a more professionalised service.

   iii.         Most of the schemes reviewed were significant in scale and sensitivity and hence had the resources to pay for the review.

  iv.         Cambridgeshire County Council geographic remit was broader than South Cambridgeshire District Council and the City Council.

    v.         The new format was designed such that all the panels in this area operated in the same way.

  vi.         Surveys and interviews undertaken with panel members. Included a representative from Past, Present and Future and Cambridge Architects Association. A recent meeting was also held with both organisations and the review was also advertised on the agent’s forum inviting engagement direct with officers which they could respond to.

 vii.         The separate community review panel referenced in the report was a specialised review service currently being promoted in different parts of the country, primarily in London.  A decision would need to be made at an appropriate time as to who would lead on setting this up within the Greater Cambridge Planning Services.

viii.         Agreed that the first amendment could be taken forward. 

  ix.         With regard to the second amendment, there were lots of matters in terms of how the community design review worked in its broader sense as a tool; this was a concept that was new and further work was required to take this forward, which didn’t form the scope of this review. It needed to be considered on its own merits later.

 

The Head of New Communities said the following:

      i.         Each department had a statement of community involvement which set out how each department engages with the community, which had recently been reviewed.

    ii.         This first phase of the design review service was to look at professionalising the service, best practice and what users of the services had to say.

   iii.         The review starts to look at how community’s views are highlighted to the panel and would be looked at in detail during the second stage of the process.

  iv.         No objection to the first amendment.

    v.         The second amendment referred to an amount of work which was a major undertaking and more detailed work was required; this including looking at variety, talking to communities. Currently there was not the resources to do this, but it would be carried out when the statement of community involvement would be reviewed sometime next year and after the second stage of the process.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Page Croft seconded the following amendments to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through).

 

    ii.         That the Committee recommend to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to agree the proposals for CCC to introduce interim changes to the DCP’s terms of reference from July 2021 until the launch of the new design review panel. But discontinue the existing traffic light classification scheme only at a point when an alternative quick reference summary format has been agreed to replace it, which is qualitative within a spectrum and indicative of progress made.

 

The amendment was carried forward by 4 votes to 0.

 

   iii.         That the committee recommend to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport to agree to develop a community design review panel within Cambridge city to enable formative and qualitative input to planning applications without duplicating residents’ rights to make representations at the determination stage

 

The amendment was lost by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officers recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces approved the recommendations.

 

The Chair noted the comments from Councillor S Smith that Officers should be commended for their report.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor