Issue - meetings

Appendix 2 has been published separately to this agenda and can be found at the following link:

Agenda for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 25th March, 2025, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council

The purpose of the report was to seek approval to adopt the Cambridge Neighbourhoods Design Code for Arbury Kings Hedges and parts of West Chesterton as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

 

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

      i.         Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received and agreed proposed changes to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as set out in the Statement of Consultation (appendix 01 of the Officer’s report).

    ii.         Subject to (i), adopted the amended Cambridge Neighbourhoods Design Code SPD for Arbury, Kings Hedges and Parts of West Chesterton, March 2025 (appendix 02 of the Officer’s report).

   iii.         Delegated to the Joint Director of Planning, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, the authority to make any necessary editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.

 

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 Built Environment Team Leader.

 

In response to comments from Members the Built Environment Team Leader and the Executive Councillor said the following:

 

      i.         Noted the request to avoid  having blank walls at the end of a facade, as a blank wall usually encouraged unsolicited graffiti.  SPD wanted to encourage more active uses of blank walls throughout public spaces and at the end of terraced houses.

    ii.         Developers were expected to take account of the detailed design of buildings including the accessible letterboxes as referenced in the character chapter of the Design Code.

   iii.         The SPD would be reviewed through the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). The impact of the Design Code would also be assessed based on the outcome of planning applications received for the area.

  iv.         The project team had carried out different types of public engagement, in person and online to try and capture local views. Did not expect members of the community to come to Officers, but instead Officers tried to go out into the community with the project.

    v.         Officers had engaged with local schools on numerous occasions, engaging with the young people as the occupiers and users of houses in the future;   working with schools through the Planning Department’s Youth Engagement Service was also aimed at extending  engagement  to the student’s families.

  vi.         Local resident groups had also been consulted several times through various platforms.

 vii.         Producing a Design Code which was area based and did not have a Master Plan was instead focused upon receiving views from residents to identify priorities that were important to those who lived, worked or studied in the area.

viii.         The Design Code had been led by a series of phased  consultations. The first phase asked residents what they liked and didn’t like about the area through an online and in person survey.  The key principles were then drafted and through a series of consultations asked if they were the right principles. Once the responses had been received to the suggested principles, more detail had been added to formulate the document itself.

  ix.         Would be difficult to provide a breakdown of percentages for favourable and non-favourable responses as there had been many phased consultations over a year and a half from initial concept ideas through to support on the principles, consulting on the detail informally and then formally.

    x.         There had been approximately three hundred responses submitted with different levels of responses to each question.

  xi.         Agreed there could be lessons learnt such as the length and size of the document.

 xii.         Noted it would be interesting to see how this SPD and the newly adopted South Newnham Local Plan would be used for schemes coming forward and if these would encourage better place making.

xiii.         Taking the Design Code forward as an SPD would be the first step of validating the document.

xiv.         Officers wanted to make sure that the SPD would be used by developers and the community for designing schemes coming forward. For Planning Officers to scrutinise and assess these schemes using the SPD as an aid.

xv.         Through the new emerging Local Plan process, all SPD’s may have to be reviewed, and amendments made if necessary.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor thanked the Officers for all their hard work and looked forward to seeing how this would improve planning applications.

 

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

None