Issue - meetings

The main report and appendices are too large to attach to the agenda in hard copy format. Printed copies have been placed for reference on deposit at Guildhall Reception. All documents are published on the Council’s website:

(i)                Main report with the agenda document.

(ii)              Appendix A is available in the ‘Library’ folder accessible via the following hyper link

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=6882

 

(iii)            Appendix B is available on the ‘Open Space Strategy’ page accessible via the following hyper link:

 

 http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/content/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/local-development-framework/open-space-strategy.en

1.      Ms Kamminga raised the following issues on behalf of Petersfield Area Community Trust:

 

(i) Referred to paragraph 6.4 of the Open Space and Recreation Strategy document and asked if guidelines related to commuted sums in lieu of on-site open space provision would be helpful.

 

(ii) Suggested an amendment to paragraph 5.7, Table 2 of the Officer’s report as follows: “There should be a presumption that on-site provision of open space open space and play areas should be a requirement of new residential developments and that commuted sums in lieu of this provision should only be accepted in exceptional circumstances.”

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer referred to Policy 3/8 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, which requires the provision of public open space and sports facilities in line with the Council’s Open Space And Recreation Standards.  Provision should be on site as appropriate to the nature and location of development or where the scale of development indicates otherwise through commuted payments to the City Council. If the strategy were to be amended in the way suggested, this would contravene Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policy, and would give rise to additional risk in the processing of planning applications.  The future impact of the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy in Cambridge was yet to be determined through the production of a charging schedule, but this could affect how monies were collected and used in areas of the city.

 

2.      Mr Lucas-Smith (Cambridge Cycling Campaign) raised the following issues:

 

(i) Suggested the aims of the Open Space and Recreation Strategy did not give much weight to transport.

 

(ii) Queried if guidance could be clarified concerning charges for use of common land for meetings.

 

(iii) Queried if permission for cyclists to use paths on common land could be formalised in the Strategy or another document, as it was only implicit at present.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer answered:

 

(i) The document set out the strategy for open spaces, its prime aim was not to set out specific cycling strategy.  It was agreed that the Senior Planning Officer would consider making additional reference to the importance of cycling within the strategy and would liaise with the Chair, Executive Councillor and Spokespeople in order to make any substantive changes to the strategy.

 

(ii) The Senior Planning Officer undertook to liaise with Street and Open Space colleagues and the Director of Environment concerning charges for the use of open spaces and the provision of information on cycle routes across open spaces.

 

(iii) The Director of Environment undertook to liaise with Legal colleagues before advising on a city cycle route map.

 

3.      Ms Whitehead (Bidwells) sent a letter to the Chair and Head of Planning Services to be read out at Committee:

 

(i) Expressed concern regarding the consultation process as an Agent acting for a variety of different landowner interests across the City.

 

(ii) Understood the need for the forthcoming Development Plan, but felt the speed of completion of the document created a perception that consultation comments were not given proper consideration.

 

(iii) Received advice that the Open Space and Recreation Strategy would not become a formal Supplementary Planning Document, but instead used as a material consideration in the planning application process and as evidence base in the process of development the Local Plan Review. However, Officers referred to the document before the adoption of the strategy.

 

(iv) The version of the Open Space and Recreation Strategy referred to by today’s committee was loaded onto an obscure part of the Council’s website in advance of the meeting prior to agenda documentation. This had the potential to cause confusion.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer answered:

 

(i) The process followed by the Council to complete the Open Space and Recreation Strategy has been open and transparent.  In addition to the public discussion of the criteria for assessing open spaces at Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee in July 2010, the consultation period for the draft strategy ran from 25^th July through to 2^nd September 2011 and was agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning and Transport and other members of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee at the 12^th July 2011 meeting.  Although it did not represent consultation on a Supplementary Planning Document or a Development Plan Document, this evidence base document was issued for public consultation for 6 weeks.  The Council is not formally required to consult on such documents, but we do so as it represents good practice.  The Council included Bidwells and all the University of Cambridge’s colleges, many of whom are represented by Bidwells, on the draft list of consultees presented at committee.  This list was approved at Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee on 12^th July 2011 with some additional consultees included.  Prior to consultation commencing in July 2011, the Council then sent notification of the consultation to Mike Carpenter at Bidwells.

 

The Council has given all of the submitted representations proper consideration.  Officers registered representations throughout the consultation period and considered all the representations fully before finalising responses to the representations and changes to the draft strategy.  The tight deadline for the completion of the document was due in part to the need to complete the evidence base for the Local Plan Review, but the Council does not consider that there was any undue haste in the way that the process has been conducted.  Whilst a relatively small number of amendments were made to the draft strategy as a result of consultation, this does not indicate that representations were not afforded due reflection.  Officers have discussed the key issues raised in respect of the draft strategy within the committee report, including a number of concerns raised by Bidwells.  Whilst there is always likely to be a greater number of objections than representations supporting a planning policy document, the Council has been consistent in its approach to dealing with representations.

 

In terms of the document’s status, it has been presented at Environment Scrutiny Committee for adoption as a material consideration in the planning process and as part of the technical evidence base for the Local Plan Review.  Members adopted the strategy at last night’s committee following the officer recommendation.  This will mean that if a proposal for development came forward which might give rise to the loss of a Protected Open Space, the work included in the strategy allows the Council the opportunity to evidence its importance for environmental and/or recreational reasons. The case officer for the planning application would use the findings of the assessment and strategy to inform decision-making on the principle of the loss of the Protected Open Space and the quantity and qualities of publicly accessible open space to be provided on site based on deficits in the locality.  In relation to forming part of the evidence base for the Local Plan Review, as this strategy suggests new standards, the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 (and the Planning Obligations Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)) standards will stand as the adopted standards for the time-being.  The suggested new standards will be used to inform the Local Plan Review and support the Planning Obligations Strategy SPD.  Following the adoption of the next Local Plan, the strategy will be formally updated and readopted in order to ensure that the standards of the new Local Plan and strategy are aligned.  Please note that the strategy does not allocate sites at this stage, but recognises their importance as Protected Open Space and provides up-to-date information.  Allocation of sites for a range of purposes will be taken forward through the review of the Local Plan.

 

(ii) In terms of the designation of Protected Open Space, the Council’s approach to designating areas of land as Protected Open Space has not changed since the adoption of the 1996 Local Plan.  Policy 4/2 of the current Cambridge Local Plan 2006 deals with Protected Open Space and has been subject to examination as part of the Local Plan inquiry process.  The supporting text (paragraph 4.7) to this policy includes an important caveat regarding the protection of open spaces which are undesignated, but which fulfil at least one of the Criteria to Assess Open Space included in the Plan.  This has separate criteria for Environmental and Recreational Importance.  This caveat allows the Council to consider undesignated areas against the criteria for protection at any time.  This has occurred in relation to a number of planning applications over the last few years.  Furthermore, the Council’s approach to dealing with the expansion of educational institutions and the potential impact on Protected Open Space is consistent within both the 2006 and 2011 strategies.  This was highlighted as a key issue within the report to Environment Scrutiny Committee in the light of concerns raised by Bidwells and other respondents.

 

(iii) In terms of officers using the strategy prior to adoption, Ms Whitehead did not clarify which instances she was referring to.  Officers have had involvement in work on a number of sites at the pre-application stage.  The Council’s officers have provided up-to-date advice to Bidwells on the basis of recent site visits and local knowledge.  During two meetings, it was made clear that this was a draft strategy, with maps from the draft strategy being used to help provide a context for the discussion.  Written advice provided by the Planning Policy team was clear in noting that the 2011 strategy was a draft at the time that the advice was provided.  Additionally, the caveat in the supporting paragraph to Policy 4/2 allows us to consider the importance of sites as required.  Officers within the Planning Policy team have not referenced the document in the way represented in your letter.  It is reasonable to use the draft strategy to inform discussions and any advice has been given on that basis.

 

(iv) Concerns regarding the silting of the latest tracked changes version of the Open Space and Recreation Strategy on the Council’s website are noted.  This particular page was used as the full strategy document could not be uploaded onto the committee system due to file size limits.  It was agreed that the best way forward was to mount it on the Council’s Open Space and Recreation Strategy page and provide links from the main report page.  It was also made clear on the webpage that the strategy had not yet been adopted at the time that it was uploaded.

 

Matter for Decision:  

The purpose of the Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011 would be to replace the existing Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2006 in setting out the protection, enhancement and requirements for new provision of open space necessary to meet the needs of the expanding City, and the mechanisms for implementation.

 

After being approved for consultation at Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee on 12th July 2011, the Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011 was issued for consultation between 25 July and 2 September 2011.

 

Consultation resulted in a number of amendments being made to the Open Space and Recreation Strategy. Appendix A of the Officer’s report provided a summary of representations made to the draft Open Space and Recreation Strategy, and provided information on officers’ assessment of those representations. Appendix B of the Officer’s report set out a tracked changed version of the Open Space and Recreation Strategy in order to allow the amendments made as a result of consultation to be viewed.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

(i) Agreed the responses to the representations received to the draft Open Space and Recreation Strategy and the consequential amendments to the strategy.

 

(ii) Adopted the Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011 as a material consideration and as part of the technical evidence base for the Local Plan Review.

 

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 Senior Planning Policy Officer regarding the Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011.

 

The committee made the following comments in response to the report.

 

(i) Observed that some wards had more open space than others, the east area of the City was particularly deficient.

 

(ii) The viability of land should be considered so open spaces were created where appropriate and fit for purpose, as opposed to just being inserted to meet criteria. That was, they needed to be of a useful size in appropriate locations around the City.

 

In response to Member’s questions, the Senior Planning Policy Officer and Head of Planning Services confirmed the following:

 

(i) Noted Member’s comments concerning the commuting of cash sums in lieu of open space provision. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport undertook to take forward this issue in discussion with officers.

 

(ii) It was difficult to provide recreational facilities for all age groups in 1 play area, this was more practicable in larger play areas than smaller ones. This was more of a management than a policy issue. In assessing the need to upgrade facilities in a given area of the City, consideration should be given to the demographics of the area in order to provide appropriate play facilities.

 

(iii) The Senior Planning Policy Officer undertook to provide training to Planning Officers to ensure consistency of application of the Open Space and Recreation Strategy 2011 and the policies contained in the Cambridge Local Plan 2006.

 

The committee resolved unanimously to adopt the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.