Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision:  

In March 2010 Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council commissioned an Infrastructure Delivery Study. This was part of the requirement under Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12) that local planning authorities, as part of the plan making process, develop a robust evidence base in relation to physical, social and green infrastructure to ensure sustainable communities are delivered. PPS12 has since been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which also requires that infrastructure planning must be part of plan making. The Executive Councillor was recommended to adopt the study as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan and CIL

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

The Executive Councillor agreed:

To endorse the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Infrastructure Delivery Study for use as an evidence base document for the review of the Cambridge Local Plan and the Cambridge Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

Scrutiny Considerations:

Following a presentation from John Baker, Executive Director of Peter Brett Associates, the Committee received a report from the Senior Planning Policy Officer regarding Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council Infrastructure Delivery Study.

The consultant responded to question from members as follows:

              i.      The funding appears to peak in the mid period of the plan due to the reluctance of service providers to commit to long-term plans.

            ii.      Developers were increasingly looking for infrastructure to be in place at the early stages of development projects and this creates a funding stream timing mismatch. Large spends would be required in the early years of the plan.

          iii.      Members were reminded that this is an evolving document and initial costing had been based on the 2006 Plan and would need to be updated.

         iv.      Funding for telecommunication appears to show conflicting information due to the differing requirements and extent of existing provision across the area.

           v.      At present there was insufficient information on health care costing and therefore this is listed with a zero value.

Councillor Reid suggested that the energy infrastructure needs appeared to be based on the outdated ‘predict and provide’ approach. She suggested increasing the profile on low carbon and reduced energy solutions for future development within the plan.

In response to a question from Councillor Hipkin, Mr Baker stated that the test of what was critical to the plan would based on deliverability. The critical elements would include any measures needed to ensure that acceptable development came forward. The viability of future developments would be dependant on balancing the relationship between funding streams and the need to provide affordable housing with the requirement for infrastructure.

The Committee resolved (nem con) to endorse the recommendations.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

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

Not applicable.