Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Matter
for Decision:
The Local Plan is a key document for Cambridge, and
the review of the current Local Plan is currently underway. Following on from
consultation on the Issues and Options Report, which took place between June
and July 2012, officers are working on the analysis of the comments received to
the consultation and developing the preferred approach to take forward into the
draft Plan. It has previously been agreed that future reports would be brought
to Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee to analyse the comments received and
options to take forward in more detail in order to seek a steer from Members on
the approach to take forward in the draft Plan.
This
report considers the approach to be taken forward in relation to the Airport
Safety, Higher and Further Education, Tourism, Open Space and Community
Facilities, Transport and Infrastructure sections of the Issues and Options
Report as part of developing the content of the new Plan.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning
and Climate Change
The Executive Councillor resolved:
i.
To consider the key issues
related to Airport Safety, Higher and Further Education, Tourism, Open Space
and Community Facilities, Transport and Infrastructure as set out in Appendices
A,B, C, D and E of the Officer’s report; and
ii.
To endorse the response and
approach to take forward in the draft Plan, as set out in Appendices A, B, C, D
and E and tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 f the Officer’s report.
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 Cambridge Local Plan – Towards 2013 – Airport
Safety, Higher and Further Education, Tourism, Open Spaces and Community
Facilities, Transport and Infrastructure.
Airport Safety
The Senior Planning Policy Officer used a map of the area to
explain the zones around the airport and the twin issues of Public Safety Zones
and Air Safeguarding Zones.
Members raised concerns that residents around the area of
the airport had not been able to extend their properties due to concerns about
the airport. The Officer confirmed that the airport would be a consideration of
such planning application but would not preclude development in the area.
Option 75 would seek to inform the public and a balanced approach would be
taken.
Higher and Further Education
The Principal Planning Policy Officer introduced this
section of the report. He suggested that the current needs of the University of
Cambridge were well provided for by developments at West Cambridge and NW
Cambridge. The two central sites in the current plan also provide a useful
framework. However, there was an emerging picture of future need on part of the
Colleges to provide hostel accommodation to meet the University’s forecasts of
future growth in undergraduates and postgraduates. Consultation was on-going
with the College Bursars Committee and some needs can be met within the
existing College confines. The shortfall is for around 4,016 student rooms by
2031 but 1,000 of these could be found within the 2,000 rooms allocated at NW
Cambridge. The Colleges would be expected come forward in the current
consultation with other sites suitable for allocation as student hostels for
consideration. Anglia Ruskin University was also reported to be facing a
similar shortfall of available space for student hostels. The University are
also about to initiate discussions about a shortfall in faculty space on their
East Road campus.
Members questioned the number of units set aside in the
North West development for students and key workers. Questions were asked about
position of Post Graduates and Post Doctorate individuals working for the
University. Were they classed as students or key workers? The Principal
Planning Officer indicated post doctorates are not included in the
undergraduate and postgraduate figures quoted. In addition, would other college
workers, such as porters, be allocated any of the properties? The Head of
Planning stated that these decisions had already been made elsewhere. She would
supply written follow up information if required.
In response to Member’s questions the Officers present
confirmed the following:
i.
There was a capacity allocation for an additional
college in the master plan. However, the funding for this was currently
unclear.
ii.
The Department of Education favoured University
Technical Colleges and funding was available. This could be considered at a
later date.
iii.
Anglia Ruskin University playing fields on White House
Lane were not an option for development as they were on Green Belt land.
iv.
Development on other college playing fields was not
currently being considered and open spaces would be vigorously defended.
Tourism
The Principal Planning Policy Officer introduced this
section of the report. Members discussed the need to manage in impact of
tourism on the City. Councillor Hipkin questioned why a full discussion on an alternative
use for the Guildhall had not been considered. The Head of Planning stated that
the owners of both the Guildhall and the Shire Hall had made it clear that they
were not currently supportive of a change of use. However, should things change
in the future, the fact that it was not included in the plan would not preclude
a change of use.
Open Space and Community Facilities
The Senior Planning Policy Officer introduced
this section of the report.
Members asked for more details on the Community Infrastructure Levy
(CIL) and the requirements this would make for on-site and off-site open space
provision. The Head of Planning stated that the development policy would define
the CIL requirements. There were tensions, as some sites could not accommodate
on site provision. This problem was greater in some wards and future policy
would provide guidance to protect the interest of those wards. Members
expressed a preference for on-site provision where possible, and suggested this
be considered at the design stage of future developments.
Transport and Infrastructure
The Planning Policy and Transport Officer introduced this section of the
report.
Members asked for clarification on how the
plan would fit with the County Council’s Transport Strategy. The Head of
Planning confirmed that the two authorities had been working closely together
and that the documents would go forward together. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate
Change added
that once the transport strategy had been agreed, the land linked to it would
be protected.
In response to Member’s questions the
Officers present confirmed that best practice in urban design would inform
issues such as pedestrian safety. However, puddles and maintenance were beyond
the control of this committee.
Members discussed the merits
of developing outside the City Centre as opposed to infill sites. The Head of
Planning stated that the first choice was sites where there were existing,
non-car choices. However, other locations would not be ruled out if infrastructure
could be put in place.
The Committee resolved by 2 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
dispensations granted)
Not applicable.