Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision:  

To consider the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) which the Council is required to produce on at least an annual basis.  Monitoring is an important part of the planning process, providing feedback on the performance of policies in terms of their use and implementation.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Endorse the AMR (Appendix A of the Officers report).

            ii.      Agreed that if any amendments are necessary, the Executive Councillor in consultation with Chair and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee should agree these.

 

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 Planning Policy Manager regarding the Annual Monitoring Report.

 

The following points were clarified, following questions from members:

 

              i.      P. 47 Figure 5; Dwelling Completions. The figures were based on replies from developers, agents and planning professionals.  This information is, however, influenced by market conditions and economic circumstances, and therefore may change significantly over time.

            ii.      P. 23 Bouygues were reported to be a national company, who have previously been involved in a number of Private Finance Initiative schemes, including hospital provision.

          iii.      P. 24 Members asked a number of questions regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy.  Officers clarified that the Community Infrastructure Levy will be brought forward in step with the review of the Local Plan and that viability work was currently underway to help ascertain the level of levy needed to fund a wide range of different forms of infrastructure, including education, open space, healthcare, sewerage and transport.

         iv.      P. 32 It was noted that there had been a decrease in the Gross Median Household Income in Cambridge.

           v.      P. 32 With regard to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, Members questioned why Cambridge appeared to have moved down the rankings. Officers confirmed that this could be related to Cambridge having moved down the rankings with a rise in deprivation and/or other local authorities having moved up the rankings.  Officers will provide a written response to Members on this issue.

         vi.      P. 37 With reference to paragraph 4.3, the AMR records the number of times a policy has been used within the monitoring year. Low figures should not be read as downgrading the importance of protection of biodiversity as they simply reflect the number of applications which have come forward in the monitoring year where there is a potential impact upon habitats or species which are the subject of Biodiversity Action Plans.

       vii.      P. 46 Density figures had risen since the previous monitoring year due to the nature of recent developments in city centre locations.

     viii.      P. 61 It was noted that the final heading in the table under paragraph 8.15 should read ‘% of population who are within 15 minutes public transport time of key services.’ The error in the table heading will be corrected prior to publication of the AMR.

         ix.      In relation to the significant level of development occurring in the urban extensions to Cambridge, Members suggested that additional acknowledgement should be made of the fact that much of the new development straddles District Council boundaries.

           x.      Members asked for details on the number of cycle parking spaces to be provided within the railway station’s new cycle parking facility. Officers confirmed that this figure would be checked.

         xi.      P. 89 References to open spaces within the table (Indicator column, rows 3 and 4) will be amended to read ‘Area of Protected Open Space per 1,000 population’ and ‘Area of total Protected Open Space accessible to the public per 1,000 population.’

       xii.      P. 84 Rough sleeping figures were the most recent available, although it was recognised that these figures might be out of date.  

     xiii.      P.86 Figures on Building for Life ratings within the city did not correlate with the figures provided on Page 41 of the report.  It was confirmed that the figures on Page 41 were correct and that the table on Page 86 would be amended.

     xiv.      P. 91 It was agreed that additional information regarding the total retail floorspace in the city would add clarity to Table BD4 and Chapter 6.

       xv.      P. 113 Deleted Policies: It was noted that policies may have been deleted in 2009, but may subsequently be relevant given the revocation of a range of Circulars, Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes upon the adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Officers reported that the new Local Plan would include a range of policies that would meet the needs of Cambridge.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

Not applicable.