Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Glenn Burgess Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Request to film the meeting The Mayor gave permission for Mr Taylor to film the meeting.
It was confirmed that filming would cease if members of the public or speakers expressed
a desire not to be filmed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Marchant-Daisley. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of interest Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re-ordering of the agenda Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council
Procedure Rules, the Mayor used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda
to take item 4 before item 3. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes
will follow the order of the published agenda. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Petitions A petition has been received containing over
500 valid signatures stating the following: “We the undersigned call on Cambridge City and South Cambs Councils to withdraw all sites in the Green Belt proposed for development in the draft Local Plan. * We oppose further destruction of the Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances that justify it. *We oppose urban sprawl that will destroy the historic, compact character of Cambridge, its surrounding villages and countryside and will further add to traffic congestion. *The Councils’ plans are based on out-of-date growth forecasts and first consideration should be given to greater re-use of existing sites (including brownfield) not in the Green Belt.” A further petition has been received containing
over 500 valid signatures stating the following: “We the undersigned share concerns about the
proposals for the Ridgeons (R12) site in the Local Plan. We want to see changes
to the proposal that include: i)
Reducing the overall density of the site down to
35dph or less. ii)
Ensuring that the housing mix meets the needs of the
local community with more affordable family homes (3/4/5 bedrooms and ALL
bedrooms of a decent size) being built with gardens to redress the balance of
Cromwell Road as a result of previous unsustainable development on the street. iii)
Green open spaces that are
accessible and usable by all. iv)
A new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway
line. v)
Change use of site from Residential to mixed – to
accommodate local, grass roots enterprises and businesses.” The petition organisers will be given 5 minutes each to present their petitions at the meeting and each petition will then be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes. The Council will then decide how to respond to the petitions. Minutes: A petition had been
received containing over 500 valid signatures stating the following: “We the undersigned call on Cambridge City and South Cambs Councils to withdraw all sites in the Green Belt proposed for development in the draft Local Plan. * We oppose further destruction of the Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances that justify it. *We oppose urban sprawl that will destroy the historic, compact character of Cambridge, its surrounding villages and countryside and will further add to traffic congestion. *The Councils’ plans are based on out-of-date growth forecasts and first consideration should be given to greater re-use of existing sites (including brownfield) not in the Green Belt.” Mr Jones presented and spoke in support of the petition. The following points were made: i) Referenced to an open letter which had been sent to
all Councillors. ii) The draft Local Plan failed on sustainability grounds
due to the distance of facilities. iii) Netherhall
and Newbury were high-quality arable farms which had been downgraded to satisfy
the City planners’ aspiration. iv) Significant issues around bio diversity and geology. v) Data used in the report was out of date. vi) City Planners had a duty to consider brownfields site
first. vii)The City Planners had failed to identify a brownfield
site owned by the City Council. viii)
The city would experience
an increase in traffic. Councillors debated the
issues raised for the allocated 15 minutes. The Leader of the Council thanked
the petitioners for attending. The issues raised by the petition related
to the content of the Local Plan and would therefore be the subject of the main
debate. A further petition had been received containing over
500 valid signatures stating the following: “We the undersigned share concerns about the
proposals for the Ridgeons (R12) site in the Local Plan. We want to see changes
to the proposal that include: i)
Reducing the overall density of the site down to
35dph or less. ii)
Ensuring that the housing mix meets the needs of the
local community with more affordable family homes (3/4/5 bedrooms and ALL
bedrooms of a decent size) being built with gardens to redress the balance of
Cromwell Road as a result of previous unsustainable development on the street. iii)
Green open spaces that are accessible and usable by
all. iv)
A new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway
line. v)
Change use of site from Residential to mixed – to
accommodate local, grass roots enterprises and businesses.” Ms Gaillard presented and spoke
in support of the petition. The following points were made: i)
The petition was not about
stopping progress and development. ii)
Residents were happy to see
that the site had been identified for development but there needed to be a
balance of amenity and houses. iii)
The number of homes had
been doubled and should be reduced to the original number of 120. iv)
There was a need for mixed
family homes to enhance a community environment. v)
Cromwell Road area had been
failed by the City Planners and this was opportunity to enrich the area. vi)
It was clear that the
community had been able to influence the planning policy. vii)
Crownwell Road is on the
edge of two school catchment areas and should not be allowed to become a
“catchment black hole”. viii)
This was an opportunity to
relive pressure on existing services in the area. ix)
Requested the consideration
of a new pedestrian railway crossing. Councillors debated the
issues raised for the allocated 15 minutes. The Leader of the Council thanked
the petitioners for attending. The issues raised by the petition related
to the content of the Local Plan and would therefore be the subject of the main
debate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Questions Time Minutes: Mr Sarris addressed the Council and made the
following points: i)
Green spaces are valued and should be retained. ii)
Current high water levels demonstrate the need for
the flood plain. iii)
The new railway station in Chesterton would
increase pressure to build on land liable to flood. iv)
Questioned what measures would be undertaken to
control building on flood plains. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change responded: i)
The Local Plan would direct building away from
areas prone to flooding and quoted policies 31 & 32 of the Local Plan. ii)
This Authority has not allowed development against
advice of the Environment Agency. iii)
New developments were required to provide
Sustainable Drainage Systems. Mr Underwood addressed the Council and made the
following points: i)
The Howard Mallet Centre site had enjoyed the
designation of land for the community for many years. ii)
Successive uses of the building have supported this
designation. iii)
Any proposed development should respect that the
land has been dedicated to Community use. iv)
Building student accommodation on the site would
not satisfy the conditions attached to the land. v)
Access to any redevelopment of Mill Road depot via
residential streets should not be allowed. vi)
Side streets would be used as rat runs. vii)
Local residents had major concerns about this
matter. The
Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change
responded: iv)
The Local Plan does not propose any particular use
for the Howard Mallet site. v)
Any planning application would have to adhere to
planning policy. vi)
The potential to enhance St Matthew’s Piece would
be fully explored. vii)
Any development would have to meet the criteria. viii)
No decision
has been made regarding access to the Mill Road Depot site. ix)
The Council would be considering an amendment to
the Plan regarding this matter later in the meeting. Mr Underwood’s supplementary question: i)
Residents in the area are fearful regarding what
would be built and there was a strong likelihood that the land would be used
for development. Mr de Bois addressed the Council and made the
following points: i)
Concerns regarding Policy 23. ii)
Residents of Mill Road do not want the Conservation
Area redefined as a Development Area. iii)
The character of Mill Road needs to be protected
and the Local Plan has failed to do this. iv)
There is a good mixture of shops and houses on Mill
Road. v)
The consultation process does not recognise the
existing housing on Mill Road. vi)
The Local Plan refers to the provision of generous
pavements on Mill Road vii)
Options appear to show shared use of the
road/pavement and widening the footpaths which would not be possible in such a
confined area. viii)
Expressed concerns that if pavements were widened
the roads would become narrower, with any development bringing an increase in
traffic. ix)
A request for additional wording regarding housing
was submitted to the Environment Scrutiny Committee in January. x)
Red line highlights a potential development area on
Mill Road. xi)
Requested that the residential nature of the area
be protected. The
Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change
responded: x)
There was no suggestion that Mill Road would lose
its Conservation Area status. xi)
The existence of houses on Mill Road was recognised
in the main document. xii)
The homes on
Mill Road were protected. xiii)
Accepted that that the phrase “more generous
pavements” could be replaced by “improvements to pavements”. xiv)
The red line highlights an opportunity area not a
specific development. Mr Pellew addressed the
Council and made the following points: i.
Questioned how the principle of the development sequence referenced in
2.26 of the Local Plan would be enforced. ii.
Developers would favour greenfield
development sites. iii.
Central urban sites would remain untouched. iv.
Requested that the City Council consider including a statement in the
Local Plan that urban areas be developed first. v.
Referenced the Local Plan for Reigate Council which had a policy to
protect the Green Belt and to promote the conservation and enhancement of the
landscape. vi.
Green Belt land should only be released if needed for five-year housing
supply The Executive Councillor for Planning and
Climate Change responded: vii.
This was a
misunderstanding of 2/26 of the Local Plan. viii.
Alongside this, the
Council, along with South Cambridgeshire District
Council has had to consider whether the 2006 development strategy remains the
most appropriate or an alternative would be more suitable. ix.
A range of options
had been considered and strategic land assessments undertaken. x.
98.03%
of Green Belt land within the city’s administrative boundary is being
protected. Mr Pellew supplementary question:
i.
Noted that the Executive Councillor had not
answered queries regarding phasing of development so that all brownfield sites
are fully developed before any greenbelt sites are considered. The Executive Councillor for Planning and
Climate Change responded: ii.
Officers did not
consider this to be needed or appropriate for the current circumstances in
Cambridge. Mr Baigent addressed the Council and made the following
points: i)
Reminded Councillors that 500 people had signed a
petition against the proposals for the Ridgeon’s (R12) site in the Local
Plan. ii)
Questioned if the Council would take into
consideration the opinion of those 500 individuals and highlighted the need for
‘Localism and Democracy’. iii)
The proposed development would have an impact on
the Conservation Area. iv)
Flats built on Cavendish Road would lean into
the Conservation Area. v)
Concerned about access onto Mill Road via Cavendish
Road. The
Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change
responded: xv)
The conservation area would be taken into account
and would remain. xvi)
More detailed questions would be picked up in the
planning application. xvii)
There was no government planning policy regarding
who could purchase properties. This was not a planning consideration. Mr Baigent’s supplementary question:
i.
Highlighted the need for housing for local people. The
Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change
responded:
ii.
40% would be affordable housing for local people. Mr Huntsman addressed the
Council and made the following points:
i.
There is a serious traffic problem on the south side
of the City. ii. A number of bus companies (including the Park & Ride) use Worts’ Causeway as short cut to avoid the traffic. iii. Developments around Worts’ Causeway would have a serious impact on the bypass used by buses. iv. Before any development suitable arrangements would have to be agreed to avoid an adverse impact on traffic. v. Questioned if Babraham Road would be able to cope with the additional traffic. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change responded:
vi.
The Local Plan did acknowledge a number of
challenges regarding transport issues. vii. Suitable arrangement would have to be agreed before development begins. Mr Huntsman supplementary question:
i.
Any additional traffic to the South of the City
would create serious problems. The Executive Councillor for Planning and
Climate Change responded:
ii.
The wider transport strategy would be considered
by Cambridgeshire County Council. Mr Mitchell addressed the Council and made the following
points:
i.
Would welcome the development of the Cherry Hinton
Chalk Pit Lakes.
ii.
The Lakes could be transformed into a recreational
and ecological park.
iii.
Urged the Council to ‘dream big’ with the
development of the Lake.
iv.
With the right leadership and funding the Cherry
Hinton Chalk Pit Lakes could be a ‘jewel’ in the open spaces of Cambridge.
v.
The Lakes could provide a safe outdoors environment
that promotes and supports health activities to the people of Cambridge. The Executive Councillor for
Planning and Climate Change responded:
vi.
He thanked Mr Mitchell and Cambridge Lakes for their support. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To consider the recommendations of the Executive for Adoption |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cambridge Local Plan 2014 - Submission Stage PDF 181 KB Appendices
attached: -
Appendix A: Key Issues -
Appendix C: Duty to Cooperate Report Please note: Appendix B:
Schedule of Proposed Changes – can be accessed via the following link: A hard copy is
available at Guildhall Reception and copies will be available at the meeting. Additional documents:
Minutes: The
Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change introduced the item. Amendments from the Labour Group Councillor
Blencowe proposed and Councillor Johnson seconded the
following amendment to the Local Plan: Section 2, Page 35, Policy 7 – River Cam Add g)
not impinge nor have adverse impact on the floodplain. On
a show of hands the amendment was lost by 21 votes to 19 Section 3, Page 46, Policy 11 – Fitzroy/Burleigh
Street etc In a) include Fitzroy Street On
a show of hands the amendment was lost by 21 votes to 19 Section 3, Page
61, Policy 16 – Cambridge BioMed Campus Between d) and e) add ‘be self-sufficient in
car park provision’ On
a show of hands the amendment was lost by 22 votes to 19 Section 5, Page 144, Policy 44 – Specialist Colleges Change 5.32 wording to remove ‘will be flexible in considering any’ and
replace with ‘will require a’. On a show of hands the amendment was carried unanimously. Section 7, Page 189, Policy 69 – Protection of sites of local nature
conservation importance Change wording of fourth line from: ‘Where development is permitted, proposals must include measures’ to: ‘Where development is permitted, proposals will include measures’ On
a show of hands the amendment was lost by 21 votes to 19 Councillor
Blencowe proposed and Councillor Herbert seconded the
following amendment to the Local Plan: Appendix B, R10, Mill Road Depot, Pages 243/244 Remove line: “site will need careful review of highway
access” And replace with: “vehicular access to be from Mill Road” On
a show of hands the amendment was lost by 21 votes to 18 Councillor
Ward proposed the following amendment to the Local Plan: Appendix B, R10, Mill Road Depot, Pages 243/244 Remove line: “site will need careful review of highway
access” And replace with: “vehicular access to be from Mill Road only,
subject to detailed testing” On a show of hands the amendment was carried unanimously.
Resolved (by 21 votes to 1) subject to the amendments agreed
above, to approve: a. that the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission document and Proposed Policies Map (as approved by Full Council on 27 June 2013) be ‘submitted’ for examination in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, together with the sustainability appraisal and associated evidence material in support of the plan, and including the Key Issues (Appendix A) and Schedule of Proposed Changes (Appendix B); b. that
the Duty to Cooperate Report (Appendix C), be agreed and submitted as part of
the evidence base for the Local Plan; c. that, in the interests of expediency, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services to undertake appropriate negotiations and make further minor additions to the Schedule of Proposed Changes during the examination of the local plan (i.e. post ‘submission’) if in the opinion of the Head of Planning Services it is appropriate and necessary to do so to facilitate the smooth running of the plan through the examination period, (except where changes would be of such significance as to substantially alter the meaning of a policy or allocation). The exercise of this delegation to be reported back to Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee through the course of the examination process; d.
that the Head of Planning Services is authorised to prepare and submit reports,
proofs of evidence, technical papers, statements of common ground and other
such documents required in the presentation of the local plan through the
examination process and reflecting the council’s agreed position on these
matters and to take such other steps as are conducive or incidental to the
submission and examination of the local plan; e.
that any changes to Appendices A, B and/or C required by Full Council be agreed
by the Chair and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee and the
Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change.
|