A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest Members
are asked to declare at this stage any interests, which they may have in any of
the following items on the agenda. If any member is unsure whether or not they
should declare an interest on a particular matter, they are requested to seek
advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting.
Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
|
To approve the minutes of the meeting on 17 April 2012 Minutes: The minutes of the
17 April 2012 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||
|
Public Questions (See Below) Minutes: Public questions were taken under agenda items 12/25/DPSSC and 12/26/DPSSC. |
|||||||||||||
|
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment The
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Appendix documents are too large
to attach to the agenda in hard copy format. All documents are published on the
Council’s website: (i) Main report and Appendices A, B, C & D
are attached to the agenda document. (ii) Appendix B Annexes 1 & 2 are
accessible via the following hyperlinks (please copy all lines as the address
is split over 3):
SHLAA Report and Appendices A & B SHLAA Appendices C & D Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
received a representation on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA) from Mr Bamberg. The representation
covered the following issues: (i)
Welcomed the SHLAA
consultation opportunity and supported Planning Officers recommendation. (ii)
Suggested the
Owlstone Croft should not be included in sites proposed in the SHLAA for the
following reasons: · It is in a flood plain and Conservation
Area. · The site could only be accessed by a road
that has not been adopted by the Highways Authority. The track forms part of a
riverside walking route from Paradise Nature Reserve to Granchester Meadows.
Developing the site would cause traffic flow issues and associated safety concerns
for pedestrians. Other streets are heavily congested and double parked and do
not suit two way traffic. · Site access is in multiple ownership two
thirds City Council owned and one third privately owned. The right of way is
across Council section not the privately owned section. There would be
difficulties in altering it as the private owners would be unlikely to agree to
any widening. · Site is in a Conservation Area the
quintessential character of which should be protected. Development would
conflict with the existing Local Plan policy. · Impacts on the nature reserve. The
Committee received a SHLAA representation from Councillor Nethsingha (Newnham Ward County Councillor). The representation
covered the following issues: (i)
Supported Mr Bamberg’s
view that Owlstone Croft should not be included in sites proposed in the SHLAA.
It is not suited to open market housing. Its development would have devastating
consequences for a well loved area of the City. Current use is appropriate and
welcomed. (ii)
Echoed public
disappointment that the County Council had not made a representation on
transport grounds concerning Owlstone Croft. (iii)
Supported the
Officer’s recommendation to protect playing fields. (iv)
Some car free
development might be possible. The Committee adjourned at this point to move to the Guildhall Council Chamber due to audio/visual equipment technical difficulties in Committee Rooms. Matter for Decision: The
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 requires Local Authorities to produce a
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to form part of a robust
evidence base to inform the production of Development Plan Documents. The main
purpose of the SHLAA is to assess the amount of land that may be available for
new housing in Cambridge over the next 20 years in order to inform the review
of the Cambridge Local Plan. It is important to note that the SHLAA does not
allocate land for development, or determine whether planning permission would
be granted for housing development on a site. Future
housing provision would be set locally through the review of the Local Plan,
which would need to balance housing need and demand against the capacity of the
area to accommodate new development. This would need to ensure that any housing
proposal sites are deliverable or developable. Technical work on the SHLAA
prepares the way for this work. The review of the Local Plan would also need to
balance housing pressures against pressure for the development of other uses
such as employment. Following
the Issues & Options consultation in June–July 2012 there would be a
further public consultation on sites for all land uses as part of the Local
Plan Review. The
Officer’s report sought Member’s agreement to the response to the
representations, the assessment of sites put forward in the call for sites and
other updates since the draft of July 2011. Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable
Transport: (i)
Agreed the response to representations on the draft
SHLAA (Appendix A of the Officer’s report). (ii)
Agreed the SHLAA document (Appendices B & C of the
Officer’s report) in advance of consultation on Issues & Options Stage of
the Local Plan Review. (iii)
Agreed to publish the SHLAA on the Council’s web site
and write to all consultees who made representations and landowners who
submitted sites. 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 Principal Planning Policy Officer regarding the SHLAA. In response to
Members’ questions the Head of Planning Services, Planning Policy Manager and
Principal Planning Policy Officer confirmed the following: (i)
The SHLAA is a
technical exercise for the Local Plan. It was the first stage of the planning
process to quantify sites available i.e. list all possible options. The SHLAA
does not commit the Council to allocate or approve development on sites listed
in the SHLAA. (ii)
P101 of the
Officer’s report sets out the Council’s assessment of the Owlstone Croft site.
Land ownership and availability are key factors in the SHLAA assessment of the
achievability of sites. (iii)
SHLAA Appendix
B Annex 2 sets out the methodology for calculating site density, it is derived from
Urban Capacity Study methodology. Owners of proposed development sites were
asked to give indicative capacity figures within site submissions. The Council
refined these based upon a design led approach to each site. (iv)
The City is
highly constrained and the SHLAA considered various sites around the City
including City Centre, fringe and strategic sites. Competing land use demands
would affect the number of sites taken forward for housing developments. The
Local Plan Review process may identify further sites. (v)
The City
Council was working closely with South Cambridgeshire District Council to join
up site assessments and site delivery options. The broad locations cover all
remaining land within the inner green belt boundary. (vi)
Sites such as
the Owlstone Croft could be developed for sheltered housing or student housing,
but these would not contribute to SHLAA housing needs. However, this would not
preclude sites being used in this way. Councillors requested a change to the
recommendations. Councillor Saunders formally proposed to amend 2.2b from the
Officer’s report: ·
To agree
the SHLAA document
(Appendices B & C) in advance of consultation The Committee approved this
amendment to the recommendation unanimously. The Committee resolved unanimously to
endorse the recommendations as amended. The
Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended. Conflicts of interest declared
by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted) Not applicable. |
|||||||||||||
|
Local Plan Issues and Options The
Cambridge Local Plan Review – Towards 2031 Appendix documents are too large to
attach to the agenda in hard copy format. All documents are published on the
Council’s website: (i) Main report and Appendices A, B & D are
attached to the agenda document. (ii) Appendices C, E, F, G & H are
accessible via the following hyperlink (please copy all lines as the address is
split over 3):
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee
received a representation from Ms Blair. The representation
covered the following issues: (i)
Requested that
the City, County and South Cambridgeshire Councils worked together to produce a
shared strategic vision for planning in the greater Cambridge area. Its not
helpful for residents to look at separate documents. Also, the Orchard Park
urban extension is not referred to in the document and it should be. (ii)
The Local Plan
Issues and Options report contains significant implications that are implicit,
not explicit. Resident consultation was requested on high profile developments,
such as the potential safeguarding of land for the guided busway. (iii)
With regards
to the study in relation to public houses, the planning status of the ‘Penny
Ferry’ and the ‘Dog and Pheasant’ pubs is not yet clear. The Committee
received a representation from Councillor Hipkin. The representation
covered the following issues: (i)
There appeared
to be some assumptions embedded in the Issues & Options report that need to
be examined. For example, at paragraph 3.2 of the spatial strategy, there is
the assumption that the Green Belt is causing commuting, and that more workers
should live in the City to make it sustainable. Councillor Hipkin queried if
commuting could be viewed as acceptable in principle, and any difficulties
viewed as transport issues due to inadequate transport infrastructure. (ii)
Paragraph 3.34
assumes that Cambridge house prices are too high due to a lack of supply.
However, where is the evidence that building more will lower prices? (iii)
Queried
wording in Options 6, 7 and 8 of the Report.
The Local Plan itself isn’t ‘providing jobs’, it is enabling planning
for jobs. (iv)
Option 155,
which deals with the location of new hotels, refers to Shire Hall and Mill
Lane, but not the Guildhall, which was also identified in the draft Hotel
Futures Report. Matter for Decision: The current Local Plan was adopted in July 2006. It
sets out a vision, policies and proposal for future development and land use in
Cambridge to 2016 and beyond. The current Local Plan is a robust document, but there
is a need to review and update policies. The preparation of a Local Plan involves a number of
stages, including public consultation. This is to ensure that it is robust and
comprehensive. The Issues and Options stage is about considering the
types of issues that the city may face over the next two decades, and thinking
about the issues and policy options that would need to be put in place to
address those challenges. The issues and options document presents these issues
and options in a thematic way to start the process of developing new policies. Consultation on the Issues and Options Report is
scheduled for six weeks between 15 June and 27 July 2012. Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable
Transport: (i)
Agreed the Issues and
Options Report (Appendix A of the Officer’s report) including the summary
document (Appendix B of the Officer’s report), and interim Sustainability
Appraisal (Appendix C of the Officer’s report) for consultation. (ii)
Agreed the consultation
arrangements set out in paragraphs 3.33 to 3.38 and the consultee list (subject
to minor additions) (Appendix D of the Officer’s report). (iii)
Endorsed the supporting
evidence base relating to the 2012 Appraisal of the Inner Green Belt (Appendix
E of the Officer’s report), Housing and Employment Provision in Cambridge –
Technical Background Paper (Appendix F of the Officer’s report) Cambridge
Sub-Regional Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment 2011 (Appendix G of the
Officer’s report) and Gypsy & Traveller Provision in Cambridge – Site
Assessment Process 2012 (Appendix H of the Officer’s report). (iv)
Agreed that any minor
amendments and editing changes that need to be made prior to publication should
be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation with the Chair and
Spokes. 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 report on Local Plan Issues and Options. The Committee made
the following comments in response to the report: (i)
The Local Plan
Issues & Options report should reflect Greater Cambridge needs. The City,
County and South Cambridgeshire Councils must work together to join up policy
development and implementation. Specifically concerning: · General employment growth. · Affordable housing. · Quality public transport. (ii)
At the moment
there is concern that there isn’t an overall strategic vision on housing,
transport and jobs. When will this
linkage occur? There is concern about the
later phases of plan making without a real joined up body. (iii)
There is a
tension between profitability and deliverability of sites for developers.
Public consultation could identify what members of the public think are
examples of quality building designs. In response to
Members’ questions the Head of Planning Services and Planning Policy Manager
confirmed the following: (i)
The final
version Hotels Future report would be presented to members in June for
endorsement. (ii)
The Issues and
Options report includes 4 options relating to housing provision and includes
options relating to the physical capacity of land within the city boundary.
There isn’t any government guidance in relation to setting the levels of
housing provision but a range of information has been looked at in order to
feed into the options. (iii)
The City
Council has been working closely with both South Cambridgeshire District
Council and the County Council and will continue to do so as the Plans’ are
prepared. The Council is very mindful of the need to prepare a new plan and
could not slow down its plan making to entirely match those of SCDC The aim is
to minimise any policy gap where planning decisions may be made in relation to
the NPPF as opposed to the Local Plan. The City is developing the approach to
the development strategy for the Cambridge area with SCDC and the County Council.
It is a step by step iterative process and there will be joint discussions as
preparation of the plan continues. (iv)
A joint
decision body would not be practicable as the City’s planning strategy would be
set by other areas. The Executive Councillor was not comfortable with this
proposal. However, a joint governance board between SCDC the City Council and
County Council has been set up and has already met and fed into the Issues and
Options stage. This group will continue to provide a steer as work progresses. (v)
Planning
policies would not deliver jobs, but could identify and allocate land for
others to take up and use for job creation. Officers would look at ways to
encourage general employment without limiting options for consultation. (vi)
Transport
modelling will be undertaken as preparation of the plan continues. (vii)
Officers
undertook to clarify affordable housing trigger and general figures in
paragraph 3.8 on P769 of the Officer’s report for Councillors Blencowe and
Ward. (viii)
Officers would
bring details concerning parking standards back to DPSSC later in the year. The Committee reviewed the Issues & Options report on a chapter by chapter basis. The Committee unanimously agreed to amend specific details in the Chapters set out below. Officers undertook to amend the final document. · Introduction o
Add a question about how we define ‘sustainable
development’ and what should be included in this. · Chapter 2 – Vision o
Include a reference supporting the provision of jobs for all. o
Make reference
to affordable housing. o
‘Require’ that
there is design excellence (5th bullet). ·
Chapter 3 –
Spatial Strategy o
Add data on housing commitments in the South
Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) urban extensions – including Orchard
Park, NW Cambridge, NIAB 2, Southern Fringe. o
Paragraphs 3.38 and 3.39 – clarify where the housing
numbers are from ie the 19,000 homes figure is from the SHMA o
Explain why there are housing numbers provided for the
City Council area, but none provided for the SCDC part of the broad locations. · Chapter 4 – Spatial Strategic Options o
City Centre –
would like to see more about retail diversity and the different functional
zones of the City Centre. o
Paragraph 4.18 – add Riverside and Stourbridge Common
Conservation Area. o
Paragraph 4.23 - look at the role of planning policy in
relation to the control of moorings. o
Paragraph 4.59 – add reference to the possibility of
housing in Northern Fringe East if the waste water treatment works were to
downsize. o
Paragraph 4.61 – Relook at the wording with regards to
safeguarding land alongside the railway between Cambridge Station and the
proposed station at Chesterton Sidings for a future extension to the guided
busway. This needs specific
consultation. Officers to clarify the
position with the County Council. o
Cambridge East – look at the wording of this section –
use of terms ‘would’ and ‘could’. · Chapter 5 – Opportunity Areas o
Officers to
clarify if Mill Road would be included as an ‘opportunity’ area. Mill
Road isn’t really an opportunity area for new development, as it is more about
protecting what is already there.
However, it is an opportunity for a new planning policy. Look at wording. ·
Chapter 6 – Sustainable development, climate change, water &
flooding o
Water efficiency will require looking at existing
properties as well as new properties. A
possible water offsetting fund is mentioned.
This could also be considered as part of the consequential improvements
option (option 50) in Chapter 6. · Chapter 7 – Delivering High Quality Places o
Add a question after Option 63, asking whether current
design policies have been successful. · Chapter 8 – Protecting and Enhancing the
Historic and Natural Environment o
No comments. · Chapter 9 – Delivering High Quality
Housing o
Re-look at wording of Option 93 with regards to the
deliverability of affordable housing on schemes with less than 15 dwellings. o
Consider adding reference about the clustering of
affordable housing. · Chapter 10 – Building a Strong &
Competitive Economy o
More clarity on employment being in sustainable
locations. o
Officers to clarify
the contribution of tourism towards the local economy. o
Retail diversity – need a specific opportunity to
comment on this in relation to the City Centre. This could be here or earlier in Chapter 4, which relates to the
City Centre. · Chapter 11 o
Community Stadium (option 179) – the current wording
implies Council support for the proposals.
Re-order the questions and go back to general principles by starting
with Question 11.50 - should the Abbey Stadium be retained as a stadium? Wording should be more neutral and less
detailed about Grosvenor’s proposals.
Potentially refer to a new sub-regional stadium as opposed to a
community stadium. Amendments to text to be agreed with Chair,
Spokes and Executive Councillor. · Chapter 12 o
Need better
consistency between the figures in the key facts. o
Options 186 to 188 – the options need to be crisper and
more distinct. o
Question 12.30 – drafting error as it refers to wrong
options. · Consultee list o
Amend
consultee list to include companies that have contacted the Council, secondary
schools and business representatives. The Committee
resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations, subject to document
amendments set out above to be agreed with Chair,
Spokes and Executive Councillor. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of interest declared
by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted) Not applicable. |
PDF 62 KB