Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence. 

No apologies were received.

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.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillors Reid & Saunders	12/31/DPSSC	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past, Present & Future

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2012 will be approved at a future meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 May 2012 will be approved at a future meeting.

No public questions were received.

To note terms of reference at the start of the new municipal year

The Committee reviewed its terms of reference at the start of the new municipal year.

 

The Head of Planning Services and Planning Policy Manager undertook to review and update DPSSC terms of reference for discussion by DPSSC in future prior to presenting them for approval at a future Environment Scrutiny Committee.

Matter for Decision:  

There are 86 public houses in Cambridge still trading or under refurbishment in Cambridge. In recent years more than 20 pubs in Cambridge have been lost to alternative uses, most for residential development, some converting fully to restaurants and some simply closing.

 

The Council commissioned consultants to produce a Cambridge Public House Study (Appendix A of the Officer’s report). This work included an audit of public houses in Cambridge, to advise the council on the national and local market.

 

Alongside the Cambridge Public House Study, an Interim Planning Policy Guidance (IPPG) (Appendix B of the Officer’s report) has been produced in order to set out the principles for development affecting public house sites in Cambridge until the adoption of the new Local Plan (scheduled for April 2014). The IPPG recommends guidance for proposals affecting the loss of a public house (listed in the Section 5 of Appendix B of the Officer’s report).

 

The first step in developing the Interim Planning Policy Guidance is to prepare a report (Appendix B of the Officer’s report) for public consultation prior to adopting the guidance. The IPPG sets out the principles for development affecting public house sites in Cambridge and how applicants should justify their proposals for change of use/conversion/redevelopment (where planning permission is required) against the principles and criteria in this section.

 

A six week public consultation is proposed from Friday 15 June to Friday 27 July 2012.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

(i)                Considered the findings of the draft Cambridge Public House Study by GVAHumberts Leisure (Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

(ii)              Approved the draft Interim Planning Policy Guidance on The Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge (Appendix B of the Officer’s report) for public consultation.

(iii)            Approved the consultation arrangements as set out in Paragraphs 3.24 to 3.26 including the Schedule of Consultees in Appendix C of 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 Interim Planning Policy Guidance: Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge.

 

The Committee were advised the report contained errors on P5 and P11. The consultation period would end Friday 27 July 2012, not Monday 27 July.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

(i)                Member’s will contact Officers post committee with any minor errors and omissions in report text. Officers undertook to insert these amendments prior to starting the public consultation.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planning Policy Officer confirmed the following:

 

(i)                Land owners would need to demonstrate to City Officers that effective marketing has been undertaken for former pub sites before they can be used for other purposes. The intention is to market properties in a fair and open manner.

(ii)              The purpose of the strategy is to give the Council flexibility to agree with applicants how long sites should be marketed for, in line with National Planning Policy Framework guidance. An independent assessor would set the marketing value, the Council would judge if the applicant has marketed the property effectively. It was not the purpose of the strategy to review why pubs closed in an area.

(iii)            The strategy attempted to protect pubs rather than class A usage. Officers would provide guidance in the strategy on how applicants could diversify if a pub was failing.

(iv)            Officers to amend the second bullet point in Annex C (P109) of the Officer’s report to require developers to carry out an assessment of the needs of the local community for community facilities.

(v)              The report draws on different sources of information. Each with separate definitions and benchmarks. The Council now has a baseline of different catchment areas and so is able to model access to public houses in the City. This information was not available before.

(vi)            Different people had varying expectations of ‘local’. The first study looked at pubs, or alternatives to them, within 400 metres as a starting point. Officers accepted that housing density impacted on this 400m catchment area.

(vii)          The Protection of Public Houses Guidance would carry little weight in planning decisions until the final version has been agreed by Members post public consultation. Trade organisations would be invited to participate in the consultation. A Members briefing would also be organised.

(viii)        Pubs that become restaurants will still retain their protection.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

Councillor Herbert withdrew from the meeting just prior to the vote, then returned after it occured.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

In January 2012 the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) commissioned an update to the Councils’ Employment Land Review.

 

The Employment Land Review provides an evidence base for developing policies and allocating sites in the review of the Local Plan and will also be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

 

A summary of the findings from the Update to the Employment Land Review is attached as part of the main report at appendix A of the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

(i)                Considered the summary of findings from the Employment Land Review 2012.

(ii)              Noted that the final Employment Land Review will be brought before Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee for agreement at a future date. 

 

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 & Economic Development Officer regarding the Employment Land Review Update (ELRU).

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy & Economic Development Officer confirmed the following:

 

(i)                There was greater demand for City sites for employment purposes when compared to South Cambridgeshire ones. SCDC would pick up the lack of demand for sites in their Local Plan review. City Officers would continue to monitor the situation too.

(ii)              The central area definition in the ELRU covers areas outside of the City Centre. The Local Plan Issues & Options report asked what demands the central area can support to balance competing needs. The report would also look at the impact of strategic sites, such as the proposed Chesterton Station.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 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.

Matter for Decision:

In April 2012, Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee considered a report from consultants on the performance and existing and future demand and supply for new hotels in the City and immediate surrounding area.

 

Final work has now been completed on the comparator historic town benchmarking and ‘fair share analysis’ which has explored the role of and breakfast and guesthouse sector in relation to recent expansion of budget hotel provision. This suggests planned and future budget provision in Cambridge is likely to have a detrimental impact on the guest house and small hotel occupancies and some establishments may be forced to exit the market.

 

As part of Issues and Options work for the Local Plan review, housing and employment forecasts have been updated this has resulted in some small changes to the hotel market growth projections to reflect the latest population and housing growth options now being consulted upon in Issues and Options stage.

 

This feeds in to the Council’s evidence base for the review of the

Local Plan and will help inform any decisions relating to applications for hotel development in Cambridge.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

Endorsed the final report Cambridge Hotel Futures by Hotel Solutions for use as an evidence base for the review of the Local Plan and as a material consideration in planning decisions. 

 

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 Cambridge Hotel Futures Study.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer confirmed the following:

 

(i)                The public would be consulted to see if they wanted supply of budget hotels to be controlled through the Local Plan. If so, Officers would negotiate with applicants to attempt to match supply to demand. The Plan would be an evidence base for the Planning Inspector to set out why an application could be turned down. Any policy would have to be carefully worded if it contained a benchmark cut off level.

(ii)              Local hoteliers would be engaged through the consultation process to ensure Council information was up to date, and to influence future application sites.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 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.