Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

No declarations of interest were made.

Attached separately.

The minutes of the meeting of 9^th September 2014 were approved and signed as a correct record.

The Committee received a briefing note and presentation from the Head of Transport and Infrastructure Policy, regarding the City Deal Member Workshop Programme.

The presentation considered covered:

     i.        The background of the City Deal and an overview of the way forward.

    ii.        Considered how to address the barriers to further growth.

   iii.        Looked at the way transport networks needed to grow.

  iv.        Considered how sustainable transport solutions could be delivered.

   v.        Would be looking at both orbital and radial networks.

  vi.        Funding was guaranteed for the first five years and ongoing funding would dependant on being able to evidence the value of the initial spending round.

 vii.        Outlined the five year programme.

viii.        Work had been commissioned to identify where the most benefit from investment could be achieved.

  ix.        The City Deal Board would be agreeing the initial stages of the work as their first decision.

Councillor Kindersley questioned where the Action Plan addressed the issue of opportunistic developments coming forward while there was no agreed Local Plan. A large Science Park had been proposed by Jesus College to the south of the City.

The Planning Policy Manager stated that no judgement had been made on the Local Plan. However, the Local Plan was underpinned by a Transport Strategy, the City Deal and strong joint working arrangements which offered a strong position to defend.

Members made the following comments in response to the presentation:

   x.        Much of the focus appears to be on Cambridge but there is a need to understand the wider area.

  xi.        Improved access for the West of Cambridge was needed.

 xii.        Proposal present an incomplete picture and the on-going East West rail improvements were missing.

xiii.        Disappointment was expressed that the proposals appeared to lack a high level vision. In addition, it failed to reference other funding available for projects such as the Chisholm Bridge. There was a lack of clarity over what was most important.

xiv.        Questioned why Histon Road bus priority schemes were back on the table when they had been abandoned previously following public consultation.

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Transport and Infrastructure Policy, the Planning Policy Manager and Jeremy  Smithstated the following:

xv.        The Transport Strategy works with the Local Plan in proposing solutions to accommodate the future planned growth.

xvi.        The Transport Strategy included walking and cycling.

xvii.        A five business case approach was used to consider the options being put forward as the first phase City Deal programme.

xviii.        Further public consultations would follow.

xix.        The figures presented today are an estimate and would change.

xx.        Plans for the A428 would evolve following the Local Plan examination and consultation.

xxi.        Garden Cities had not been included in the plan and had no current government funding.

xxii.        Newmarket Road has been recognised as a key route and action was needed quickly.

xxiii.        The Chisholm Trial Cycle Bridge had been identified as a priority scheme and had been recommended for government funding.

xxiv.        The funding available was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14/10/JST

Attached separately.  

The Committee received a report from the Head of Planning and the Urban Extensions Project Manager regarding the Cambridge Northern Fringe East Area Action Plan.

The report outlined four options for development in the area. The document is currently in draft form and will be going forward for scrutiny and public consultation in the spring. Initial meeting with landowners and utilities companies had taken place.

Councillor Kindersley suggested that if expansion of the area under consideration, why not expand it further and include all the land to the river. This would allow additional transport links to be developed. Flood issues and sensitive handling of the traveller community would be required. Failure to include this land, at an early stage of the consultation process, would result in it being land locked forever.  Councillor Hipkin suggested that a question reflecting this suggestion should be added to Section 4 of the draft report.

The Director of Planning and New Communities advised that increasing the area of the Northern Fringe East Policy areato either the North or the East was not consistent with the Local plan and would involve including designated green belt land. Consideration would also be needed existing policies regarding flooding and traveller sites.

The Head of Planning reminded members that documents such as an Area Action Plan would always be subservient to the Local Plan.

Members argued that there was a need to show vision and that land stretching towards the river would be ideal for a Country Park. In addition, the granting of permission for a new railway station had impacted on the value of land in the area.

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

     i.        The options document is lacking detailed references to existing communities in the Chesterton area. More details were needed regarding integration.

    ii.        Concerns were raised about the impact of additional traffic on Milton Road.

   iii.        Local housing does not connect well with business developments sites; could additional housing be added to the mix?

  iv.        Local residential streets would be filled with commuter cars.

   v.        Clustering of employment opportunities away from the centre of Cambridge and into local ‘hubs’ was welcomed.

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Extensions Project Manager, the Head of Planning and Director of Planning and New Communities stated the following:

  vi.        Option four would be the most challenging and would involve relocating the water treatment plant.

 vii.        Finding a suitable site to relocate the water treatment works would not be easy. Sites in South Cambridgeshire had been discussed.

viii.        Cross authority support for the proposals would be required and further meetinsg to discuss both planning and non-planning issues were needed.

  ix.        The consultation process includes an open question regarding boundary issues.

   x.        The Local Plan has a long timeframe for delivery. Some early scheme would need to be delivered to encourage future growth.

  xi.        The function of the railhead for industrial use would remain part of the plan.

 xii.        The Local Plan highlights the area as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14/11/JST

The Committee received a report from the Head of Transport Infrastructure regarding the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory.

The Committee noted that a footnote would be added regarding the City Deal before this report moved forward.

The Planning Policy Manager (SCDC) stated that a request had been made to the Inspector considering South Cambs Local Plan, seeking an interim endorsement of the housing position. This request had been refused as the Inspector wanted to consider the strategic local plan issues in the  round Full details of the correspondence is available on the website as follows  https://www.scambs.gov.uk/localplan.

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

     i.        Councillor Jenkins expressed regrets that little progress had been made regarding lobbying as suggested at the last meeting.

    ii.        Councillor Kindersley stated that Officers had done their job while Members had failed to engage with the process and show the required leadership.

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy Manager (SCDC) said the following:

   iii.        The figures quoted in the report were accurate on new housing completions to-date. Future figures were predictions.

  iv.        The increase in completions predicted for the period 2016-2020 were based on expected completions on the Fringe sites and Northstowe.

Members requested clarification regarding the ability of both Cambridge and South Cambs to fulfil the requirement to have a five year land supply available. The Planning Policy Manager responded and stated that Memorandum of understanding was in place. The City Deal also reflects a commitment to start a review of the local plan in 2019. There was a strong case for the Inspector to accept the plans.

Resolved: Members agreed to advise Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council that they:

     i.        Support the joint housing trajectory for the Greater Cambridge area as set out in Appendix A.

The Committee received an oral report from the Director of Planning and New Communities regarding the New Government Funding Initiative.

The report outlined a new Government announcement of additional funding to bring forward development sites. Cambridge and South Cambs had been awarded £50,000 each.

South Cambs, working with the City, had been accepted as one of eleven local authorities to be accepted for the Right to Build Vanguards project. Registers of interest would be opening shortly for those interested in building and for land available for self-build projects.