Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor McQueen; Councillor Massey attended as an alternate.

 

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 02 October were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were no public questions.

Matter for Decision

 

The report sought approval for the joint Cambridge Northern Fringe Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2 and supporting documents to be published for consultation.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

i.        Approved the Cambridge Northern Fringe Issues and Options 2 for Regulation 18 public consultation in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for a period of six weeks jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council (Appendix 1 as amended attached to the Officer’s report).

ii.        Approved the Statement of Consultation (Appendix 2 attached to the Officer’s report).

iii.        Noted the findings of the Interim Sustainability Appraisal and Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendices 3 and 4 attached to the Officer’s report).

iv.        Agreed to delegate authority to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to consider and agree, as is consistent with this Council’s Corporate Objectives, any changes proposed by South Cambridgeshire District Council.

v.        Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make editorial changes to the Issues and Options Report and supporting documents prior to the commencement of the consultation period (to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications).

 

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 Director of Planning and Economic Development. The report referred to the Cambridge Northern Fringe East area which had been designated in the new local plans for both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire as an area for regeneration. The area extent, and the quantum and phasing of development, was proposed to be established through the production of a joint Area Action Plan (AAP).

 

In response to the Committee’s comments the Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

     i.        The use of the term ‘Knowledge District’ was envisaged as a positive signal to show monetary value could be gained through the industry of knowledge rather than other kind of industries such as manufacturing.

    ii.        Important to understand these were statutory documents.

   iii.        Noted the Committee’s comments they were pleased to include the science park as part of the development. This was necessary as there was limited land available in an urban area and there would be a different way of thinking  to show how the park could be used

  iv.        Officers would have to justify with evidence and viability the basis on which the figures for the employment and housing numbers had been referenced in the report.

   v.        The reality of developing creative quarters, such as artist studios instead of tech industries, was that creative quarters were not as viable and would not pass the test of ‘soundness’ in a Local Plan. However creative sectors could be developed in the long term,

  vi.        Noted the Committee’s concern regarding inequality with regard to the lack of affordable business spaces. It was possible with policy framework to secure additional benefits which would not be exclusive to those businesses on the science park as had occurred in the city previously, particularly with the tech industry.

 vii.        Affordable enterprises and business spaces were being considered at how this might be included. It was important to remember that this would have a reflective cost and further work and consultation was needed on how this could be delivered.

viii.        Officers recognised the need to work with Members and residents’ groups whom had the knowledge and experience of the locality to share.

  ix.        Engagement with members of the public through area committee meetings and local residents association on the development had begun. These groups had been asked to identify other resident groups / organisations to further cascade the engagement and consultation process.

   x.        It was important to identify all the wide range of users within the locality of the development, various businesses, employees and operators who used the science park, residents who lived adjacent to the park and those residents who lived on the city edge such as those in Milton. 

  xi.        There was a recommendation in the delegation to make editorial changes to the Issues and Options Report and supporting documents prior to the commencement of the consultation period (to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications).

 xii.        The EQIA would be updated through each stage of the process.

xiii.        The Housing Infrastructure Team had estimated that the capacity of the development could produce 7600 homes on what was a significant piece of land. The report outlined how:

·         To make more efficient use of brownfield land; looking at the volume of traffic to and from the site.

·        The science park could become a ‘mix used district, (not just housing in one area, employment in the other, joined by a road as would have been done in the past).

xiv.        The highway ‘trip budget’ approach referenced in the report identified the level of vehicular trips that could be made to and from the areas east and west of Milton Road without leading to a severe further impact on the strategic road network. It was therefore based on the number of trips generated and not any particular level of development.

xv.        The policy would challenge the developer to demonstrate how their schemes could compliment the overall number of trips on the road; such as looking at the management of car parking spaces, the promotion of linked trips ensuring there were facilities for both employees and residents to avoid travel out of the area. This could be done by the early development of a school and community facilities to reduce vehicular travel.

xvi.        Car parking spaces on the science park covered more of the land (area) than buildings. This provided an opportunity for development and in turn would incentivise businesses to push innovative travel plans for their employees.

xvii.        Developers / businesses needed to move away from one parking space for one person for a 24 hour period and begin to think about communal parking with different functions at different times.

 

The Committee:

 

The Chair proposed the following amendments to Appendix A (Cambridge Northern Fringe Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2) additional text underlined, deleted text struck through:

 

The Director for Planning and Economic Development reminded the Committee that any changes to Appendix A would also require approval from the Lead Member at South Cambridgeshire District Council; further amendments may also be considered outside of the meeting.

	PAGE	PARA	CHANGE
i.	Throughout document		Amend Title to North East Cambridge Area Action  Plan
ii.	8 & 42	Para 13 & 4.4	Amend Vision to read: ‘North East Cambridge Northern Fringe – An inclusive, thriving, and low carbon place for innovative living and working; in which economic growth and prosperity are delivered with social justice and equality, inherently walkable where everything is on your doorstep.’
iii.	8 & 43	Para 13 & 4.5	Amend objective heading: ‘A high quality, healthy, biodiverse place, which will be a major contributor to achieving zero carbon in Greater Cambridge by 2050’
iv.	8 & 43	Para 13 & 4.5	Replace objective heading: ‘An adaptable knowledge district’ with ‘A City Innovation District which will deliver affordable homes, a diverse range of quality jobs and excellent neighbourhood facilities. ‘
v.	48	5.13	‘This new city district needs activity and vibrancy to support the existing and establishing communities. The leisure and cultural offer to enrich lives is a key component of creating successful places and will be needed for residents, workers and visitors alike. Embedding creativity and culture into the scheme is a vital aspect to the success of the CNF as a new city district with its own identity. A leisure and cultureal strategy along with a public art strategy will be needed early in the process to support the overall masterplanning and decision making for the regeneration of the CNF.’
vi.	50	5.16	Cambridge Regional College As an innovation district, the CNF needs to capitalise on great links to education facilities in the area to improve links to businesses. Cambridge Regional College (CRC) is a major further  and higher education facility with a catchment, which includes Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Suffolk. The existing CRC site supports 3,000 full-time further and higher education students. Due to its close proximity to the CNF site and the role that the college plays within the immediate and wider area we need to consider how the two can function together and support each other.
vii.	80	9.3	A range of community facilities will be required to serve local residents and staff. This will require either new provision on site, or improvements to existing facilities. Where these are off site, we will need to consider how these can be easily accessed. The Councils are in discussion with service providers on what these needs are, and this will continue as the draft AAP is developed .
viii.	53	Q15	E - Increasing ease of movement across the sites by opening up opportunities to walk and cycle through areas where this is currently difficult, for example Cambridge business park and the Cambridge Science Park, improving access to the Kings Hedges and East Chesterton areas as well as the City beyond.
ix.	64	6.13	The Chisholm Trail, creating a mostly off-road and traffic-free route between Cambridge Station, via Abbey,  and the new Cambridge North Station, and beyond to St.Ives and Huntingdon.
x.	32	6.26	Effective ‘last mile’ links from the station and from the busway stops to destinations like the Science Park will be key to the area’s success. This potentially could use innovative solutions like autonomous vehicles, demand responsive transport, or cycle hire schemes.
xi.	65	Q25	Question 25: Do you agree that the AAP should be seeking a very low share of journeys to be made by car compared to other more sustainable means like walking, and cycling and public transport  to and from, and within the area?
xii.	70	7.3	Employment will form an important part of the mix, bringing together a diverse range of business and employment opportunities  to create a vibrant new district for Cambridge, where there are opportunities for existing and new residents to live and work in the area, and which responds to the transport constraints and opportunities in the area.
xiii.	70	Add new para after 7.3	‘As highlighted in chapter 2 of this report, adjoining wards are among the most deprived in Cambridgeshire. North East Cambridge provides an opportunity to deliver new affordable housing, shops services and infrastructure that can offer opportunity and improve amenities in this part of Cambridge. Development could also provide opportunities for specific measures to share the benefits of new development with surrounding communities, such as training and employment opportunities.’

 

xiv.

81

9.4

Amend Sentence:   ‘Active open space often requires facilities and structures to support and promote this use, such as toilets, walkways, run routes, interpretation material, seating, tables, children’s playgrounds areas and sports fields.’

 

This amendment was carried 7 votes to 0.

 

The Committee resolved 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The report sought approval for the draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) for approval.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

     i.        Agreed the draft Statement of Community Involvement (attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for consultation purposes.

    ii.        Noted the consultation period  would take place for six weeks between Monday 4 February and Monday 18 March 2019.

   iii.        Agreed the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development is granted delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any editing changes prior to publication.

 

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.  The report referenced how the SCI would set out in what ways the public would have an opportunity to engage in the planning process in Greater Cambridge.  The SCI described how the public, businesses, interest groups and individuals within the local authority areas could get involved in the creation of local planning policy and the planning application process aiming at shaping where they lived, worked and traded.

 

In response to the Committees’ comments, the Director of Planning and Economic Development and the Planning Policy Manager said the following:

     i.        Confirmed there was no change to the Councils approach in the adopted SCI 2013 document apart from an explanation of the Neighbourhood Plan preparation, followed by details of the support available to community groups who were preparing such documents. It also incorporated flexibility to future proof the mechanisms that may be used in future planning consultations.

    ii.        It would be possible to include Residents’ Association and Parish Councils in the Statement of Intention to Engagement, p317 of the agenda pack.

   iii.        Agreed to add Residents’ Associations to the list on appendix 2, p35 of the SCI, page 352 of the agenda pack, under Examples of Non-Statutory Consultees that the Councils may Consult (those consulted will vary depending on the type of application).

  iv.        By adding Residents’ Associations to appendix 2, p35 of the SCI, this could then be crossed referenced to the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) under consultation methods, 2^nd paragraph of the table of page 11 of the SCI, page 328 of the agenda pack.  Additional text would be included in the table, 2^nd paragraph to reference the appropriate appendix.

   v.        Agreed that an additional paragraph would be included in the Statement of Intention to Engagement, (p317 of the agenda pack) setting out the differing role of members of the Planning Committee and of ward members.

  vi.        Where possible, officers always undertook to do more than the standard consultation process if time permitted, such as extending the consultation time or engaging with residents using the City Council’s magazine for residents, Cambridge Matters.  This information could be highlighted in additional text.

 

Councillor Bick proposed the following amendment to statement of our intention to engage with our communities, page iii, 3^rd paragraph of the SCI  page 317 of the agenda pack (additional text underlined, deleted text struck through:

 

We would encourage you, as residents and stakeholders, (including Parish Councils and Residents' Associations as appropriate) to use this Statement of Community Involvement and the protocols set out within it, to hold the Authorities to account and ensure that all local people have sufficient opportunities to have their say. We recognise that consultation and engagement activities are constantly evolving and this SCI will be revisited at regular intervals to ensure it is fully up-to-date and reflects local and national priorities, practices and policies.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor reiterated that the Statement of Community Involvement was a starting point for the consultation process and what the Council was accountable for. On city wide SPD, officers worked hard to go above the standard consultation process which could be seen by looking at the list of consultees.

 

The Committee:

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport approved the recommendations.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The report sought approval for the Local Plan and Housing Monitoring for approval.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

            i.        Agreed to publish the Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report 2017-2018 (included as Appendix 1), with any further minor editing changes delegated to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they relate to technical matters.

           ii.         Agreed that in future, a Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report is produced, and that these future Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Reports would  be agreed for publication by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council), unless the Authority Monitoring Report identified any significant issue with the implementation of any Local Plan or Area Action Plan policy that requires more detailed consideration by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport at a meeting;

          iii.        Agreed that a decision on whether to submit a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement (relating to five year housing land supply) to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for consideration would be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport,  Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council) and that the decision will be made before 1 April each year as required by national planning guidance;

         iv.        That, whether or not it is decided to prepare a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement, the housing trajectory and five year supply calculations will be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council);

          v.        Approved to seek agreement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire should be considered together for the purposes of the Housing Delivery Test; and

         vi.        Agreed that, if on publication of the annual Housing Delivery Test results, an Action Plan was necessary in this or future years, it would be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting.

 

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.  The report set out the current processes for monitoring the Local Plan and housing delivery, and to propose a new approach to the decision making processes for the preparation, consultation, publication and submission of monitoring documents, such as the Authority Monitoring Report and housing trajectory.

 

Councillor Bick welcomed the report and the joint working with South Cambridgeshire District Council. He requested that any decision made outside of the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee that the Chair and Spokes was included in the consultation process as was standard procedure with Cambridge City Council. 

 

It was unanimously resolved to do so and the recommendations changed accordingly (additional text underlined).

 

            i.         Agreed to publish the Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report 2017-2018 (included as Appendix 1), with any further minor editing changes delegated to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they relate to technical matters.

           ii.        Agreed that in future, a Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Report is produced, and that these future Greater Cambridge Authority Monitoring Reports would  be agreed for publication by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council), unless the Authority Monitoring Report identified any significant issue with the implementation of any Local Plan or Area Action Plan policy that requires more detailed consideration by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport at a meeting.

          iii.        Agreed that a decision on whether to submit a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement (relating to five year housing land supply) to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for consideration would be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport,  Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council) and that the decision will be made before 1 April each year as required by national planning guidance.

         iv.        That, whether or not it is decided to prepare a Greater Cambridge Annual Position Statement, the housing trajectory and five year supply calculations will be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting (together with the Lead Member for Planning at South Cambridgeshire District  Council).

          v.        Approved to seek agreement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) that Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire should be considered together for the purposes of the Housing Delivery Test; and

         vi.        Agreed that, if on publication of the annual Housing Delivery Test results, an Action Plan was necessary in this or future years, it would be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair and Spokes via a decision outside of a meeting.

 

In response from a question from Councillor Payne regarding the number of the homelessness recorded as 67 and the number of accepted as homeless and in priority need was 38 between April 2017 and March 2018 (p382 of the agenda pack); the Director of Planning and Economic Development responded that he would request a detailed explanation from the relevant officer.

 

The Committee:

 

 The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport approved the recommendations.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The report sought approval for the schedule of strategic polices of the adopted Cambridge Local Plan 2018 for the purposes of neighbourhood planning.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

     i.        Agreed the schedule attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, containing the policies that are considered strategic for the purposes of neighbourhood planning, taking into account the broad guidance provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and the planning practice guidance.

 

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.  The report referred to Neighbourhood Plans (NP) which were introduced by the Localism Act (2011) to provide a planning tool for local people to use to guide future development, regeneration and conservation of an area.  Government policy and practice guidance for neighbourhood planning had set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in associated planning practice guidance. NP were prepared by local communities, and in Cambridge by Neighbourhood Forums. 

 

In response to comments from the Committee, the Director for Planning and Economic Director and Planning Policy Manager said the following:

     i.        The table in Appendix 1, of the Officer’s report (p440) of the agenda pack outlined the policies from the adopted Cambridge Plan 2018 that are recommended to be strategic policies in line with Central Government guidance.

    ii.        Regarding non-strategic policies it was possible for a local community to take a different view in a NP to that of the Local Plan (LP). The Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans together provide a context for considering planning applications.

     i.        A NP had to demonstrate general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan.

 

 

The Committee:

 

 The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport approved the recommendations.

 

 

The decision was noted.

The decision was noted.