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: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2019 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
Public Questions Minutes: A member of the public asked a question as set out below.
i.
The Accordia estate was a major asset not just for its
residents but for the City as a whole. This was demonstrated by Accordia’s
inclusion in the Brooklands Conservation Area, the Article 4. Direction that
applies to it, and by the award of architectural prizes, including the Stirling
Prize, the most prestigious in the UK.
ii.
Accordia’s
design was special in that the housing was densely distributed with most houses
directly overlooked by or overlooking many others. Private outdoor space was
limited, confined to terraces and balconies and some courtyards which also
serve as car ports and bike and bin storage. (So the surrounding green spaces
with their mature tree belts serve as the community’s communal garden.) There
were several house types of different sizes and heights, but the architecture
throughout shows a strong stylistic homogeneity both from the street side and
the rear, ‘private’ side. Re-modelling or extending properties is therefore
extremely difficult to achieve without compromising the overall impact of the
architecture. It was recognised at the original planning stage that infilling
of terraces and courtyards would be detrimental to the overall design and this
was prohibited by a planning condition (28). Although this condition was
overturned in an appeal, this was not related to the requirement about
infilling.
iii.
There were
pressures for change which make the character of the estate increasingly
vulnerable. Individual homes may no longer fully meet the needs of the people
who live in them, and as time goes by properties would deteriorate and need
updating, with the risk that, without clear guidance, the design concept and
homogeneity of the estate will be eroded. A Planning Committee decision on 6
March reflected the sensitivity of the site by adopting a cautious approach to
proposed alterations to one of the estate’s homes. An authoritative design
guide about the kind of alterations that are acceptable would be useful for
homeowners contemplating alterations and their advisors, for people seeking
reassurance that the essential qualities of the estate will be maintained, and
for City Councillors and planning officers. iv.
We
therefore ask the Committee to agree that Officers should launch a process to develop such a design guide, perhaps
in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document for Accordia.
This would be produced in consultation with experts including the Design and
Conservation Panel and the original architects. As was the case with the
Article 4 Direction and the application of the Conservation Area, residents are
eager to provide support; residents previously developed a comprehensive
manual, (which is available via the Clerk of the Committee) and a similar
approach could be taken as part of the development of any new Planning
Document. We ask the Committee further to agree that residents should be
closely involved in the process. In response, the
Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:
i.
Expressed
thanks for attending the meeting and noted the concerns that had been
highlighted.
ii.
Supported
and welcomed the work that had been undertaken but could not commit to a
request for the production of an additional Supplementary Planning
Document.
iii.
There
was a prioritisation of staffing resources which had to be considered.
iv.
Had to
take into account other conservations areas in and around the City; there were
conservation areas which required additional work from Officers to protect the
area. The Executive
Councillor advised that it was not just a question of resource but what the
additional benefit would be. The published Article 4 had been produced to
address resident’s concerns on certain conservation issues and safeguard a
number of sensitive issues. The following
supplementary points were made by the member of the public.
i.
This was
not another step to further safeguard the design features of the Accordia Estate.
ii.
The
proposal was for guidance designed to assist residents who wanted to make renovations
/ changes to their properties and how they could be advised.
iii.
Article
4 identified the sensitive issues of a conservation area but did not offer
guidance to residents on how to treat these areas; or what consideration the
Planning Committee or Officers would take into account when thinking about
making alterations to their properties.
iv.
Appreciated
the comment regarding staffing resources but a working group of Accordia residents had produced a comprehensive document
the ‘Accordia Conservation Review Information Pack’
which advised of appropriate colour schemes and where suitable materials could
be found, as example.
v.
A
Supplementary Planning Document would take the guidance a stage further to
indicate what was likely to be appropriate whilst maintaining the objectives in
Article 4 and the conservation area to ensure compliance. The Director for
Planning and Economic Development stated the following:
i.
Reiterated
the need to prioritise staffing resource.
ii.
Was keen
to ensure officers had an understanding and level of sensitivity to the way
they treated Accordia; this would be in line with the
conservation area and the current legalisation.
iii.
Would
make sure that Officers were aware of and had sight of the ‘Accordia
Conservation Review Information Pack’ and how they should be applying it.
iv.
Would
review whether there could be a further role planning services could undertake
when giving advice within the framework of all the controls and measures which
were in place.
v.
Needed
to ensure that all conservation areas were brought up to the same level and
committed to safeguarding all conservation areas appropriately. The Director of
Planning and Economic Development concluded it would be possible to provide a
report on the status of each conservation area; which would help to assist the
prioritisation of work required. |
|||||||
Appendix 2 to this report
contains exempt information during which the public is likely to be excluded
from the meeting subject to determination by the Planning & Transport
Committee following consideration of a public interest test. This
exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the
Local Government Act 1972. Greater Cambridge
Planning Service Business Plan 2019/20 can be viewed under Appendix 1 of the
report. Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report
sought approval for the Building Control Business Plan and Greater Cambridge
Planning Services Business Plan 2019/20. Decision of
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport
i.
Approved
the Business Plans for each of the Shared Services, Building Control Shared
Services Business Plan & Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan
2019/20.
ii.
Authorised
the Shared Services Management Board to approve final amendments to the
Business Plans in line with comments received from all partner councils. 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 joint report from the Strategic Director, the Director of Planning
and Economic Development and the Head of Building Control. In response to
the Committee’s comments the Director of Planning and Economic Development said
the following:
i.
There
had been a total of 27 job vacancies advertised across the shared services
since April last year.
ii.
Had
recently appointed four planning officers from the process that was started
earlier in the year.
iii.
The
Shared Planning Services consultation would allow the organisation to make
improvements to the personal development and growth of officers; this would
allow an additional learning opportunity into the planning service.
iv.
The
consultation would also allow development of the induction process and ensure
that support was available.
v.
Important
to develop staff to enable them to progress, whether inside or outside the
organisation; in turn they would promote the level of service experienced to
external organisations and members of the public.
vi.
Work
had taken place on benchmarking and job evaluations; salary levels were
competitive with other local authorities. vii.
There
was a recruitment timeline which was being followed, although there was a
slight delay there. viii.
Lessons
had been learnt from the first round of the consultation process as there had
been a series of workshops involving staff to discuss ideas and to put forward
suggestions
ix.
Could
be possible to include the offer of accommodation in the future as this was an
important consideration when looking at job opportunities.
x.
Research
had shown that there was a consistent pattern in the number of planning
applications submitted between Cambridgeshire City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council; 42% and 58% which had allowed previous budget
to be based on ratio of work.
xi.
As
part of the shared services project a memorandum of understanding has been
drafted using planning applications and policy delivery outcomes such as the
joint Local Plan, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan and Supplementary
Planning Documents. Based on this a resources plan had been designed as it was
important to understand the resource allocation for budgetary purposes. xii.
The
budget had been historically based on ratio but in future officers would have
the capacity to account for their time to the relevant authority with the
implementation of a single ICT system. xiii.
The
benefit of a shared planning service brought resilience; officers should be
able to cover both authorities if required. Therefore the way that officers
recorded their time was critical. xiv.
Cambridge
City Council had limited areas of geography for development which would have an
impact on future income for the Council. xv.
Important
to create a new culture under the shared services so that officers did not see
themselves as working for one or the other local authority, there is the
opportunity for flexible working and working at various locations. xvi.
Citizens
and businesses required a good, responsive and accessible planning service,
wherever they were located, which is what the shared services would offer. xvii.
The
strategy of the business plan would account for the cost of officers and allow
the recruitment for a range of specialist officers whose services could be used
by outside agencies and charged for their time. The Committee
then received an executive summary on the Business Plan for 3c’S building
control. In response to
Members questions the Head of Shared Service said the following:
i.
Post
Grenville there was a discussion to be part of a joint competency agency which
would only include Local Authority Building Control. Certain buildings in scope
would only be dealt with by the Local Authority Building Control Department and
not by Approved Inspectors. This model was currently being tested by Central
Government.
ii.
Individual
local authorities and developers were being encouraged to take forward their
own initiatives.
iii.
The
Hackett report referred to the introduction of gateways; at planning stages
there would be enforced consultations with the Fire Authority and Local
Authority Building Control. Further discussion on this matter would be taken
forward.
iv.
Looking
to ensure tighter communication between Building Control and Planning Services.
The Committee
then resolved by 5 votes to 0 to exclude the press and public during the
discussion of Appendix 2 of this item by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of
Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The Committee: The Committee
resolved 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor
for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations. |
|||||||
East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge Routes Consultation. PDF 185 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Director for Planning and Economic Development informed
the Committee the deadline to the consultation response had given a very
limited time span; the deadline for a response had been closed the week before
the meeting. There had been some dialogue with Cambridge and Bedford
Councillors to determine whether there had been a preference to the options
given. There had been an inclination for the route leaving Bedford from the
North to Cambourne, then approaching the City from
the South. However it was reiterated in the response that the information
concerning each route option had been very limited. In response to Members’ questions the Director for Planning
and Economic Development said the following: i.
There would be limited stops between Bedford and
Cambridge. ii.
Alongside the railway was the Oxford to
Cambridge Express Way; an announcement of the preferred alignment was via Caxton
Gibbet. This would provide infrastructure capacity. iii.
There had to be an opportunity for economic
growth along the railway line to justify the investment from East West Rail;
150,000 additional homes between Bedford and Cambridge. iv.
Looking at established towns which could support
further expansion. v.
Long way to go to understand expectations and
have to take into account local transport projects. vi.
This was just the beginning of the project. The Executive Councillor advised the Committee this was a concept
plan which lacked detail and was only the beginning of the planning process.
The response from Cambridge City Council had not ruled out any options. |