Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register > Meeting attendance > Decision details > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Claire Tunnicliffe 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 9 December 2014. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2014 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
Public Questions Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|||||||
Draft Cambridgeshire Flooding and Water Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) PDF 94 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision To consider the draft Cambridgeshire Flood and
Water (SPD), which would sit alongside the Cambridge Local Plan 2014 once
adopted. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
i.
Agreed the content of the draft Cambridgeshire
Flood and Water SPD (Appendix A of the Officer’s report).
ii.
Agreed that if any amendments were necessary, these
should be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation with Chair and
Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee.
iii.
Agreed for the draft Cambridgeshire Flood and Water
SPD to be subject to public consultation for 6 weeks in September – October
2015. 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 Sustainability
Officer (Design and Construction), Environment. The report referred to SPD which had been produced in order to support the
implementation of flooding and water related policies across all of the
Cambridgeshire local planning authorities.
For Cambridge, the SPD supported policies 31 (integrated water
management and the water cycle) and 32 (flood risk) of the submission version
Cambridge Local Plan 2014. It provided detailed guidance on the steps that
developers should undertake to ensure that developments were not at risk of
flooding or increased the risk of flooding elsewhere. On its adoption, the Cambridgeshire
Flood and Water SPD would have the status of a material consideration when
determining planning applications. As
the draft SPD had been written to support the Cambridge Local Plan 2014, which
was still currently being examined by the Secretary of State, the SPD would be
adopted at the same time as, or shortly after, the Local Plan had been
adopted. It would not be adopted for use
in Cambridge before the Local Plan was adopted.
Comments
from the Sub-Committee
i.
Sought clarification regarding the long term
management and maintenance of the swales and water courses to ensure that they
would not be neglected.
ii.
Asked if the Council had undertaken an audit of
the City’s various drains and culverts. iii. Queried why the consultation did not take place at the same time as the consultation on the Local Plan.
iv.
Enquired if the SPD extended to water features
for cultural and aesthetic usage Officers stated the following i.
As an example, the City Council had adopted some
sustainable drainage systems in public open spaces providing that they were
designed in accordance with the design and adoption guide. ii.
New requirements had been put into place in
April 2015, requiring all major developments to utilise sustainable drainage
systems. One of the key components of the adoption guide was to ensure that
long term maintenance of those features were in place. All future applications
should include the maintenance of those features, with consideration to cost
and who would be responsible for the upkeep. It could be for the Council to
adopt, maintenance companies approved by the developers or in some cases the
responsible water authority. iii.
The
Council was responsible for maintaining Hobson’s Conduit and the runnels on Trumpington Street. Both of which were maintained on a
regular basis but were problematic due to the crossings which regularly
collected a large amount of rubbish. Such issues could be learnt from, with
developers moving forward to design systems that could easily be maintained and
functioned robustly. iv.
The City Council was currently working with the
County Council to set up an asset database for significant flood risks across
the City in accordance with the Public Water Management Act 2010. This would
help to define the owner and their responsibilities across the City. v.
The SPD had been developed in conjunction with
each of the Cambridgeshire local planning authorities who were at different
stages of producing their Local Plans. The SPD would be adopted after the Local
Plan had been adopted. This was not uncommon for SPD’s. vi.
Chapter 6 of the SPD (stainable drainage features)
would allow scope for formal water features. There would be discussions with
developers at the pre application stage on this matter to incorporate features
rather than hide them away. vii.
Work would be undertaken on the public realm
strategy which would give the opportunity to incorporate water features into
the public realm which would be overseen by the Development Plan Scrutiny Sub
Committee. The Committee resolved
unanimously to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||
New Museum's Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) PDF 141 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision To
consider the approval of the draft New Museums Site Development Framework SPD. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
i.
Approved
the content of the draft New Museums Site Development Framework SPD (Appendix A
of the Officer’s Report);
ii.
Agreed
that if any amendments were necessary, these should be agreed by the Executive
Councillor in consultation with Chair and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny
Sub Committee;
iii.
Approve
the draft New Museums Site Development
Framework SPD for public consultation from 13 July to
Monday 7 September 2015;
iv.
Approved
the consultation arrangements as set out in paragraphs 3.39 to 3.41 and the proposed schedule of consultees in
Appendix B 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 Head of Joint Urban
Design (Environment), The report referred to the draft SPD which had been produced in order to set
out the joint aspirations of the
Council and the University of Cambridge regarding future changes to the site.
These should improve the urban form with changes to the public realm, provide
better access for all and adopt more sustainable forms of development while
respecting the site’s heritage and surroundings. Future development on the site
offered an opportunity to create an improved, more coherent development and
especially to improve the public realm on the site. Comments from the Sub-Committee
i.
Noted the public consultation ran from 13 July to 7
September, a period when many academics and administration staff would be away
and asked if the time frame could be extended so that future and present users
of the site could take part in the consultation. ii.
Queried what improvements had been made to the
site to negate the impact of traffic. iii.
Enquired if the masterplan
envisaged a single architect or architectural practice. Officers and representatives
from Cambridge University stated the following:
i.
The masterplan had been
developed over a number of years through various Committees which had been
cascaded down to staff and academics and a number of exhibitions and
information sessions had been held. Therefore the University was confident that
the staff and academics had been sufficiently consulted.
ii.
The site had been overdeveloped over a number of
years and the aim was to reduce the amount of useable space which would improve
access.
iii.
Detailed plans to the improvements for pedestrian
access were available for further viewing.
iv.
Changes to access from Downing Street would further
be investigated.
v.
A detailed traffic management plan had been put in
place to elevate the impact on traffic to the area during construction.
vi.
As each phase of the build came forward there would
be a procurement process to allow for open tenders process but the masterplan consultants would be retained. The Committee resolved
unanimously to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |