Agenda item

The Committee received a report from the Urban Extensions Project Manager regarding the Cambridge Northern Fringe East Area Action Plan – issues and options.

The presentation covered:

i.             The progress to date with evidence based studies which included an Employment Options Study, with an initial viability assessment, an Issues and Options consultation and the Local Plan Examination into the Cambridge Northern Fringe East policy.

ii.            The review and refinement of the redevelopment options down to two main options, referred to as Option 2A and 4A within the report. 

iii.           The next steps which included the provision of a submission draft based upon the Council’s preferred development approach to the site. This would need to be supported by robust evidence to demonstrate deliverability which would include; an options assessment, A10 Transport Study, Development Infrastructure and Funding Study and further investigations into the feasibility of relocating the Anglian Water Recycling Centre.

Members made the following comments in relation to the presentation:

          i.             Councillor Hipkin questioned whether funding through a s106 agreement would be sufficient to be able to finance the relocation of the Anglian Water site.

         ii.             Councillor Kindersley questioned whether there was a feasible location for Anglian Water to relocate to as it appeared that resources were being focussed on something which would never come forward.  Proceeding with option 2a appeared to be the sensible option.

       iii.             Councillor Cearns commented that the Economy and Environment Committee made a recommendation for a middle option.  The County Council had far less resources than it had ever had and was under a lot of pressure.

In response to Members’ questions the City’s Urban Extensions Project Manager, SCDC’s Planning Policy Manager and the Director of Environment said the following:

          i.             Option 2 was easier as it did not have the same implication for relocating the water treatment works.  The broader vision option 4A whilst more challenging was nevertheless still worth pursuing because of its greater delivery potential.

         ii.             An Employment Option Study had been undertaken in the past and it indicated that there was a good possibility that Option 4A could be viable.

       iii.             Commented that it was premature not to explore both options (2A and 4A) and that the development could be phased.

Members made the following further comments:

       i.                Councillor Turner suggested that it was too early to reduce the options at this stage and that both Options 2A and 4A should continue to be investigated.

     ii.                Councillor C.Smart commented that it would not be good at this stage in the process to rule out one of the options and proposed an additional recommendation - (d) for officers to ‘investigate a phased approach between option 2A and 4A’. 

    iii.                Councillor Bates stated that he liked the idea of a middle ground option between 2A and 4A and with this in mind both should go forward for further consideration at this time.

Resolved (5 – 0 votes): The Joint Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group:

i.             Noted the summary of conclusions of responses to the AAP Issues and Options consultation (as referred to in appendices A and B); and

ii.            Agreed two revised options those being options 2A and 4A for the potential range of development for the purposes of;

a)   Testing the potential environmental and infrastructure impact and the economic viability of the emerging AAP proposals;

b)   Informing the preparation of other ancillary assessments required to ensure the deliverability and soundness of the draft AAP; and

c)   Guiding further conceptual urban design work that will inform the ultimate preferred development approach

d)   Officers to investigate a phased approach from option 2A to Option 4A.