Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
The current local
plan was adopted in July 2006 and runs to 2016 and beyond.
The Officer’s
report updated the strategic context for the preparation of the new local plan
through the agreement amongst the authorities in Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough to endorse the adoption of a Memorandum of Co-operation on a
spatial approach.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate
Change
i.
Agreed that the Cambridgeshire
and Peterborough Memorandum of Co-operation (and the technical work that as fed
into that approach) be used as the basis for identifying the objectively
assessed needs for homes and jobs in the Cambridge Local Plan 2014;
·
the Employment Land Review Update 2013,
·
the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
update 2013,
·
the Retail and Leisure Update 2013,
·
City Centre Capacity Study 2013,
·
Student Accommodation – Affordable Housing,
Financial Contributions Viability Study,
·
SHLAA and Potential Site Allocations High Level
Viability Assessment 2013,
·
Technical Background Document – Part 2 Supplement
v.
Agreed that any amendments and editing changes that
need to be made prior to the draft Local Plan version being put to Environment
Scrutiny Committee and Full Council in June should be agreed by the Executive Councillor
in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson.
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 Planning Services regarding the draft Local Plan.
She said a professional proof reader would review the document and pick up
omissions, style changes and typographical errors prior to publication
In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Planning
and Climate Change, Head of Planning Services, Urban Design &
Conservation Manager, Principal Planning Policy Officer, Consultant, Senior
Sustainability Officer and Senior
Planning Policy Officer said the following:
Appendix A
i.
DPSSC had viewed this appendix in previous meetings
and it reflected comments thus far.
Appendix B
ii.
DPSSC had viewed this appendix in March 2013 and it
was brought back for comment.
iii.
The County Transport Strategy for Cambridge and
South Cambridgeshire was being developed on a parallel timetable to the Local
Plan. Members would be updated on progress at June 2013 Council, including the
progress of neighbouring authorities in addressing strategic needs such as
housing and transport.
Appendix C
iv.
The County Council were looking at the impact of
the Transport Strategy on the city.
v.
The Area Action Plan looked at how the City Council
could work with neighbouring authorities on the wider regeneration of the city.
vi.
Supplementary Planning Documents would still have a
role in the planning process supporting the Local Plan with additional details.
vii.
It was noted that the public consultation had not
supported development of the green belt, however
alternative sites had not come forward to meet the identified need. Various sites
needed to be considered to meet the council’s identified development needs. The
experience from other local plan examinations elsewhere was that Planning
Inspectors were strictly applying the NPPF requirements and could penalise the
Council for not planning to meet its needs.
Appendix D
viii.
A surcharge could not be imposed on top of the
Community Infrastructure Levy charge for student accommodation.
ix.
It was difficult for Officers to specify if the
provision of affordable housing or payment of a commuted sum was preferable;
this would depend on circumstances. The 2006 Local Plan allowed the use of
either option, this position could be reviewed as part
of the consultation process for the plan.
x.
Homes in multiple occupation
(HMOs) could be used for accommodation by students and others.
xi.
It was hard for local plan policy to be used to
limit the number of class 4 HMO properties in an area.
Appendix E
xii.
Permeable paving to mitigate surface run-off was
encouraged where gardens were converted into car parking spaces.
xiii.
The City Council was jointly working with the
County Council on transport and public realm.
xiv.
Officers noted Member’s concerns about developing
open/recreational space. Officers explained that the policy will clarify the
conditions that would be acceptable for relocated open spaces. Open space could
only be developed if further open space, or better alternative recreational
facilities were provided within 800m of housing. Members believed that a 400m threshold was a
more appropriate distance from the original site for replacement open
space. Officers agreed to amend the
policy accordingly.
xv.
The policy tried to be flexible to provide quality
open space. Officers undertook to review the wording of Policies 67 and 68 to
ensure open space was protected, this amendment would
be brought back to Environment Scrutiny Committee in future.
Councillor Marchant-Daisley formally proposed
an amendment to the text of paragraph B of Policy 68: Open Space and Recreation
Provision Through New Development as follows:
“if, taking into account the accessibility/capacity of existing open
space facilities and the circumstances of the surrounding area, the open space
needs of the proposed residential development can be exceptionally met
more appropriately by providing either new or enhanced provision off-site”
The Committee resolved unanimously to
endorse the amendment shown in bold.
xvi.
The Planning Committee would judge the merit of
protecting trees or not in individual planning applications. It was not
appropriate to specify a generic policy position as part of the strategy
document.
Appendix F
xvii.
Policy 83 text amendments were set out on the
amendment sheet. Health impact assessments would be completed as part of the
planning application process.
Appendix H
xviii.
The justification of why sites had been identified
as suitable for development were set out in Appendices A and B of the Local
Plan; and Appendix H of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
(SHLAA).
xix.
The Abbey Stadium was considered as a suitable site
for housing in earlier stages of the Strategic Housing Land Availability
Assessment work but this had not been the case in the 2006 Plan. However the
decision not to allocate a site for a community stadium meant it should not be
identified as suitable for housing at this stage.
Appendix N
xx.
The Memorandum of Co-operation summarised the
technical work that Councillors on the Cambridgeshire wide Planning and
Strategic Transport Governance group have signed up to. The technical work
pulled together a number of forecasting models into one evidence base. This was
supplemented by the strategic housing market assessment work.
xxi.
The City Council had been involved in the
development of the Memorandum of Co-operation. It needed to be adopted by the
council as part of the evidence base for the preparation of the local plan.
The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s
report should be voted on and recorded separately:
The Committee unanimously approved
recommendation (i).
The Committee approved recommendation (ii) by 3
votes to 0.
The Committee approved recommendation (iii) by 3
votes to 0.
The Committee approved recommendation (iv) by 3 votes to 0.
The Committee unanimously approved
recommendation (v).
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.