Issue - decisions

To consider whether two revised redevelopment options should be taken forward for further investigation, including transport and development viability assessments, ahead of the preparation of the draft Plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

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

To agree revised option 2a 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.

 

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 Urban Extensions Project Manager.

 

The report referred to the Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) area as one of the most significant brownfield regeneration opportunities in Greater Cambridge. The emerging Local Plans for both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire recognised that regeneration and redevelopment of the area was important, both in the short term, aligned with the opportunity presented by the opening of a new rail station, and in the long term to ensure that maximum regeneration benefits are captured for Greater Cambridge.

 

Comments from the Sub-Committee

 

     i.        An additional recommendation to the report proposed by Councillor Smart at a meeting of the Joint Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group on 16 November 2015 had been accepted (5 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions). The Officer’s recommendation in the report and Councillor Smart’s additional recommendation had also been approved at the South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Planning Portfolio Holder meeting in the afternoon of the 17 November 2015.

    ii.        Option 4a, referenced in the Officer’s report, should be kept as new investigations (with updated technology) may demonstrate it is deliverable to relocate the Water Recycling Centre to another site, when previously it had not been shown to be feasible.

   iii.        Would not want to see development on the 2a option (referenced in the Officer’s report) without option 4a being investigated.  Therefore both options recommended by the Officer should be left open.

  iv.        There had been many discussions over a number of years (ten years approximately) regarding the relocation of the Water Recycling Centre. Previously Anglian Water had indicated that relocation of the Water Recycling Centre to Fen Ditton had been the only option but this had been refused.

   v.        Did not want to see ‘history repeating itself’ with no action taken on the site and only open ended discussions for a further ten years.

  vi.        Questioned who would fund the relocation of the Water Recycling Centre.

 vii.        Queried if a new stadium could be proposed by Grosvenor Estates instead of housing if the Water Recycling Centre was relocated.

 

Officers stated the following

 

     i.        Grosvenor Estate had confirmed they were having positive discussions with Anglian Water on how to go forward. Both parties had agreed a contribution to the cost of a transport study and supported the recommendation that both options (2a and 4a) should be investigated further. 

    ii.        The relocation of the Water Recycling Site offers a major sustainable opportunity to develop a brownfield site and accommodate significant levels of development. 

   iii.        The Employment Options Study has provided confidence that option 4a could be viable.

  iv.        Previous exploration of the relocation of the Water Recycling Centre had determined that this was not necessarily the best option and there had been some resistance.  However the proposed investigation would be looked at differently with the support of Anglian Water.

   v.        If the opportunity was not taken to explore the possibility of relocating the Water Recycling Centre the prospect could be permanently lost.

  vi.        The resources needed to investigate options 2a and 4a were not significantly different.

 vii.        Further detail on option 4a could be brought back to the Committee in approximately eight months’ time. This would include whether a longer term phased approach would be realistic and how this strategy could be taken forward.

viii.        The development of this site was not being relied upon in the 14,000 properties referenced in the Local Plan.

 

Councillor Smart proposed an additional recommendation (d) of the Officer’s recommendations (additional text underlined) which was the same as the additional recommendation agreed previously by both the Joint Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group and South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Portfolio Holder.

 

To note the summary and conclusions of responses to the AAP Issues and Options consultation (as referred to in Appendices A and B); and

To agree two revised options 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)    investigate a phased approached from option 2a to option      4a.

 

Resolved (2 votes to 4) to endorse the additional recommendation. The additional recommendation was therefore lost.

 

Councillor Sarris next proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendations (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined).

 

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

To agree revised options 2a 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.

 

Resolved (4 votes to 2) to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Head of Planning of Services requested that it was minuted that the amendment had been against the recommendation of Officers.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the approval of the amended recommendation ensured a realistic vision for the City as it was unacceptable to leave this site in an indeterminate state; there was also an issue of financial viability. At the meeting of the Joint Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group reservations to option 4A had been raised. 

 

Option 4 had also been rejected by the County Council at the Issues and Options stage as they did feel this option was viable within the local plan period and would not be deliverable. The County also believed that there was no feasible site to be found.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.