Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

 

To consider and comment before decision by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

·         To agree that the further proposed modifications and the Sustainability Appraisal be submitted for consideration by Full Council on 23 February 2017 and approved for submission to the Inspectors examining the Local Plan;

 

·         To agree the findings of the Assessment of Student Housing

Demand and Supply for Cambridge City Council (Appendix C);

 

·         To agree the findings of the further work on provision for Gypsies and Travellers (Appendix D);

 

·         To agree the findings of the further work on Accessible Homes in Cambridge (Appendix E);

 

·         To agree that the documents attached to this report as Appendices C, D and E be submitted as part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan;

 

·         To agree that the documents attached to the report as Appendices

C, D and E be endorsed as a material consideration in decision making;

 

·         To agree that delegated authority be given to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, Chair of and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee.

 

Reasons 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 Principal Planning Policy Officer. 

 

Dr Gemma Burgess and Michael Jones, consultants, were invited by the Chairman to assist with the answering of Member questions on the report.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

i.         Highlighted student accommodation within the city that did not meet the needs of students with limited study and communal areas that was expensive and beyond the means of most students reliant on grants and loans.  As a result the accommodation was not being filled and in one instance rooms were being advertised on the internet as a hotel.       

ii.       Questioned the lack of growth projected for Anglian Ruskin University. 

iii.     Drew attention to student car parking arrangements and raised concern regarding parking controls. 

iv.     Highlighted the importance of the connection between the developer and the University and questioned whether there was national legislation regarding the maintenance of accommodation.

v.      Drew attention to the national position regarding accessible homes now being weaker resulting in the amendment of the emerging Local Plan to account for the changes.

vi.     Questioned the link between constructing purpose built student accommodation and residential houses becoming available on the open market.

vii.   Questioned whether there was a danger of over provision of student accommodation if there was a decline in the higher education sector. 

viii. Asked whether there were examples of policies that ensured accommodation was used for student accommodation. 

ix.     Questioned whether a developer could build accommodation that housed 6 students or fewer.

x.      Noted the need to identify accommodation for language schools and summer schools, and questioned how accommodation for homestay students and language students worked. 

xi.     Questioned the assessment of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs.   

xii.   Expressed disappointment with the required ratio of accessible homes, noting that disability affects people of all means 

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following in response to Members questions:

 

i.         Confirmed that work was continuing with Development Management colleagues to investigate compliance with planning permissions and legal agreements at specific sites. 

ii.       Confirmed that Anglia Ruskin University was not seeking to expand its Cambridge site following a period of growth.  There was uncertainty within the sector following the result of the European Union referendum and there was a focus on Anglia Ruskin University’s other campuses outside Cambridge. 

iii.     Confirmed that work would take place to identify whether there were schemes in operation in other parts of the country that could be adopted regarding car parking controls.

iv.     Explained that work was ongoing nationally regarding licensing of shared accommodation which could impact positively on maintenance of accommodation for students.  If introduced through the licensing regime, this would addressed by Environmental Health and Housing colleagues

v.      Explained that the Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Working Group had reviewed the evidence base, which concluded that there was no identified need for provision of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers.  However, there was flexibility within the criteria-based policy if need arose in the future.

vi.     Advised that the changes to accessibility standards for new housing were made by the Government and that the Council could not seek to go beyond the national standards.  It was noted, however, that the national standards represented an improvement on the accessibility requirements in the 2006 Local Plan.

vii.   Explained that while residential properties may become available if purpose built student accommodation was constructed, there was not necessarily a clear link between the two properties in terms of ownership.  It was likely that many houses would return to the rental market as housing in multiple occupation. 

viii. Explained that although the higher education sector as a whole was shrinking, the market in Cambridge remained buoyant with postgraduate and contract/research staff. 

ix.     Confirmed that accommodation with 6 or fewer students would be classed as housing in multiple occupation and would therefore be addressed by a different policy within the Local Plan.

x.      Explained that policies 44 and 46 addressed specialist colleges and courses of a year or more.  Accommodation could also be utilised by students of other institutions outside term time when accommodation was available.

xi.     Advised that there were Gypsies and Travellers living in Cambridge in bricks and mortar accommodation.  Engagement with these families was attempted.  Unfortunately, no contact was made.

xii.   Advised that the requirements for accessible accommodation were set by the Government and Councils were required to work to that requirement.  The first accessible home for the wheelchair housing standard (M4 (3)) was required on the 20^th affordable home constructed.  If it was determined that under-provision of homes had taken place to avoid the requirements, the Council could address this as part of the application process.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved 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.