Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The report sought approval to provide additional social housing to meet the housing needs in Cambridge and replace social housing lost through Right to Buy. This included replacing existing council social housing that no longer met current standards or was becoming less popular with residents due to factors relating to space and the impact of fuel poverty.  Building new house types will better meet the overall mix of future affordable housing needs and improve the energy efficiency of the Council’s housing stock.

 

Decision of Executive Councilor for Housing

     i.        Noted the update on the purchase of the land at Cromwell Road.

    ii.        Noted the addition of the land at Cromwell Road as a development site in the Housing Investment Programme as proposed in the Officer’s report on the programme presented to this committee.

   iii.        Approved the Strategic Development Brief for Housing Development and Delivery on the site.  The land would be developed in accordance with CIP’s strategic development brief for the site, the Council’s strategic and corporate objectives and with the output from the public consultation and pre application planning process. The land would be transferred to CIP for development by appropriate lease in line with the development land transfer model approved by Executive Cllr following Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in October 2017.

  iv.        Noted the requirements in the S106 Agreement and set out in section 4.10 of the officer’s report which was approved as part of the Outline Planning Approval for the site relating to Early Years provision; and also noted CIPs intention to explore providing a flexible nursery space which could also be used for community purposes.

   v.        Approved CIPs intention to submit a new planning application in relation to the site.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

     i.        Approved the indicative proposed investment plan for Cromwell Road outlined in confidential Appendix 3, with the high level commitments associated with the General Fund and HRA. The investment plan would be refined in line with final project plans post planning permission determination and approval by the CIP Board, with the Council’s funding built in to the relevant Budget Setting 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 Strategic Director

 

In response to Members questions the Strategic Director said the following:

     i.        The Council had followed the Community Centre Strategy which laid out the requirements for community centre facilities in the city and how support should be prioritised,

    ii.        In the area of Romsey and Petersfield the Council were working to support community facilities through S106 funding and other appropriate funding streams.

   iii.        The location of the community facility at Mill Road had been on the recommendation the Communities Team, which was to have a larger facility that could be shared by both the Mill Road and Cromwell Road development.

  iv.        Listened to the views of those residents who had expressed their concerns and proposals were being explored for additional space on the site as part of the early year’s provision.

   v.        Space had been allocated for the Chisholm Trail to run through both the Mill Road and Cromwell Road development.

  vi.        A series of discussions had taken place with County Council to discuss the possibility of the two sites to be connected by either a tunnel (too expensive) or a bridge. The initial bridge design expanded 140 metres into the Mill Road development and would have taken out 50 units. 

 vii.        A further proposal had been brought forward for a bridge to end in Hooper Street and on the other side the Network Rail site. Further engineering studies had shown the cost would be very expensive and the County Council had determined that a bridge would not be possible.

viii.        Reiterated that the report had set out the level of need for community facilities based on the evidence that had been supplied.

  ix.        Believed that the one community facility would have the potential to bring together the two communities.

   x.        Would continue to listen to opinions on both developments.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing said that all views would be taken into account and there was a planning process to be followed. However there was policy and process on community facilities which went through the Council last year.                                                                                       

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and the Executive Councillor      for Finance and Resources approved the recommendations.