Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Matter for Decision:
|
This decision relates to specific delegations to the
Executive Member for Planning Policy & Transport endorsed by Planning
& Transport Scrutiny Committee on 28th September 2021. The recommendation relating to this item was as follows: 1. To agree a
joint response with South Cambridgeshire District Council to the Government’s
Creating a Vision Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation as set out in Appendix 1.
The purpose
of this decision is to approve the final response to the Government’s
Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Spatial Framework)
Consultation A copy of
the report considered by the Planning and Transport Committee on 28th
September and all associated documents can be viewed at the link below: The response has now also been considered by South
Cambridgeshire Cabinet, and the response attached is proposed to be joint. This decision seeks to finalise the response for
submission to government. The response considered by the scrutiny committee
and no amendments or refinements were made. However
there were a number of questions originally omitted from the report which are
now included and detailed below; ·
Homes in your area (Section 5.3 under
Placemaking). ·
Question: Ensuring the right types of
housing are delivered in the right locations to meet the needs of both
renters and buyers. For example, family houses, first-time buyers, specialist
housing, student accommodation and opportunities for people to build their
own homes. [Not important/ Less important/ Neutral/ Important/ Very
Important] 4. Increasing the amount and availability of affordable homes
within the Arc ·
Answer: Very Important ·
Question 8 in the Sustainability Appraisal ·
Question 1: To what extent do you agree
with the key strategic issues and opportunities in the proposed scope for the
Sustainability Appraisal of the Spatial Framework? ·
Answer: Strongly agree ·
Question 2: Are there any other
strategic issues and/or opportunities that need to be considered in the
appraisal? ·
Answer: Not enough detail at this stage
to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues
identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater
Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org) ·
3. Are you aware of any additional strategic
data that we should take into account as part of the
sustainability appraisal? ·
Answer: Not enough detail at this stage
to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues
identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater
Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org) ·
Question 4: Are you aware of any
additional plans or programmes you think will be important to consider within
the sustainability appraisal? ·
Answer: Not enough detail at this stage
to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues
identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater
Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org) ·
Question 5: To what extent do you agree with
our approach to the Sustainability Appraisal? ·
Answer: Neutral The response has also been considered by South
Cambridgeshire Cabinet, and the response attached is proposed to be joint. |
Why the decision had
to be made (and any alternative options): |
The consultation
raises important issues that the council wishes to respond to. The decision
seeks to formalise the response, following debate
at the Planning & Transport Scrutiny committee. |
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
To approve the
proposed responses to additional questions for the Creating a Vision for the
Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Spatial Framework) Consultation, as set out in the
documents appended to this decision which can be viewed at the following
link: |
Reasons for the decision: |
Outlined in the report why the decision had been made |
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport
Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised. |
Report: |
Member Consultation Paper. |
Conflicts of
interest: |
None known. |
Comments: |
No adverse comments were made. |