Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2023-2024.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2023-2024 (included as Appendix A) for publication on the Councils’ websites.

     ii.          Delegated any further minor editing changes to the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2023-2024 to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Senior Policy Planner.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Policy Planner, Planning Policy Manager and Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

 

      i.          Did not believe that the AMR had implications for the Duty to Cooperate. The AMR reported on the progress that the Council had made on the Duty to Cooperate.

     ii.          The total number of new houses built in Cambridge during the report period was low. The annual Housing Trajectory Report had predicted a smaller figure, so this was no surprise to Officers.

   iii.          This reporting period was always going to record a low number of completions, there were some schemes that had been completed the year before, with other schemes not yet started.

   iv.          The Housing Trajectory Report did anticipate high levels of growth in future years. Officers had begun the process of updating the housing trajectory for next year. The Government’s new housing targets for Cambridge and the surrounding areas would have significant implications for the Council’s ability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply going forward.

    v.          Officers would be writing to all developers of schemes of ten or more dwellings requesting profiles of their buildout rates to update the HJR.

   vi.          The Housing Trajectory Report would show site by site where and when housing completions were expected. The current report demonstrated that the Council has a five-housing land supply which meant planning policies could be considered up to date.

 vii.          Most permissions (planning applications) had applied water related conditions. Officers had looked at the few applications where conditions relating to water had not been applied. Some had gone to successful appeal and the Inspector had not applied the condition when the Council would have done. The remainder were a small number of holiday lettings where it had not been appropriate to apply the water conditions and single dwellings.

viii.          Therefore, the total number of new houses in the reporting period which had been conditioned regarding water was higher than 90%. There were only two non-residential permissions where water conditions had not been applied as one was for temporary use and the other due to its small size was deemed not appropriate.

   ix.          The water conditions had been applied to all strategic sites.

    x.          The purpose of the AMR was to demonstrate how effectively Local Plan policy was working.

   xi.          The AMR highlighted the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the importance of the Council’s planning committees and services which continued to find ways to support the delivery of new homes, including affordable homes in the City rather than just South Cambridgeshire.

 xii.          The Housing Trajectory Report and AMR could be viewed at the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning website on the monitoring page at the link: Monitoring delivery in Greater Cambridge

xiii.          District centres within Cambridge were being monitored by Officers. There had not been any significant deterioration in this area.

xiv.          It was difficult to monitor the change of use for retail units as some changes of use no longer required planning permission.

xv.          Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment had been completed. Work was being undertaken to look at potential sites and stopping places.

xvi.          More recent engagement with the Government through the Cambridge Delivery Company continued to explore how the Council could be more confident in the future delivery of affordable and new house and the appropriate infrastructure.

xvii.          A report will be presented at the February meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee which would provide an update on the Cambridge 2050 project.

xviii.          In response to questions around why fewer Neighbourhood Plans were coming forwards in the City Council area, officers expressed a view that that it was potentially  easier to develop a neighbourhood plan in a rural location where there was a parish council who were able to start the plan process. In a non-parish area, there had to be a group of people who were willing to work together and organise a neighbourhood development order in the first instance.

xix.          Neighbourhood Plans sometimes come forward because those in the local area had specific planning objectives that they were seeking ot deliver beyond those set out in the adopted Local Plan. Therefore, the lack of Neighbourhood Plans in Cambridge was not necessarily a bad thing.

xx.          Noted the comment that it was important to ensure that growth was sustainable.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

None