Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision:  

The Local Plan is a key document for Cambridge, and the review of the current Local Plan is currently underway. Following on from consultations on the Issues and Options Report, which took place between June and July 2012, officers are working on the analysis of the comments received to the consultation and developing the preferred approach to take forward into the draft Plan. It has previously been agreed that future reports would be brought to Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee to analyse the comments received and options to take forward in more detail in order to seek a steer from Members on the approach to take forward in the draft Plan.

 

The report considered the approach to be taken forward in relation to the Vision and Objectives and the Climate Change section of the Issues and Options Report as part of developing the content of the new Plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

The Executive Councillor:

              i.      Noted the key issues related to vision, objectives and climate change as set out in Appendices A and B of the Officer’s report.

            ii.      Endorsed the response and approach to take forward in the draft Plan, as set out in Appendices A and B and tables 1 and 2 of the Officer’s 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 Planning Policy Manager regarding the Cambridge Local Plan – Towards 2031 analysis of comments and options. She confirmed that over 11,000 comments had been received and that it would not be possible to respond to them individually, but issues and topics were being grouped.

 

With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Hipkin joined the table to debate the issues. He suggested that it was not sensible to start with the vision statement as this would emerge and reflect the decisions made on the subsequent chapters. He also suggested that he had detected a change of mood in the local community with a swing towards a preference for slow growth scenario, rather then the previous expansionist approach.

 

The committee made the following comments:

              i.      The document reflects inherent tensions between the demand for growth and protecting the character of the City.

            ii.      Sub regional tension and conflicts were also noted. An integrated regional approach was favoured and would be expressed more explicitly in future.

          iii.      Members requested a clear definition of the sub region.

         iv.      The vision would evolve as a political vision, informed by residents and other stakeholders.

           v.      Sustainability would be a key value for the vision.

         vi.      Cambridge was a centre of good building design and the vision statement should enhance this.

 

Members agreed that the Vision and strategic objectives would be revisited as officers worked through each Local Plan topic and developed policies. 

 

The Senior Sustainability Officer (Design and Construction) introduced Appendix B, the climate change element of the report and members consider the options one by one.

 

Option 41 (Innovative and sustainable communities)

This was welcomed and supported in the consultation process and by the committee.

 

Objective 3 (Flood risk and water efficiency)

A more robust policy and associated objective, which would see the Local Plan improve flood risk reduction, was welcomed.

 

Option 42 (Sustainable Development Policy)

Members supported the suggestion of a local definition of a sustainable development for inclusion within this policy. It was suggested that this would encompass elements such as: transport, open spaces, regional integration, the character of the City and landscape.

 

Option 43, 44, 45, 46 and 53 (Sustainable construction, carbon reduction and water efficiency)

The Officer tabled an additional document outlining possible policy approaches for sustainable construction and reducing carbon emissions in new development.

The following points were raised:

       vii.      Questions were asked about air quality and the officer confirmed that this would be covered more fully at the next meeting.

     viii.      The water use targets would require additional technology and would increase build costs.

         ix.      Members questioned why option 44 was favoured rather than the more challenging option 45. The Executive Councillor confirmed that option 44 was seen as the safer option, but that more ambitious options would be considered further in consultation with government.

           x.      Members expressed the support for the challenging approach proposed by the report.

         xi.      Encouraging District Heating schemes, where development sites permitted, was agreed to be a good approach.

       xii.      Members agreed that the document should include a clause reserving the right to ask for higher standards for specific sites where appropriate.

     xiii.      Concerns were raised about possible challenges when national standards were lower than those agreed locally.

 

Option 47 (Community Energy Fund)

Members were concerned that developers would evade their responsibilities in relation to on-site carbon reduction.

The Officer outlined the approach to be taken linked to national zero carbon policy.  Developers would still be required to meet the majority of their carbon reduction requirements through on-site means. Further discussions would be carried out both locally and nationally about the timescales for implementing an energy fund and the scale of a fund.  Members supported the recommended approach.

 

Option 48 and 49 (Renewable and low carbon energy generation and climate change adaptation)

Members supported the options.

 

Option 50 (Consequential improvements policy)

Concerns were expressed about the additional cost to residents and the level of bureaucracy involved.

The Officer confirmed that, working in conjunction with the Home Energy Officer, the aim was to make the process simple and affordable. Any home improvements required, would have a pay back period of seven years or less.

 

The Executive Councillor summed up the discussion and noted that the committee were calling for an aggressive but safe approach.

 

The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.