Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Matter
for Decision:
The Local Plan was a key document
for Cambridge, and the review of the current Local Plan is currently underway.
Following on from consultation 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 water and flooding, design, landscape, public realm, historic environment,
tall buildings, biodiversity, trees and density sections 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:
i.
Considered the key issues related to water and flooding, design,
landscape, public realm, historic environment, tall buildings biodiversity,
trees and density as set out in Appendices A, B, C and D
ii.
Endorsed the response and approach to take forward in the draft Plan,
as set out in Appendices A, B, C and D and tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.
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 approach to draft plan sections
relating to: water and flooding, design, landscape, public realm, historic
environment, tall buildings, biodiversity, trees and density.
The
following matters were discussed:
i.
Option 57:
Concerns were raised with regards to surface water discharge rates for
previously developed land. It was
confirmed that this relates to redevelopment proposals on previously developed
land. The policy will be informed by
discussions with Anglian Water and modelling of capacity within the surface
water sewers.
ii.
Option 59:
Councillor Saunders stated that whilst this policy seemed to represent a good
approach, he was concerned that green roofs were not necessarily appropriate in
all situations. Officers confirmed that
this policy is intended to give a stronger steer to developers on the
appropriate use of green roofs, while acknowledging that there will be some
situations where they will not be appropriate.
iii.
Option 60:
Councillor Marchant-Daisley raised a query regarding the need for development
briefs. Officers confirmed that development briefs were not used on every site,
but where the Council has used them to date a more informal approach has been
taken, which has proved successful. It was also noted that where strategic site
policies are developed, these would be carefully worded to provide more detail
on design principles.
iv.
Option 75:
Members asked why this option was not being discussed at this meeting of
Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee. Officers stated that they were waiting
for further information from Marshall regarding the safeguarding restrictions
affecting the airport and the surrounding city. This option would be discussed at a future meeting of the
committee, as would policy options on different forms of pollution.
v.
Options 79, 80
and 81: Members questioned the crossover between these and option 64. Officers
stated that major developments would still need to complete a biodiversity
checklist for major developments and would need to enhance biodiversity, but
option 64 also allowed smaller developments to be included in the requirement
to enhance biodiversity.
Members welcomed the creative thinking in
the options and the opportunity to include density and internal space standards
at a policy level for the first time.
Councillor Reid
stated that there was fresh thinking around density levels and their links to
sustainability through the ReVISIONS She proposed that the University of
Cambridge be invited to speak to members about the latest research in this
area.
The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
dispensations granted)
Not applicable.