Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision:  To consider initial sections of the draft plan for the following sections;

 

·       Section One - About Cambridge

·       Section Two (part) The Spatial Strategy  - Vision and Objectives

·       Outline of content of remainder of Section Two – The Spatial Strategy (standing item for information and discussion, but with no agreement sought at this stage on the full chapter)

·       Section Three Responding to Climate Change and Managing Resources.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

                 i.     To consider feedback from this committee on those draft plan sections to be put forward into the composite full plan.  In terms of the Strategy sections 1 and 2 these will return to the 29^th May DPSSC for reconsideration in amended form, Section 3 is agreed to go forward into the composite plan subject to amendments to be agreed with Chair and Spokes.;

 

               ii.     To also consider feedback from this committee on the accompanying policy justification documents for each draft policy which will be published alongside the draft plan as an audit trail of how the policy was evidenced, consulted on and assessed;

 

 

             iii.     To agree that any amendments and editing changes that need to be made prior to the version put to Environment Scrutiny Committee in June and Full Council in June should be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokesperson.

 

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. He asked that the committee note that this is scene setting report and therefore was a non-key decision. Full details of the legal and national policy requirements had been included in pages 17 to 19 of the Officer’s report.

 

Councillor Reid asked for inconsistencies in the naming of the report to be amended. In future the title would be the Cambridge Local Plan 2014. The overall report was discussed and the following comments noted.

 

           i.          The use of the term ‘smart growth’ throughout the report was questioned. Members suggested it implied the delivery of things beyond the capacity of Cambridge City Council.

         ii.          Members suggested the documents needed an edit to remove any phrases that could be seen as jargon.

        iii.          It was also agreed an edit of the report was needed to ensure consistent use of capital letters for words such as city.

       iv.          Members stated that some sections were overly long and clarity could be added by use of a judicious edit.

         v.          Members suggested that the structure of the documents was unclear and that the vision statement should come first.

 

Members of the committee discussed the report section by section and made the following comment.

 

Section 1 (About Cambridge)

           i.          Page 43, item 1.4. Remove the word ‘galvanise’ and its implications that community was currently passive.

         ii.          Page 44, The spatial portrait needed to reflect that Cambridge was a special place where quality and excellence were the norm. The vision should set the tone and aspirations for the future.

        iii.          References to Cambridge as a County Town should be removed.

       iv.          Page 45. Edit needed to make it clear that the Guided busway does not run through the city centre.

         v.          Page 46 (Key facts about Cambridge) Members asked for clarity on how student numbers were calculated as well as the carbon calculations.

       vi.          Page 48. This page was agreed to be confusing and added little to demonstrate the international status of Cambridge.

     vii.          Page 49. A caption was needed to clarify what the map was demonstrating and to include details on when this would be updated with new census information.

    viii.          Pages 50-51. Members stated that these pages were too long needed to be edited into plain English. Figure 4 was considered to be confusing and should be removed.

       ix.          Page 52. Joint working to be highlighted.

 

Section 2 (The Spatial Strategy, Vision and Objectives)

       i.          Members were unhappy with the phrase ‘Cambridge is England’s Smart City’. It was agreed that this statement would be redrafted so that the essence of the 2006 vision statement was preserved.  References to Smart City should be removed.

     ii.          Members stated that the vision should reflect the need for growth and the aspiration that Cambridge should stay compact.

   iii.          The word ‘pioneer’ on page 54 would be removed and replaced with a reference to learning from the best.

   iv.          Members noted the aspiration to promote alternative forms of transport but suggested that the document lacked any reference to cars.

    v.          The term ‘sufficient housing’ was questioned as being too vague. Some acknowledgement of the tension between the constraints of a small city and the need for housing should be included.

   vi.          Concerns were raised that student housing would be given preference over affordable housing. The Planning Policy Manager reminded members of a previous decision regarding the growth of the Universities.

 vii.          Page 54. Members suggested that grouping the knowledge economy and managing visitors into one section was problematic.

viii.          Page 56. Members suggested that the document be edited to acknowledge that multi centred nature of Cambridge with its historic core with scattered business parks.

   ix.          Page 57. Members questioned the inclusion of archaeology and were informed that this had been at the request of English Heritage.

    x.          Page 57. The reference to ‘including pubs’ would be removed as it was no longer needed as it had been covered by policies elsewhere.

 

It was agreed that a revised Vision and About Cambridge section would be brought back to committee in May.

 

Section 3

 

The Senior Sustainability Officer and the Sustainable Drainage Engineer introduced Section 3 of the report. Members made the following comments.

 

       i.          Page 60.The table for new non-residential development contains an error that needs to be edited (reference to BREEAM as opposed to Code for Sustainable Homes).

     ii.          Page 62 –63 (Figures 6 and 7). Pictures agreed to be too large, so the scale of these needs to be reduced.

   iii.          Page 64 (Paragraph 3.10).  This is a duplication of paragraph 3.11

   iv.          Page 65. The supporting text for Policy 9 (Carbon reduction etc) needed to be shortened.   Clarity was required within paragraph 3.11 with regards to the integration of internal storage capacity into the design of new buildings.

    v.          Page 66. Paragraph 3.19. The wording needed to encompass any future district heating schemes that may be developed rather than focussing on the city centre project.

   vi.          Page 69. Policy 13 bullet point 7 needed to add some clarification in relation to the reference to rainfall depths (per storm event).

 vii.          Members discussed difficulties of insisting on permeable road surfaces when the County Council will not currently adopt such roads.

viii.          Page 69. Paragraph 3.30. Members suggested deleting all wording after the second sentence and adding this to the justification, and adding additional wording to cover future incentives for retrofitting existing homes.

   ix.          Page 60 (Policy 13 – Integrated water management and the water cycle) – Add a bullet point regarding the promotion of permeable paving.

    x.          Page 71. The source needed to be added to diagrams.

   xi.          Pages 72 – 74. Edit needed to add clarity.  A reference should be added in this section to fluvial flooding being shown on the Proposals Map.  There was also some wording missing from paragraph 3.45.

 xii.          Page 75 – Policy 15 (Contaminated Land).  Jo Dicks tabled an amendment that needed to be made to the final paragraph of this policy, which was agreed by Members.  The wording agreed was “Proposals for sensitive developments on existing or former industrial areas will be permitted where it is demonstrated that the identified contamination is capable of being suitably remediated for the proposed end use.”

xiii.          Page 76 paragraph 3.52. Members suggested that the reference to the lighting of ‘landmark buildings’ was open to interpretation and should be re-phrased.

xiv.          Page 78. Typing errors in the table to be corrected.

 

Amendment to the Recommendations

The committee agreed that Sections One (About Cambridge) and Section Two (The Spatial Strategy) would be amended and would be returned to this committee in May for reconsideration. Changes to Section Three (Policy justification) to be agreed by the Chair and Opposition Spokesperson.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

 

Not applicable.