Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
To review the Terms of Reference of the Joint Development Control Committee in light of Cambridgeshire County Council's decision to withdraw from the joint committee by the end of July 2020.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 30/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The County Council resolved in May 2020 to withdraw
from the Joint Development Control Committee (JDCC) after July 2020. The effect
of their resolution will be for the current JDCC to no longer be quorate.
The report sought agreement to the establishment of a
new Committee (the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee GCJPC) and set
out the proposed terms for the new Joint Committee to come into effect from 1
August 2020.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces to recommend to the
Civic Affairs Committee to:
i.
Dissolve
the JDCC between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District
Council as surviving members, pursuant to section 101 (5) Local Government Act
1972 and cease all delegations to the same with effect from 31 July 2020;
ii.
Establish
a new joint planning committee between Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council (to be called the Joint Development Control
Committee) with the Terms of Reference detailed in Appendix A as amended to
increase the membership from 3 to 6 members for both Cambridge City Council and
South Cambridgeshire District Council and that the Chair and Vice-Chair
positions rotate between the councils each municipal year and to delegate
functions to the joint committee and officers as set out therein, pursuant to
section 101 (5) and section 102 Local Government Act 1972 with effect from 1
August 2020
iii.
Agree
that any ongoing planning matters or any other continuing action which would
otherwise fall to be determined by the JDCC will, after 31 July 2020, transfer
to the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee for determination
iv.
Authorise
the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to decide whether to refer any development
control matters for determination by the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning
Committee where the boundary of the site concerned overlaps or is adjacent to
the boundary between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District
Council
v.
Authorise
the Monitoring Officer to make any consequential amendments to the Council’s
constitution arising from the above decisions
vi.
Comment
upon the proposed draft standing orders for the Committee as appropriate.
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 Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
He updated his report to state that:
i.
Members had queried the proposed name of the
Committee.
ii.
Members may wish to consider the number of members
who sat on the committee.
iii.
Clarified the geographical areas which would be
covered by the new Committee.
iv.
The terms of reference should be amended to include
the ability for County Members to exercise speaking rights at the Committee.
v.
Members had requested that the chair position rotated between SCDC
and the City Council.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Agreed that the new
Committee should consider major planning applications rather than householder
applications.
ii.
Thought that the number of members sitting on the
committee should be increased.
iii.
Suggested the number of members sitting on the
committee should comprise 6 members for both SCDC and the City Council.
The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and Democratic
Services Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Thought the matter of the size of the committee
would be commented upon by SCDC councillors as well.
ii.
The Committee could suggest how many councillors
they thought the committee should comprise but noted this would still be a
matter for negotiation between the two councils.
Councillor Baigent proposed and seconded by Councillor
Porrer the following amendment:
i.
Amend the membership of the
committee so there would be 6 Cambridge City Council members and 6 South
Cambridgeshire District Council members rather than 3 members each.
Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Baigent
seconded the following amendment:
ii.
Retain the name of the
Committee as the Joint Development Control Committee rather than the Greater
Cambridge Joint Planning Committee and reflect this throughout the terms of
reference document.
Councillor Baigent proposed and Councillor Smart
seconded the following amendment:
iii.
Confirm that the Chair and
Vice-Chair positions rotate between Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council each municipal year.
The Committee approved the amendments unanimously.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the amended recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Stephen Kelly
Note the progress the council is making on rehousing rough sleepers and the key principles in the action plan.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 23/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
i.
At the end of March 2020,
and in line with lockdown measures introduced at the time, the Government asked
local authorities to ensure that rough sleepers were provided with emergency
accommodation to help reduce the risk of transmission of the Covid-19 virus.
The City Council, along with partner organisations,
working in the homelessness sector, and the County Council had worked in
partnership tackle the significant logistical task of identifying those rough
sleeping and at immediate risk and securing accommodation offers for all of
them. The Government gave an initial financial commitment (see 8a of the
Officer’s report) and an invitation to apply for further funding as required.
ii.
The report updated members
on progress to date, broadly outlines phase two of the council’s plan - to
secure longer term housing options for those currently accommodated on a
temporary basis – and explains how officers would manage the process. It
explained why the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy, previously due for
publication this month, had been delayed and will now be brought before Housing
Scrutiny Committee in January 2021.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the progress the Council has made on
rehousing rough sleepers during the Covid-19 pandemic and endorse the proposed
principles for delivering the phase two action plan.
ii.
Noted that a new Homelessness and Rough Sleeping
Strategy will be brought to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2021.
iii.
Agreed that a monthly
update report on the progress of the Phase 2 action plan will be circulated to
members of the Housing Scrutiny Committee for the critical time
period between now and September.
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 Head of Housing.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Welcomed the report and thanked officers for their
hard work in achieving the temporary housing of so many rough sleepers under
difficult circumstances.
ii.
Expressed concerns about the stress on staff and
sought an assurance that staff were being fully supported.
iii.
Sought assurances that those housed in hotels would
not be evicted back onto the streets now that hotels are about to re-open.
The Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Confirmed that staff would be attempting to assist
all those temporarily housed. Most people had complied with support
arrangements and had behaved in an acceptable way. However, assisting those
whose behaviour was unacceptable, or criminal was more problematic.
ii.
When the Police were involved an individual’s
licence could be ended quickly. A multi-agency approach was used, including
management of prison release.
iii.
Housing and support had been set up very quickly
and lessons would be learnt for the longer term.
iv.
There were some concerns over the longer-term
funding for this initiative.
v.
Confirmed the individuals housed had a range of
vulnerabilities, including one with a registered disability.
vi.
The new pod housing was currently not in use but
might be suitable for some of those in temporary housing.
Councillor
Martinelli proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded an additional recommendation
as follows:
A monthly update
report on the progress of the Phase 2 action plan will be circulated to members
of the Housing Scrutiny Committee for the critical time
period between now and September.
The Committee supported the additional
recommendation.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: David Greening
This item is for debate and not for decision.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 23/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report
provides an update on the Estates & Facilities Service Review and
information on compliance related work within the service, including a summary
on gas servicing, electrical testing, recent audit actions and fire safety.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the
progress of the service review and compliance related work detailed within the
report.
ii.
Agreed that an update
report on the progress on the works to be brought to the September Housing
Scrutiny Committee.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report. the progress of the service review and compliance
related work detailed within the report.
Any Alternative
Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets.
The Head of
Housing Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Confirmed that two council properties were non compliant with gas safety
certificates. This was a result of the occupants shielding. Those properties
would re visited as a priority as soon as the
occupants felt comfortable with other people inside their homes.
ii.
Fire Risk Assessments had been undertaken in
respect of a number of maisonettes that are above
ground floor level and necessary work identified would be undertaken as soon as
possible.
The Committee raised concerns regarding the recent fire at Kingsway
Flats. It was suggested that residents had reported problems with communal
lighting, lack of internal fire doors, communal alarms not working and blocked
stairwells. The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets responded and stated
that the emergency lighting had been tested regularly and no faults had been
found. All tenanted flats entrance doors will
be replaced with fire doors that meeting current standards and orders
have already been placed with contractors. There was no requirement for a communal fire
alarm. The fire was under investigation and more information would be available
at a future date.
The Asset Manager stated that there was an on-going program
to install heat detectors. Additional funding is likely to be required as
this three-year programme also requires work to existing smoke detectors in
dwellings.
The Committee thanked housing staff for their prompt and caring approach
to rehousing victims of the fire.
Councillor Porrer
proposed and Diana Minns seconded an additional recommendation as follows:
That an update report on the progress on the
works to be brought to the September Housing Scrutiny Committee.
The Committee supported the additional
recommendation.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Lynn Bradley
To agree updates to the Local Development Scheme.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 30/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
To agree an update to the Greater Cambridge Local
Development Scheme (LDS).
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces
i.
Adopted
the updated Local Development Scheme for Greater Cambridge included at Appendix
1 of this report, to take effect from 13 July 2020.
ii.
Delegated
authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in
liaison with the South Cambridgeshire Lead Cabinet member for Planning and the
Cambridge City Council Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces
(and also the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny
Committee), to make any minor editing changes and corrections identified prior
to publication.
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 Strategy and Economy
Manager and Planning Policy Manager
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Thought more debate was required on how growth
related to climate change and exploring sustainability means both in social and
environmental aspects. Welcomed what was being proposed as this would give more
time for debate. The change in the
schedule made sense and wanted to harness the contribution of housing from the
AAP into the Local Plan. The timeline seemed to be set by the DCO (Development
Consent Order) process.
ii.
Asked that because of the length of time involved
in the development scheme process that an interim report should be brought back
to Committee in 2021.
The Strategy and Economy Manager and Planning Policy
Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
It was good practice at each stage in the local
plan process to reflect and check on the local development scheme.
ii.
When the preferred option report was brought back
to committee a report would be provided to confirm how the programme related to
the local development scheme at that time and whether any further updates were
necessary.
The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0
to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Jonathan Dixon
To receive an update on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options consultation – ‘The First Conversation’.
To agree the process for plan making moving forward, and revisions to the timetable.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 30/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report sought to feedback on the Greater Cambridge
Local Plan Issues and Options consultation – ‘The First Conversation’. This
formed part of the early stages in preparing the next Local Plan for the area,
being prepared jointly by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces
i.
Noted
the report on Initial Feedback from the First Conversation consultation
included at Appendix 1
ii.
Agreed
additional informal member and stakeholder engagement and Preferred Options
stages be added to the Local Plan making process
iii.
Agreed
the approach to addressing the Duty to Cooperate included as Appendix 3 to the
report, subject to any material changes necessary as a result
of consultation with Duty to Cooperate bodies.
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 Strategy and Economy
Manager and Planning Policy Manager.
The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0
to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Tunnicliffe
The annual report looking back at the service during 2019/20 and is submitted for approval by the relevant Executive Councillor.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 30/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report summarised the
performance of the 3Cs Building Control Shared Services and the Greater
Cambridge Shared Planning Service during 2019/20.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy Open Spaces
i.
Noted the contents of the 3Cs Building Control Shared
Services report.
ii.
Noted the contents of the Greater
Cambridge Shared Planning Service 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 reports from the Strategic Lead 3C Building Control and the Strategic
Director, Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
In relation to Building
Control, congratulated the service on their awards and noted the customer
feedback was good and the service was exceeding targets. Noted in the past that
a confidential appendix would be provided detailing fee generating income;
exempt from publication as the service competed with the private sector. Asked
how the council was doing in terms of the market share.
ii.
In relation to the Planning Service, thought the
tide was turning. Noted complaints stemmed from a backlog of validating
applications. Asked what the position was in relation to the backlog and how
long it would be until it was resolved.
iii.
In relation to the Planning Service asked what
could be done for more public engagement particularly for residents who were
not part of a Residents Association. Noted that SCDC had Parish Forums,
questioned if Area Committees could take on this role.
The Strategic Lead 3C Building Control and the Strategic Director, Joint
Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Was happy to provide the committee with a brief
summary of how the Building Control Department was performing in terms of the
market share but did not want to discuss this in a public meeting as this
information would disclose commercially sensitive information.
ii.
The backlog of application validating
and determination had been impacted by the effects of the service wide
restructure and the introduction of the new joint software on which all future
planning applications would be processed.
The backlog of validating applications was reducing and, there were 21
householder applications, 21 outline applications and 6 listed building consent
applications awaiting validation in the City as of 29 June.
iii.
The Technical Support Team were prioritising
householder and business applications. An update would be provided on the
backlog position to the Committee following the meeting.
iv.
The Planning Application Service had been
restructured so that they were now organised into 3 x area planning teams with
dedicated officers for each area. The
service was exploring how these new teams could be ‘introduced’ to the
public. Each Team had already run a
virtual introductory meeting for Parish Councils and
they were looking to see how else they could promote the service within the
community.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations and congratulated the teams on their achievements.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant, Claire Tunnicliffe
(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21, if appropriate, as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2019/20 to 2020/21, where relevant, as detailed in report appendix.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 23/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The
report presented, for the Housing Revenue Account:
i.
A summary of actual income and expenditure compared
to the final budget for 2019/20 (outturn position)
ii.
Revenue and capital budget variances with
explanations
iii.
Specific requests to carry forward funding
available from both revenue and capital budget underspends into 2020/21.
iv.
A summary of housing debt which was written off
during 2019/20.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
Under Part 1 of the Housing Scrutiny
Committee Agenda, the Executive Councillor Housing Scrutiny Committee:
i.
Approved carry forward requests totalling
£1,431,300 in revenue funding from 2019/20 into 2020/21, as detailed in
Appendix C of the Officer’s report.
ii.
Approved a delegation to the Head of Finance to
make the
necessary changes
to the 2020/21 base budgets to remove the impact of inflation in all non-pay
and non-contractual revenue budgets.
iii.
Approved carry forward requests of £6,560,000 in
HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets and associated resources from
2019/20 into 2020/21 and beyond to fund re-phased net capital spending, as
detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report and the associated notes to the
appendix.
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 Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Expressed disappointment at the failure to deliver
the Decent Homes Standards to all tenants and the associated underspend.
ii.
Sought clarity on the council tax liable on void
properties.
iii.
Suggested that some underspends could be diverted
into energy efficiency measures.
iv.
Welcomed the progress made with disabled
adaptation.
The Assistant Head of
Finance and Business Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Explained that tenants had the right to refuse
improvement work such as kitchen or bathroom refits. Some had taken good care
of existing facilities and did not want the disruption of replacement work.
ii.
Confirmed that the authority is liable for the
majority of the Council Tax on void properties, with homes vacated for
redevelopment causing the majority of spend. Confirmed that only short-term
discounts or exemptions are available (one month in most cases).
iii.
Confirmed that there had been no change in policy
of discretionary repairs. However, there had been a change in procedures with
council staff no longer undertaking works which were the tenant’s
responsibility.
iv.
Clarified that carry forward requests this year
were higher than last, but that so were the budgets, so that proportionally the
capital carry forwards were not hugely different. Highlighted that Covid-19 is
delaying repairs and planned works in 2020/21 and may affect the ability to
appropriately invest funds carried forward. Further details on the catch up process would be available later in the year.
The Committee resolved by 10 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions
to endorse part 1 of the recommendation
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to
endorse part 2 of the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Julia Hovells
Update on delivery of the 500 Council Housing Programme.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 23/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report provides an update on the
programme to deliver 500 Council homes with funding from the Combined
Authority.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the continued
progress on the delivery of the Combined Authority programme.
ii.
Noted the funding
structure for the Combined Authority programme.
iii.
Noted the risks and impact of the Covid-19
pandemic on the programme.
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 Head
of Housing Development.
In response to the report the Committee commented that it was
disappointing that the Kingswat project was delayed
by UK Power Network (UKPN). The Strategic Director (FB) explained that these
delays were unavoidable as UKPN were dealing with Covid
19 emergency works. Council staff were currently working on new ways to engage
with them to ease the progress of future projects. The Head of Maintenance and
Assets explained as this was a refurbishment the issues with the cabling were
not known before works started.
In response to a question about the risk ratings in the report the Head
of Housing Development explained that these related to the specifics on the
projects not the overall programme which even with potential for delays was low
risk in terms of achieving the March 2022 SOS target for the funding.
The Head of Housing
Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Confirmed that the first Housing Pods to ease rough
sleeping are to be installed across three sites around Cambridge. Four more
Pods were available and would be installed as soon as suitable sites had been
identified.
ii.
Suggested that staff would be monitoring how the
Pods worked for individual users.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 and 3 abstentions to endorse the
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
To approve the Draft Plan report for public consultation.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 20/08/2020
Effective from: 30/06/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report introduces the draft Area Action Plan (AAP)
being prepared jointly by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council that presented the Councils’ preferred approach for managing
development, regeneration and investment in North East Cambridge (NEC) over the
next fifteen years and beyond. It followed public consultation on Issues &
Options in February 2019 that sought to elicit views on a wide range of options
on how the area might change, the issues and challenges facing the area, and
how these might be addressed.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces
i.
Agreed
the name of the AAP be formally changed to the North East Cambridge Area Action
Plan (NECAAP);
ii.
Agreed
the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (Appendix A); the draft North
East Cambridge Policies Map (including amended boundary) (Appendix B) and Topic
Papers (Appendix C) for a ten-week period of public consultation under
Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England)
Regulations 2012 and that this consultation also includes the evidence documents
(listed in the draft AAP with relevant policy and published on the shared
planning service website);
iii.
Agreed
the Statement of Consultation (Appendix D) including responses to comments
received to the Issues & Options (February 2019);
iv.
Noted
the findings of the updated Joint Equalities Impact Assessment, Draft
Sustainability Appraisal, Draft Habitats Regulation Assessment; and Duty to
Cooperate Statement (Appendices E, F, G and H respectively);
v.
Delegated
authority to the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open
Spaces (in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning and
Transport Scrutiny Committee) and the Deputy Leader of South Cambridgeshire
District Council to agree the further Topic Papers as set out at paragraph 4.17
of the officer’s report ahead of public consultation.
vi.
Delegated
authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in
liaison with the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open
Spaces (in consultation with the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and
Transport Scrutiny Committee) and the Deputy Leader of South Cambridgeshire
District Council, to make editorial changes to the Draft NEC AAP consultation
report (including graphics) and supporting documents (prior to the
commencement
of the consultation period) to comprise minor amendments and factual updates
and clarifications.
vii.
Noted
the update on the Fen Road access issues at paragraphs 4.19 and 4.20 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 Senior Planning Policy Officer, Assistant Director,
Special Projects Officer
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Questioned if the pandemic would delay the work on
the NECAAP.
ii.
Referred to policy 8 which dealt with open space;
the member had expected 39 hectares of open space to be provided for a
development of this size. Expressed disappointment that the topic paper stated
it was unlikely that the full quantum of open space would be provided on site.
iii.
Questioned the impact of the development on water
supply / provision in the city and the surrounding network.
iv.
Queried how limiting water consumption would be
enforced.
v.
Questioned the response rate to the NECAAP and what
arrangements were being put in place for access over the railway line at Fen
Road.
vi.
Noted the AAP stated that 1 building would be built
to BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method)
outstanding standard and asked whether this criterion could be increased.
vii.
Asked whether the paragraph regarding passive
housing could be re-worded.
viii.
Queried if an area within the AAP could be reserved
if land was required to resolve the Fen Road / railway
access issue.
ix.
Referred to policy 13c and noted that housing for
local workers was not included within the current City Local Plan and
questioned how key workers could be helped.
x.
Noted some buildings were proposed to have 13
stories and questioned if the ceiling heights were reduced to achieve this
building height whether that would provide enough room to accommodate passive
housing.
xi.
Questioned whether people would be able to afford
to move to bigger houses in view of the COVID-19 recession.
The Senior Planning Policy Officer, Assistant Director and the Special
Projects Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Officers had consulted with Community Forums to
explore whether work on the NECAAP should be delayed; residents said that they
would prefer for the work to continue.
Officers adopted a ‘digital first’ approach which had been successfully
used during the Local Plan consultations.
ii.
Exploration of the type of open space which should
be provided as part of the development was inconclusive. Options had been considered like Parkers
Piece style open space or more dispersed open space areas. Previous respondents
to the consultation had said that they wanted a wide variety of open space
provision. Multifunctional and multi-use
open space was therefore being proposed.
iii.
Was aware of concerns regarding growth and the
impact on water supply and water cycle.
An independent Water Survey had been commissioned. Wanted to promote low
water consumption on the site and was looking at limiting water usage to 80
litres per person per day. The issue of water consumption was a growth issue
and not a geographic issue. The NECAAP set high standards across both
residential and non-residential development. For non-residential developments,
the plan sought to ensure that development would be built to BREAAM ‘good’
standards.
iv.
Limiting water consumption would be enforced at
source and through metering. Monitoring
requirements on consumption would seek to ensure delivery of this objective.
v.
The consultation had received more responses than
any other AAP the City had done before. People were able to dip in and out of
the NECAAP. Officers wanted to capture
as many consultation responses as possible.
vi.
Discussions were on-going regarding maintenance of
the public realm.
vii.
The plan provides for a bridge over the railway
line for pedestrian and cycle access.
viii.
Officers were looking at whether they could
increase the number of buildings which would be built to BREEAM outstanding
standard.
ix.
Officers confirmed that they would look at the
wording of the passive housing paragraph.
x.
The Fen Road crossing was a complex but existing
issue, which the AAP could not resolve directly. Officer were seeking to engage
Network Rail in discussion on options, if Network Rail intended to close the
crossing then they would have to fund an alternative route of access. The cost of resolving the access issue via
the North East Cambridge site would be high, both land cost and the physical
infrastructure crossing the railway and the rules about planning policy meant
that only impacts arising as a result of the plan proposals could be mitigated
directly by planning policy requirements. This means resolution of the Fen Road
access issue would require a broader approach, working with Network Rail.
xi.
Would look at whether housing could be tethered to
the new employment space for people on the science and business park. Could
look to see whether employers could be encouraged to purchase land to
accommodate their staff.
xii.
Building height assumptions presumed at standard 3m
per storey allowance.
xiii.
Officers would keep under review the implications
of the COVID-19 pandemic on future development trends and values / requirements
for sustainable and healthy living.
The Executive Councillor commented:
i.
If the water treatment centre was able to relocate
then this site was the right place for development; more jobs and housing was
required by the area to meet existing and future needs.
ii.
Prior to 2015, councils were able to set
requirements for water usage as part of planning applications. The development should not rely on mains
water and should look at ways to re-use water.
She wanted to challenge the Government to permit councils to set water
usage conditions as part of planning applications.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0
with 4 abstentions to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Julian Sykes