Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest from Members on matters arising in this agenda.

The Head of Legal Services emphasised that Members would not be discussing policies and that declarations of interest should depend only on a Member’s personal judgement of how close he or she was to a particular issue, and whether or not an independent person, knowing the particular circumstances, would consider a Member’s judgement to be biased.  Members who had made representations during the consultation period were welcome to repeat their comments during the meeting.

The Chairman reminded Members that it was inappropriate for a Member to sit in the Mezzanine during consideration of an issue for which he or she had declared a prejudicial interest and withdrawn from the Chamber.

The following personal interests were declared:

Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report

Council AGREED the recommendations as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report and Appendix 1 as the approach to be taken for all Development Plan Documents, subject to the issues raised during discussion.

Core Strategy and Development Control Policies and Rural Centres: Preferred Options Reports

Council AGREED the following recommendations as set out in the Core Strategy & Development Control Policies and Rural Centres Preferred Options Reports and Appendices 2 and 3 as the basis for developing the policies to be set out in the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies and Rural Centres Development Plan Documents, subject to the issues raised during discussion:

(a)               To confirm the Preferred Approach to the Strategic Vision (CS1), subject to minor wording changes as recommended in the schedule and statements about monitoring, changing circumstances and review;

(b)               To amend the Preferred Approach for Strategy Options (CS2) to take account of climate change, the need to sustain the high technology research and development industry, and to recognise that the requirement to improve biodiversity needs to be appropriate to the development;

(c)               To retain the established approach to the definition of village frameworks (CS3), and that changes be made only where it is clear that there has been a relevant change in circumstances or an anomaly has been identified;

(d)               That the revised list of Rural Centres (CS4, RC1 and RC2) be:

·                     Bar Hill

·                     Cambourne

·                     Sawston

·                     Histon & Impington

·                     Great Shelford & Stapleford;

(e)               That the new category of Minor Rural Centre be created and that these be:

·                     Cottenham

·                     Fulbourn

·                     Gamlingay

·                     Linton

·                     Melbourn

·                     Waterbeach

·                     Willingham;

(f)                 That there be no ceiling on windfall development in Rural Centres (CS5) and that all Rural Centres be classified as Rural Centres without peripheral development;

(g)               That there would be a ceiling of 25 dwellings on windfall development in Minor Rural Centres and that there would be no peripheral development in any Minor Rural Centre;

(h)               To confirm the Preferred Approach for additional development in Rural Centres (RC3), but that greater development on the existing residential land parcels in the Cambourne Masterplan beyond that suggested by Annexe C to the Rural Centres Preferred Options report or by enlargement of the site should be resisted as being inconsistent with maintaining the character of Cambourne as three separate villages;

(i)                  To confirm the Preferred Approach for development in Group Villages (CS7) as up to 8 dwellings and exceptionally 15 where it would make best use of a brownfield site; and

(j)                  To confirm the Preferred Approach for development in Infill Only Villages (CS8).

Green Belt

Council AGREED the following Cambridge Green Belt recommendations as set out in the report and Appendix 2 as the basis for developing the policies to be set out in the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents, subject to the identification of the Bayer CropScience site at Hauxton as an island in the Green Belt:

(a)               To confirm the Preferred Approach for Green Belt objectives and boundary definition (CS9 and CS10); and  ...  view the full decision text for item 2.

The purpose of the meeting was for Council to consider the general direction of the Local Development Framework (LDF) approach, not the policies, after which officers would draft policies for further consideration before submission to the Secretary of State.  Council on 22 July 2004 had approved the Preferred Options documents for public participation and the Planning Policy Team was congratulated on having received nearly 6,000 representations during the consultation exercise.

Council AGREED the recommendations as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report and Appendix 1 as the approach to be taken for all Development Plan Documents, subject to the issues raised during discussion.

The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report related to all Development Plan Documents and set out how to asses the extent to which the options would help to achieve relevant environmental, social and economic objectives.  Cambridgeshire District Councils developed the methodology and independent consultants prepared the initial appraisals.  In light of representations received, greater emphasis should be given to health issues and to Rights of Way, and the Strategic Health Authority was developing a Health Impact Assessment protocol with Cambridgeshire Horizons.  Further consultation with the health authority would be undertaken to address how to include the protocol in Core Strategy policies.

Methodology

European directives and PPS12 requirements directed the agreed methodology, resulting in delivery of a complex system, incorporating necessary tables and documents.  A more publicly accessible document would be produced at the next stage in the LDF process.

Transport

Transport criteria had not been specifically addressed as government guidance was to measure related outcomes, such as pollution, although officers would endeavour to make transport an important issue at the next stage of the LDF process.

Water and Sewage

Cambridge Water hoped to make a presentation to full Council about its ability to deliver water to new developments.  Cambridgeshire Horizons, having responsibility for infrastructure, had approached Anglian Water for a response on sewage disposal, and it was hoped that the response would be reported at the next Cambridgeshire Horizons board meeting.

Conclusion

Council AGREED the recommendations as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report and Appendix 1 as the approach to be taken for all Development Plan Documents, subject to the issues raised during discussion.

Council AGREED the following recommendations as set out in the Core Strategy & Development Control Policies and Rural Centres Preferred Options Reports and Appendices 2 and 3 as the basis for developing the policies to be set out in the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies and Rural Centres Development Plan Documents, subject to the issues raised during discussion:

(a)               To confirm the Preferred Approach to the Strategic Vision (CS1), subject to minor wording changes as recommended in the schedule and statements about monitoring, changing circumstances and review;

(b)               To amend the Preferred Approach for Strategy Options (CS2) to take account of climate change, the need to sustain the high technology research and development industry, and to recognise that the requirement to improve biodiversity needs to be appropriate to the development;

(c)               To retain the established approach to the definition of village frameworks (CS3), and that changes be made only where it is clear that there has been a relevant change in circumstances or an anomaly has been identified;

(d)               That the revised list of Rural Centres (CS4, RC1 and RC2) be:

·                     Bar Hill

·                     Cambourne

·                     Sawston

·                     Histon & Impington

·                     Great Shelford & Stapleford;

(e)               That the new category of Minor Rural Centre be created and that these be:

·                     Cottenham

·                     Fulbourn

·                     Gamlingay

·                     Linton

·                     Melbourn

·                     Waterbeach

·                     Willingham;

(f)                 That there be no ceiling on windfall development in Rural Centres (CS5) and that all Rural Centres be classified as Rural Centres without peripheral development;

(g)               That there would be a ceiling of 25 dwellings on windfall development in Minor Rural Centres and that there would be no peripheral development in any Minor Rural Centre;

(h)               To confirm the Preferred Approach for additional development in Rural Centres (RC3), but that greater development on the existing residential land parcels in the Cambourne Masterplan beyond that suggested by Annexe C to the Rural Centres Preferred Options report or by enlargement of the site should be resisted as being inconsistent with maintaining the character of Cambourne as three separate villages;

(i)                  To confirm the Preferred Approach for development in Group Villages (CS7) as up to 8 dwellings and exceptionally 15 where it would make best use of a brownfield site; and

(j)                  To confirm the Preferred Approach for development in Infill Only Villages (CS8).

The Core Strategy was a critical document within the LDF, setting the scene for all Area Action Plans and providing the basis for development control actions across the district.

Preferred Approach for the Strategic Vision

The policy document would include a section on monitoring as the new LDF system required annual monitoring and was designed to be flexible, taking into account changing circumstances.  Officers agreed to include in the Strategic Vision statements about monitoring, changing circumstances and review.

Village Categories

Criteria for Rural Centres had been defined in the Structure Plan as the final level in the sequence in which development should be accommodated; however, representations received indicated that the Structure Plan approach was too rigid.  Officers therefore recommended the introduction of a Minor Rural Centre level, allowing flexibility for larger villages which did not meet all the Rural Centre criteria yet provided a degree of services for a wider geographic area than the village alone.

The Structure Plan set out specific criteria for Rural Centres.  Local Plan No. 2 already contained a rural settlement policy and no radical changes were suggested.  Four categories of village were proposed:

Rural Centres

The policy would include links between service provision, facility improvements to villages and the effect of both on the quality of village life in identified Rural Centres.  As no threshold would be applied to a windfall development size, providing a suitable location within the village framework could be identified, specific qualifications about developer contributions to village facilities and services would have to be tested during the Development Control process through a planning application.

Minor Rural Centres

The Minor Rural Centres concept had been an integral part of the first Structure Plan as a way to introduce a category to serve smaller rural settlements and officers recommended that it be adopted in the LDF as appropriate for the area.  Selection criteria of Minor Rural Centres had included taking account of the ability to accommodate growth, the provision of services to rural settlements and the availability of rural transport.  The introduction of a category of Minor Rural Centres also allowed a greater geographic spread of services and facilities across the district.  Cambridgeshire County Council had not yet been asked to comment on the proposal for designation of Minor Rural Centres until South Cambridgeshire District Council had decided whether or not to include the concept in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2b

Council AGREED the following Cambridge Green Belt recommendations as set out in the report and Appendix 2 as the basis for developing the policies to be set out in the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents, subject to the identification of the Bayer CropScience site at Hauxton as an island in the Green Belt:

(a)               To confirm the Preferred Approach for Green Belt objectives and boundary definition (CS9 and CS10); and

(b)               To confirm the Preferred Approach for development within the Green Belt and for Major Development Sites (MDS), subject to inclusion of a definition of what would constitute an MDS (CS11 and CS12).

Core Strategies 9-12 set out the Preferred Approach for Green Belt objectives and boundary definition, and the Preferred Approaches for development within the Green Belt and for Major Developed Sites (MDS) within the Green Belt.  Many representations sought changes to the established Green Belt boundary, but the recommendations acknowledged maintaining the status quo except where changes would be required, such as at Cambridge East and Northstowe, both of which were subjects for future LDF meetings.  Unless specific anomalies could be identified, it was recommended that the established boundaries be confirmed as set out in Local Plan No. 2 and rolled forward into the LDF.   Officers now considered that the Bayer CropScience site at Hauxton should be treated as an island within the Green Belt in order to allow flexibility in redevelopment proposals.

The policy would not allow greenfield allocation on the edge of Rural Centres or Minor Rural Centres.  The Development and Conservation Control Committee would be in an even stronger position if the village edge were reinforced by a Green Belt in addition to the village framework.  Government advice was that brownfield development should occur only where the brownfield site was in a sustainable location.

Members noted that the latest government circular said that travellers could be given planning permission in the Green Belt.

Representation 5985 (Dean Grove, Sawston) should read Deal Grove, Sawston.  Representation 6085 (Land West of Ida Darwin Hospital, Fulbourn) would be considered in the context of development in the context of the Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospitals site, although it was noted that it had previously been the site of the Chesterton Rural District Council dump.

Conclusion

Council AGREED the following Cambridge Green Belt recommendations as set out in the report and Appendix 2 as the basis for developing the policies to be set out in the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents, subject to the identification of the Bayer CropScience site at Hauxton as an island in the Green Belt:

(a)               To confirm the Preferred Approach for Green Belt objectives and boundary definition (CS9 and CS10); and

(b)               To confirm the Preferred Approach for development within the Green Belt and for Major Development Sites (MDS), subject to inclusion of a definition of what would constitute an MDS (CS11 and CS12).

Subject to the re-wording of Core Strategies 13, 14 and 16, Council AGREED the Development Principles recommendations set out in the report as the basis for developing the policies to be set out in the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents.

Core Strategies 13-18 set out the Preferred Approach for the Development Principles objectives, including sustainability, design and landscape, and preparing a policy setting out development criteria for all developments.

Although Area Transport Plans were also included in the travel chapter, the wording of CS13 Development Principles Objectives – Preferred Approach would be strengthened to refer to the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document on transport plans.  Officers agreed to revise the wording in CS16 Design of New Development – Preferred Approach to clarify that material planning considerations in individual design statements and Parish Plans had to conform to agreed planning policy before being adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents.  Councillor Mrs SA Hatton agreed to speak to officers about the wording of CS14 Sustainable Development – Preferred Approach.

Conclusion

Subject to the re-wording of Core Strategies 13, 14 and 16, Council AGREED the Development Principles recommendations set out in the report as the basis for developing the policies to be set out in the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents.

Attached separately.