Agenda item

 

Development of up to 2,350 residential units including affordable housing; retail, use classes A1-A5 (up to 1.04 ha); offices/light industry, use class B1 (up to 5.66ha); community and leisure facilities, use class D1 and D2 (up to 0.92 ha); Two primary schools and one secondary school (up to 11.28 ha), use class D1; three vehicular access points including the extension and modification of Sheepfold Lane, a four arm roundabout provided on A1198/Caxton Bypass and an access point off the A1198, south of the Caxton Gibbet to serve the proposed employment uses; a network of segregated pedestrian and cycle routes; sustainable drainage system and other infrastructure; together with associated earth works, parking, open space, including equipped play, playing fields and landscaping.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the outline planning application, including parameter plan and detailed access drawings, subject to:

 

1.       The prior completion, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms document attached as Appendix 2 to the report from the Heads of New Communities; and

 

2.       The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of New Communities, final wording to be determined in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee before issuing the Decision Notice.

Members visited the site on 10 January 2017.

 

Officers gave a presentation focussing on

·        Context

·        Submission Local Plan allocation

·        Topography and existing features

·        Original submission – December 2014

·        Amendments – August 2015

·        Various Parameter plans

·        Sheepfold Lane access

·        A1198 / Caxton Bypass roundabout design

·        A1198 employment access design

·        Section 106 draft Heads of Terms

·        Viability and affordable housing

 

Arising from the presentation, Members raised specific concerns about the amount of affordable housing, viability, and the need to make sure that Sheepfold Lane was suitable as an access in terms of carriageway width and the amount of traffic expected to use it. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Sheepfold Lane would not be used as a haul road.

 

Ben Coles (representing the applicant), Councillor Janet Molloy (Caxton Parish Council), John Vickery (Clerk to, and agent for, Cambourne Parish Council) and Councillor Simon Crocker (a local Member) addressed the meeting. In addition, Councillor Des O’Brien (a local Member and member of the Planning Committee) addressed the meeting, having made the following statement:

 

“Following advice from legal and governance officers here at the council I will be removing myself from the committee debate and vote on agenda item 4 - Cambourne (land to the west of Cambourne). This advice relates to a written objection to this application that I made to the Planning Department in February 2015 before I was either a District Councillor, or a member of the Planning Committee. This puts me, and the council, at risk of a charge of predetermination. I hope and expect that my fellow councillors are comfortable with their own impartiality in order to avoid similar accusations in the future.”

 

Ben Coles described the proposal as a logical extension to the existing community of Cambourne. He indicated that the intention would be to begin delivery within 12 months of consent being granted for the first Reserved Matters application.  The aim was to ensure sustainable growth, and enhance the quality of life in a thriving and expanding community, The proposal would deliver local infrastructure, and its design would ensure good integration with the existing Cambourne villages. In response to Members’ questions of clarification, Mr. Coles said that

·        the applicant and Local Planning Authority had agreed that affordable housing should represent 30% of the total number of dwellings in this case, in view of viability constraints

·        it was too soon to give an indication as to the specific type of dwellings to be built, but that the point had been taken that Cambourne had a shifting demographic

·        subject to approval of Reserved Matters, the intention was to be on site quickly, with the aim of delivering about 250 dwellings over a five-year period

·        note had been taken of the contribution made by the Wildlife Trust in maintaining green space throughout the existing three Cambourne villages

 

Councillor Janet Molloy referred to the likely adverse impact on Caxton in terms of quality of life and extra traffic demands on the roads. Caxton Parish Council was concerned by the loss of agricultural land, flood risk, and housing density.

 

John Vickery said that Cambourne Parish Council supported the emphasis being placed on sport, youth facilities and open space, and had a proven record of working with the developer in the three existing villages.  In response to Members’ questions of clarification, Mr. Vickery said that

·        Cambourne Parish Council was satisfied that the figure of 30% affordable housing would allow for a balanced integration of housing similar to that found in Lower, Great and Upper Cambourne

·        Money to be secured through the Section 106 Legal Agreement would help to address the issue of capacity at the medical practice

·        Cambourne Parish Council recognised that the application site was located within Caxton parish, and supported a governance review. If that review was successful, Cambourne Parish Council would become responsible for Cambourne West. If it was not successful, then Cambourne Parish Council would support Caxton Parish Council.

 

Councillor Simon Crocker referred to the allocation made in the emerging Local Plan as against the current application. The current proposal would deliver nearly twice as many dwellings as the Local Plan allocation without the need for a further application. Councillor Crocker said that Cambourne needed to enjoy a period of “being finished”. With regard to affordable housing, he pointed out that 30% of 2,350 (as proposed) would result in a higher figure than 40% of 1,200 (as envisaged in the emerging Local Plan). In response to Members’ questions of clarification, Councillor Crocker

·        Said that he supported a governance review

·        Asserted his aspiration that Cambourne should be defined as a town

·        Accepted that walking from the Broadway on the eastern edge of Upper Cambourne to the A1198 on the western edge of Cambourne West would take some considerable time

·        Said that he would oppose a greater financial contribution towards City Deal improvements to transport links between Cambourne and Cambridge if that resulted in a reduced number of affordable homes at Cambourne West

 

Councillor Des O’Brien (as a local Member) was concerned by the prospect of  “out-commuting” to employment sites. He said that the application was premature. There was a need for smaller business units than were currently available on Cambourne Business Park. Councillor O’Brien was worried about the increase in traffic but added that, in his view, the proposed rapid bus service did not justify building Cambourne West. He said that urgent improvements were needed to the Girton interchange. In response to Members’ questions of clarification, Councillor O’Brien

·        Estimated that, within 20 years, Cambourne West could be generating an extra 2,000 car journeys an hour. This would encourage “rat running” through local villages. The rapid bus system was unlikely to solve that problem.

·        Understood fears about traffic implications for villages along the A1198 to the south of the proposed site. He feared that the focus on improving transport links between Cambourne and Cambridge was an attempt to justify development alongside the A428.

·        Regretted the need for Cambourne West, but acknowledged its inevitability.

·        Said that Cambourne West would have a negative impact on the quality of life

 

Councillor Des O’Brien withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the ensuing debate, and did not vote.

 

Public speaking having concluded, Members debated the application. The following points were made:

 

·        A significant amount of money had been diverted from Cambourne West to enable the Greater Cambridge City Deal to improve bus and other transport links along the A428 between Cambourne and Cambridge. However, it was crucial to consider, as well, the traffic impact on existing villages to the south of the Cambourne West site. It could also be argued that the provision of developer funds to the City Deal at least contributed to the fact that 40% affordable housing was not considered viable.

 

·        The application was both speculative and premature. At the very least, the development at Cambourne West should be in accordance with the allocation of 1,200 dwellings made in the emerging Local Plan.

 

·        The success of a governance review could not be guaranteed. Cambourne was a village, or collection of linked villages, and did not possess any “town-like” facilities. Cambourne West offered no community benefits, and would impact adversely on the quality of life locally.

 

·        The increase in traffic would cause problems.

 

·        There was an urgent need to ensure that drainage and avoid flood risk

 

·        There were some positives. These included the Section 106 Legal Agreement, which secured a generous £25,000 per dwelling.

 

·        Cambourne West would deliver 705 affordable homes.

 

·         While the loss of agricultural land was disappointing, development would actually increase biodiversity.

 

·        Cambourne West is inevitable, and it would be better to plan for, and build, it in one go rather than in two stages.

 

·        South Cambridgeshire District Council has strategies and policies designed to protect smaller villages in the district by directing major development towards new settlements and New Towns. The Section 106 is generous, and Cambourne West will be built eventually anyway.

 

·        There might be an adverse impact on housing delivery should the application be refused.

 

·        South Cambridgeshire needs houses, not least to address the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. If Cambourne West were to be refused, there would probably be an Appeal. If that Appeal was successful, the Inspector might not attach all the Conditions proposed by officers, and local control over the development would be lost. Alternatively, the 2,350 dwellings might end up being distributed among all the villages in the district.

 

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the outline planning application, including parameter plan and detailed access drawings, subject to:

 

1.       The prior completion, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms document attached as Appendix 2 to the report from the Heads of New Communities; and

 

2.       The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of New Communities, final wording to be determined in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee before issuing the Decision Notice.

 

Councillor Deborah Roberts voted to refuse the application.