To answer any questions asked by the public. The Council’s scheme for public speaking at remote meetings may be inspected here:
Public Questions at Remote Meetings guidance
Minutes:
The Chair said that, at the start of each meeting, the practice was to allow up to 15 minutes for questions from the public. However, as some of the questions at the current meeting were extremely long and likely to take up most of that time, he would not be allowing supplementary questions on this occasion.
Question from Margaret Starkie (about Item 6)
The Area Action Plan is predicated on the proposed relocation of Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant (CWWTP), for which the Development Consent Order (DCO) process is still in the pre-application stage. Given that the CWWTP DCO application is unlikely to be submitted until late 2022 or early 2023, the proposed Regulation 19 submission of the Area Action Plan is premature.
Why is resource being used so inappropriately and prematurely when the consultation on CWWTPR is not scheduled until February 2022 and the councils are deferring any formal public consultation on NECAAP until after the DCO and the officers have recommended that any subsequent alteration to the area action plan is delegated to individual members and officers which appears to be at odds with the democratic process?
Response
The Chair said that the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme, adopted in July 2020, set out the Councils’ process for preparing the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan. In respect of the timing of preparing the Proposed Submission AAP, and the reason for that, it said:
“9. Significant government Housing Infrastructure Funding had been secured to facilitate the relocation of the Milton Waste Water Treatment Plant (WTP) which would enable the development of a major brownfield site and comprehensive planning of the North East Cambridge area. Anglian Water proposed that a Development Consent Order (DCO) process be undertaken to enable the relocation.
10.The formal agreement by the Councils of the Proposed Submission AAP will be an important factor in the DCO Examination process to demonstrate commitment to development of the area. Therefore, work on the AAP is intended to progress to complete the Regulation 18 stage, consider the responses received and prepare the Proposed Submission AAP. The Councils would make a decision ahead of the DCO Examination to agree the AAP for Regulation 19 publication, but actually carrying out the consultation would be subject to the successful completion of the DCO process, because of the need at Examination to be able to demonstrate that the development proposed on the site could be delivered.
11. It is therefore anticipated that the AAP process would then pause until the outcome of the DCO is known. If successful, the Councils would then proceed with the publication of the Proposed Submission AAP for the making of representations (Regulation 19), following which the AAP would progress to Submission and Examination.”
The Councils were complying with and implementing the process and timing set out in the adopted Local Development Scheme, in bringing the Proposed Submission AAP to Members now for agreement ahead of the formal stages of the DCO process progressing in 2022.
Question from Catherine Martin (about Item 6)
The North East Cambridge site has been described by officers as the most sustainable site for building in the area. [The Strategy and Economy Manager] mentioned this in her opening at the November Joint Local Plan Advisory Group meeting. Could you please consider the impact of the release of embedded carbon in the destruction of the sewage plant and the massive carbon impact of rebuilding the sewage plant on precious green belt a couple of fields away?
Response
The Chair said that the description given at the Joint Local Plan Advisory Group meeting of the North East Cambridge site had been as the most sustainable location in Greater Cambridge for development. This referred to the locational benefits in terms of minimising carbon emissions from transport and the opportunity to maximise travel by non-car modes, as identified in our evidence.
That comment had not been intended to relate to a wider more detailed assessment of the North East Cambridge site that included embodied carbon. It was not possible or appropriate at the plan?making stage to undertake a full carbon impact assessment, including arising from demolition and proposed development, because that level of detail was not normally available.
The Sustainability Appraisal supporting the Proposed Submission AAP considered the cumulative effects of the Plan in combination with other plans and projects, including the relocation of the waste water treatment plant, to the extent appropriate for the stage of the project at the time of the assessment. In terms of embedded carbon associated with the new proposal, this was addressed at paragraph 5.36 of the Sustainability Appraisal. The SA would be kept under review as the AAP and the DCO processes moved forward, to take into account any new information.
The Scoping Opinion relating to the Development Consent Order process for the new Waste Water Treatment Plant had now been published by the Planning Inspectorate. With specific reference to the decommissioning and demolition of the existing plant, it required assessment of the cumulative impacts of the proposal for the new works together with the effects of waste generated from demolition activities at the existing sewage works. This would include an assessment of cumulative Carbon impacts.
In any event, Policy 2 of the Proposed Submission Area Action Plan before Members required planning applications to calculate carbon emissions through a Whole Life Carbon Assessment, to demonstrate actions to reduce life-cycle carbon emissions and also to reduce construction waste.
The Environmental Assessment supporting any planning application for development on the North East Cambridge site would be expected to include consideration of the demolition of existing structures on the site and the potential for waste reduction and reuse on site. This would inform the Whole Life Carbon Assessment required by the AAP.
The fact that there were different legal processes involved for the AAP and the DCO did not mean that there was any reduction in the level of scrutiny of the projects. All matters would be considered in the correct forum and in the correct way and both would be subject to scrutiny from independent planning inspectors before they could be approved.
Question from James Littlewood (about Item 6)
There are many things to commend in the environmental aspirations for this development but disappointingly the provision on natural greenspace is not one of them.
The amount of informal green space meets the minimum amount required by the council’s policies but two thirds of this is provided on a business park, described on p26 of the Open Spaces Report as “these green spaces aren’t perceived as being accessible to the wider public”. Would you want to visit a business park for your leisure and recreation? It should be noted that the green space on the business park already exists, so it is not new space.
Only a third of the green space is provided in conjunction with the housing. Most of this is provided as linear green space or pocket parks, in other words small areas of green space that are loomed over by high?rise buildings. There is one larger park but the size of this is not provided in any of the documents.
Extrapolating from the plans, we estimate this to be around 2?3 ha in size. Fig 20 in your report includes an infographic which aims to compare the amount of open space in the AAP with other Cambridge parks, the comparison is misleading because the parks which are used for comparison are just that, parks. A better comparison would be the main park proposed for the new development. At 2?3ha this is small in comparison to the other parks, given that it is to cater for 16,000 people.
At a bare minimum the proposals for the AAP might possibly just provide for the day?day open space needs of the new residents: play space for children, somewhere to walk the dog or kick a ball about. But what it won’t do is provide the kind of green spaces that people in high density developments need access to – which is large natural greenspace: somewhere they can go for a long walk or run, experience nature, and escape the pressures of urban life.
There is of course somewhere for them to do that, it is Milton Country Park and a subway is proposed under the A14 so that residents can get to it. And that is exactly where the 16,000 people will go. That would be great if it were not for the fact that the Country Park is already at capacity and cannot cope with 16,000 more visitors.
In the hundreds of pages text is there is almost no mention of Milton Country Park at all, let alone of it meeting the needs of the development. There has been no assessment of whether the country park has the capacity to cope and what mitigation might be required to enable it to do so. We could see no requirement
for S106 contributions to support the park to cope only this rather vague paragraph on page 54 of the Open Spaces & Recreation Topic Paper:
There is a need to build in community resilience and capacity into the existing open space provision for NEC. Alongside any on?site provision, opportunities to use S106 contributions outside the city on largescale green infrastructure should be considered. This will avoid pressure building up on existing parks,open spaces and cycleways, which might otherwise lose their biodiversity and other qualities. For example, undertaking negotiations for specific S106 contributions, for growth sites straddling the Cambridge/South Cambridgeshire boundary. These could explore opportunities for improving existing or creating new parks beyond the city which are easily accessible by foot and cycle, in order to avoid over?investment in, and over?use of popular or environmentally sensitive sites.
Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards would require the AAP development to have a large 100 hectare site of accessible natural greenspace within 5km. Especially as this development is to be largely car free. But there isn’t one. To make matters worse, the north of Cambridge will also see 20,000 people at Northstowe and 22,000 at Waterbeach. Where will these 58,000 people go to meet their green space needs?
This is an area which has been highlighted in the evidence base for the next Local Plan as already suffering from a deficit of green infrastructure and recreational pressure. This report, informing the Local Plan, highlights North East Cambridge to Waterbeach as a priority area for green infrastructure with its enhancement marked as of ‘critical importance’.
The only option for providing that critical green space is through the North East AAP and therefore it is essential that Section 106 contributions are secured towards this.
Please will the Scrutiny Committee recommend that the AAP is not adopted until there is a commitment within the AAP for development contributions towards providing the larger scale green space that will be desperately needed by the future 58,000 residents of North East Cambridge, Waterbeach and Northstowe.
Response
The Chair said it was important to clarify that the Councils were not seeking to adopt the Area Action Plan at this stage, the recommendation to both Councils’ scrutiny committees was to agree the AAP and supporting documents for future public consultation following the outcome of the DCO process to relocate the WWTP.
The AAP required development to bring forward 27.6 hectares of new informal and children’s play space across the area which is the equivalent of around 34.5 football pitches or around three times the size of Parker’s Piece. In combination with the existing open spaces at NEC, the development would meet the informal and children’s play space requirements in the adopted Local Plans on-site, meaning all residents would have access to open space within a 5-minute walk of their homes for day-to-day informal recreation. The existing open spaces within the employment parks would form an important part of NEC for informal exercise and by providing a range of different types of spaces for people to enjoy.
The proposed open spaces were substantial in size. The new large green space was 4.1 hectares, which was around the same size as Christ’s Pieces or five football pitches. Similarly, the main linear park was between 70 metres and 100 metres wide, which was the length of a football pitch, and over 1.3 kilometres long. As required by the AAP, a landscape-led approach to designing these spaces would ensure that there would be opportunities for people to go for walks, run and experience nature on their doorstep.
As set out in the First Proposals Local Plan, the Councils were also seeking to bring forward new strategic-scale green spaces as well as development. The nearest area identified to NEC lay immediately north of the A14 between the top of Cambridge, Waterbeach New Town and Northstowe. This could provide a substantial amount of open space to serve not only these developments but also existing communities. These wider proposals fell outside of the AAP area and, due to their more strategic role, would be considered further as the Councils prepared the Greater Cambridge Local Plan. It should also be noted that the majority of new homes at NEC would not come forward until after the Plan period, 20 years from now, so there was opportunity through the Local Plan process to address the strategic open space needs for not only NEC but also Greater Cambridge and therefore not relying on Milton Country Park to meet the recreation, health and well-being of people living in this area.
Question from Daniel Fulton
Mr. Fulton withdrew this question at the meeting.
In response to Councillor Dr. Richard Williams, the Chair confirmed that the three responses he had given to the three public questions had been provided by both officers and Members.