Issue - meetings

Cabinet AGREED the following responses to the proposed changes to the draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for submission to the Secretary of State:

The Proposed Changes to the Draft Revision of the Regional Spatial Strategy

This is consistent with the challenging levels of development for which South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City are already planning.  Further development on the edge of Cambridge cannot be accommodated without calling into question the fundamental purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt to protect the character and setting of the historic city or to prevent villages in the vicinity of Cambridge merging with the City or with one another.

Green Belt

The Council welcomes the fact that the Cambridge Green Belt will not be reviewed through this RSS but is concerned at the suggestion that it may be examined in the future as part of the RSS review. The potential for revising the boundaries of the green belt around Cambridge without undermining the purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt was comprehensively explored during the preparation of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan.  The evidence is that opportunities for further revisions to deliver regionally strategic levels of development post 2021 are unlikely to be found without harming the character and setting of Cambridge or resulting in coalescence with nearby villages.  . Whilst this does not form part of this review of the RSS the District Council advises caution on the assumption that growth can continue at the same rate post 2021 in or close to Cambridge.

Compact City

The Council objects to the deletion oft the term ‘compact’ from the description of Cambridge in Policy CSR3.

Northstowe

Reference to Northstowe as a settlement of initially 8-10,000 houses should be deleted and its size confirmed in the revised wording to Policy CSR1. 

In Policy CSR1 when Northstowe is mentioned the population size should be included as follows   ‘…at the new settlement of Northstowe, with a population size of up to 10,000, linked to the guided busway….’

Affordable housing

In Policy CSR1 there should be a new paragraph added after the second paragraph using the following wording….’ In recognition of the pressures for housing arising in the Cambridge Sub-region at least 40% of new housing needs to be affordable.  Employment development will also be expected to contribute towards affordable housing. ’

Policy H3 should specifically recognise the problem of affordability in the Cambridge Sub-region and the following wording should be added to the end of the policy: ’…In some areas of the region such as the Cambridge Sub-region there will need to be set higher targets for affordable homes’. 

Employment

The Council welcomes the flexibility for the job growth figure for Cambridgeshire County to be allocated between each of the five Districts provided that the level of job growth in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire continues to be governed by the ‘selective management of growth’ policy to encourage the growth of high technology research and development companies that need a location close to the historic city of Cambridge.  ...  view the full decision text for item 8

The Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder outlined the proposed responses, which had been considered by the Planning Policy Advisory Group, and drew attention to several of the modifications:

·                      the Cambridge Green Belt was not to be reviewed as part of the current process;

·                      the Council’s Local Development Framework had confirmed that there would be a maximum of 8,000 dwellings at Northstowe, but the supporting text in the RSS referred to a settlement of ‘initially’ 8-10,000;

·                      if Cambridge were not to be planned as a compact city there could be implications for South Cambridgeshire as City growth began to encroach upon the necklace villages and if so, the District Council would need to make a political decision where to accommodate the additional annual growth beyond 2021 at the level proposed in the RSS if Cambridge City were considered full;

·                      the East of England Regional Authority had passed a motion for 35% affordable housing in new developments, which could have implications for South Cambridgeshire where higher levels of affordable housing would be provided than in neighbouring districts; and

·                      the Council would need to push for more infrastructure if the second runway at Stansted Airport went ahead.

Councillor JA Hockney welcomed the inclusions emphasising reduction of climate change emissions and a policy statement on renewable energy, but cautioned that the benefits of these would be offset by increased air travel through expansion at Stansted Airport.

The Planning Policy Manager explained that the likelihood of the Council’s comments being incorporated depended upon the extent to which they were in agreement with national government policy, which was very focussed upon delivering development in the growth areas.

Cabinet AGREED the following responses to the proposed changes to the draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for submission to the Secretary of State:

The Proposed Changes to the Draft Revision of the Regional Spatial Strategy

This is consistent with the challenging levels of development for which South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City are already planning.  Further development on the edge of Cambridge cannot be accommodated without calling into question the fundamental purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt to protect the character and setting of the historic city or to prevent villages in the vicinity of Cambridge merging with the City or with one another.

Green Belt

The Council welcomes the fact that the Cambridge Green Belt will not be reviewed through this RSS but is concerned at the suggestion that it may be examined in the future as part of the RSS review. The potential for revising the boundaries of the green belt around Cambridge without undermining the purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt was comprehensively explored during the preparation of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan.  The evidence is that opportunities for further revisions to deliver regionally strategic levels of development post 2021 are unlikely to be found without harming the character and setting of Cambridge or resulting in coalescence with nearby villages.  . Whilst this does not form part of this review of the RSS  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8

The Planning Policy Advisory Group considered a report outlining the outcomes from the Government’s consultation on the proposed changes to the draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy.

The following points were made during debate:

Implications.  The District had already accepted significant growth,  and the RSS appeared to be suggesting yet more.  Proposed removal of the descriptive term ‘compact’ ‘from Cambridge City also had implications for South Cambridgeshire in that it could result in  unsustainable urban sprawl.   Housing aspirations could mean that every developable piece of land within the City boundaries would be built on, resulting in any further expansion inevitably taking place within South Cambridgeshire.  The ‘minimum’ figure for housing (rather than a ‘ceiling’) means that it will be a problem to control development in South Cambridgeshire in the future. 

Affordable Housing.  South Cambridgeshire District Council should press for the re-instatement of the goal that 40% of new housing should be affordable, at least in South Cambridgeshire if not the Cambridge Sub-Region.  Depending on the extent of growth, this 40% figure might eventually have to be revised upwards.  Ultimately, If people could not find affordable housing within the Cambridge Sub-Region then they will have no alternative but to commute from further away, thus leading to greater unsustainability.

Climate Change and Sustainability.  The Government had stated that the implications of climate change should be considered, but this seemed not to link with its proposed development of the Cambridge Sub-Region.  Renewable energy should amount to more than 10% of provision – it should be 80-90% if climate change was to be taken seriously.  There was an urgent need for new Building Regulations.  The RSS should not set targets that were not achievable in a sustainable way.  For sustainable development any new growth should be centred on the market towns.

Public Transport and cycling.  New infrastructure was behind schedule (as with the Guided Busway) or else being eroded while, at the same time, increased growth was expected.   The RSS had removed much-needed infrastructure enhancements, including to the M11 and A428.

Employment.  The continued link between employment allocation and employment growth needed to be reviewed.  Employment should be required to contribute to the provision of affordable housing.

Utilities.  Further development would bring pressure to bear on dwindling water resources and have serious drainage impacts.  The apparent contradiction in paragraph 52 of the report was a great concern, namely

“Also in Policy WAT2 it is proposed that LDDs should plan to site new development so as to maximise the potential of existing water/ waste water treatment infrastructure, thereby minimising the need for new / improved infrastructure.   This could re-emphasise the idea of clustering more growth around Cambridge since the waste water treatment works in the north of Cambridge is capable of taking more waste without the need for re-location.”

Area of Restraint.  The draft RSS had referred to an area of restraint in the northern part of Uttlesford district – this should be expanded to include South  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

To receive a verbal update

Noted 

The Planning Policy Manager updated Members on the current position and future timetable of Regional Spatial Strategy 14 (formerly Regional Planning Guidance), which was being prepared by the East of England Regional Assembly.

It was envisaged that RSS 14 would be adopted in early 2006.  Its effect would be to update and extend the life of the Regional Plan by five years up to 2021. 

The Planning Policy Manager referred to the forthcoming meeting of the East of England Regional Assembly on 5^th November 2004 that would be considering a proposal from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for an extra 18,000 houses in the region (including 3,000 in Cambridgeshire), over and above that already included in a first draft of the new Regional Plan.  At its meeting on October 15^th, the Regional Planning Panel, which advises the Regional Assembly, had resolved that the additional allocation could not be justified.  That advice was likely to be endorsed by the Regional Assembly.  However, RSS 13 leaves open the possibility of additional development, specifically a major new town, by proposing an early focused review of RSS14 to consider longer term pressures, and evaluate the options for a large new settlement.  Whilst this proposal would be subject to a number of important factors, including public investment, strategic infrastructure, the possible expansion of Stansted Airport, jobs growth, and evidence of increased housing need, the prospect of such a development remained a possibility.

In response to a Member’s questions, the Planning Policy Manager advised that the policies for the Cambridge Sub-Region in RSS 14 were derived from the relevant policies in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003.