Issue - meetings

The Planning Portfolio Holder agreed

(a)          That a Supplementary Planning Document be prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council for Land North of Cherry Hinton to the broad timetable set out in paragraphs 19-20 of the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development;

(b)          To commence preparation of Supplementary Planning Documents for Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village to the broad timetables set out in paragraphs 21 to 25 of the report; and

(c)          The general process for preparing Supplementary Planning Documents contained in paragraph 13 of the report.

Please note that this decision was first published on Wednesday 14 December and so the deadline for call-in is Wednesday 21 December at 5pm. If not called-in this decision can be implemented on Thursday 22 December.

The Planning Portfolio Holder agreed

(a)             That a Supplementary Planning Document be prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council for Land North of Cherry Hinton to the broad timetable set out in paragraphs 19-20 of the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development;

(b)             To commence preparation of Supplementary Planning Documents for Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village to the broad timetables set out in paragraphs 21 to 25 of the report; and

(c)             The general process for preparing Supplementary Planning Documents contained in paragraph 13 of the report.

The Planning Portfolio Holder considered a report setting out options and the process for preparing Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) for Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village and a joint SPD with Cambridge City Council for Land North of Cherry Hinton.

Councillor Anna Bradnam raised three points exploring the relationships between SPDs and outline planning applications, the likely timing of planning applications for the two separate elements of Waterbeach New Town, and current location of the northern boundary of the Waterbeach New Town footprint and its proximity to Debby Abbey. In reply to the first point, the Planning Policy Manager said that the function of SPDs was simply to address capacity issues. It was for the development control process to deal with the specifics of individual planning applications. In reply to the second point, the Portfolio Holder said it would be ideal if Waterbeach New Town could be considered holistically but, in reality, the Council had to accept that there were two independent applications. The Planning Policy Manager added that the situation could at least in part be managed by finalising an SPD for the whole of Waterbeach New Town prior to the first application being submitted. In reply to the third point, the Planning Policy Manager said that there had been no realignment of the northern boundary as yet, and that discussions were ongoing between South Cambridgeshire District Council, the developer and Historic England on the basis of the boundary line defined in the draft Local Plan currently subject to public examination.

Councillor Philippa Hart referred to paragraph 30 of the report. The Planning Policy Manager reiterated that there were benefits in adopting SPDs as soon as possible, and cautioned against preparing SPDs only once the Local Plan was in place.

Councillor Bridget Smith referred to paragraph 4 and wondered whether, in view of the imminent submission of the application relating to the wesern part of the Waterbeach site, an SPD in that case had any value. Councillor Smith asked whether officers should focus instead on preparing an SPD for Bourn Airfield New Village. The Planning Policy Manager highlighted the risk to the Council of not having an SPD in place. SPDs for Waterbeach and Bourn Airfield could be worked upon now, with public consultation taking place as soon as possible.

Councillor Smith referred to paragraph 13 and expressed enthusiasm for consultation with interest groups similar to the Local Liaison Forums set up under the Greater Cambridge City Deal. Referring to wording in paragraph 8, she hoped that the Council would show confidence in its leadership in developing new communities and, accordingly, proceed in terms of ‘will’ rather than ‘can’.

Councillor Hart referred to paragraph 32 and asked how a switch from preparing Area Action Plans (AAPs) to Supplementary Planning Documents saved money. In reply, the Planning Policy Manager said that SPDs were not subject to public examination whereas AAPs were. In addition, promoters were expected to contribute to the cost of preparing SPDs. In reply  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3