Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Mrs CAED Murfitt in the Chair in her capacity of Chairman of the Council.

Upon the proposal of Councillor RE Barrett, seconded by Councillor CR Nightingale, it was RESOLVED that Councillor Mrs DSK Spink be elected Chairman of the Planning Policy Advisory Group for the year 2006-2007. 

Upon the proposal of Councillor SGM Kindersley, seconded generally, it was RESOLVED that Councillor Mrs PS Corney be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Planning Policy Advisory Group for the year 2006-2007. 

Councillors SGM Kindersley, A Orgee and RJ Turner declared personal interests as Cambridgeshire County Councillors.

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2005 as a correct record.

The Planning Policy Advisory Group agreed that the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2005 were an accurate record.

For recommendation to the Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder. 

Appendices 1 and 2 are attached to the paper and online versions of this agenda.

Technical Notes A, B and C (Background and Context, Strategic Choice and Demand Assessment), which form part of Appendix 1, are available for viewing as part of the online version of this agenda.

The Planning Policy Advisory Group considered a report outlining the contents of a study commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to examine the potential transport issues arising from the proposed development of Cambridge East.

Martin Higgett of Steer Davies Gleeve made a PowerPoint presentation to Members, focusing on:

·                The Cambridge Growth Area

·                Cambridge East Development Proposals

·                Area Action Plan – planning and transport policies

·                Purpose and objectives of the transport study

·                The process

·                Main destinations and options – Cambridge Northern Fringe, City centre, Cambridge Southern Fringe and the wider area

·                Phasing

·                Implications

·                Impact on the surrounding road network

The following points were discussed:

·                The intended routing of public transport from Cambridge East to the Cambridge Southern Fringe

·                Promotion of the local accessibility within Cambridge East while allowing easy access to the wider City

·                employment opportunities

·                the future of Cambridge Airport and the implications of its relocation, including sustainability

·                 The mechanics of the County Council’s modelling process

·                 the viability of Cambridge East as a self-standing community

the proposed 60/ 40 (public / private) transport split

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.