Agenda and minutes

The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements.

He informed Members about a letter which he and the Chair of the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee had sent to Mr. Daniel Fulton of the Fews Lane Consortium. At the last Audit and Corporate Governance Committee meeting Mr. Fulton had asked a supplementary question relating to the robustness of this Council’s risk management of 3C ICT. Mr. Fulton was under the impression that the Head of 3C ICT, serving South Cambridgeshire District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, also undertook duties at two other local authorities. The letter to Mr. Fulton was to assure him that this was not the case and that the Interim Head of 3C ICT, appointed 12 months ago, worked for no other organisation.

Councillor Sarah Cheung Johnson has sent apologies. To receive any other apologies for absence from committee members. 

The following Scrutiny and Overview Committee members sent apologies: Councillors Sarah Cheung Johnson, Councillor Sally Ann Hart, Councillor Geoff Harvey and Councillor Steve Hunt.

Councillor Bridget Smith (Leader of the Council) also sent apologies.

Councillor Henry Batchelor declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 7 (HRA Asset Management Strategy) as a board member of both South Cambs Investment Partnerships.

Councillor Anna Bradnam declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (North East Cambridge Area Action Plan) as a Milton Parish Councillor, a local District Councillor for Milton & Waterbeach, and the Cambridgeshire County Councillor for the Electoral Division or Waterbeach, which includes the Parish of Milton.

Councillor Paul Bearpark declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (North East Cambridge Area Action Plan) as a local Member for Milton & Waterbeach.

Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (North East Cambridge Area Action Plan) as a local Member for Histon, Impington & Orchard Park..

Councillor Grenville Chamberlain declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (North East Cambridge Area Action Plan) as the sole director of Cecil Instruments, which owns commercial property adjacent to Milton Country Park and very close to the site subject of the Area Action Plan.

Councillor Peter Fane declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 7 (Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Asset Management Strategy 2021 - 2026: Building Strong Foundations) as a Board member of both Ermine Street Housing and Shire Homes.

Councillor Judith Rippeth declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (North East Cambridge Area Action Plan) as a local Member for Milton & Waterbeach.

To authorise the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2021 as a correct record.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2021.

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

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Appendices B to I are available on the Council’s website. Please type into a web browser the following characters (case sensitive) and then press the Enter key.

Your Council and democracy > Meetings and Councillor Information > Meetings

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee considered a report seeking Cabinet support for the Proposed Submission North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP) that would establish the policies and proposals advanced by South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council for managing development, regeneration, and investment in North East Cambridge over the next twenty years and beyond. Officers gave a short PowerPoint presentation of the proposals.

Councillor Dr. Claire Daunton was concerned by the lack of any indication of the timeframe for the construction and occupation of the first phase, which incorporated around 4,000 homes. Councillor Daunton also wondered where the alternative site or sites might be If the Development Consent Order failed, and North East Cambridge could not be developed.

Further discussion focussed on six key aspects:

A. Open space on the development and sports provision

While Members broadly welcomed the proposed increased provision of children’s play space and informal open space, Councillor Dr. Richard Williams expressed concern about the inclusion as part of that provision of open space within employment areas.

Committee members agreed that the North East Cambridge development could have a negative impact of neighbouring communities and should be required to provide more open space on-site. Councillor Anna Bradnam (a local Member for Milton and Waterbeach) said that recreation space must be provided on site because Milton was already lacking in the level of recreational facilities needed to meet the demand of its own residents.

Regarding the future use of the existing Milton Waste site, it was suggested that the NECAAP should safeguard a route to this area as it could be used as open space in the future.

B. Milton Country Park

The new community would be located on the opposite side of the A14 to Milton Country Park which currently operated at capacity on several days each year. Councillor Judith Rippeth (a local Member for Milton and Waterbeach) said that the park would be overwhelmed unless provision could be agreed via a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for funding a significant expansion of the park, or of additional informal recreation space at North East Cambridge. Such Section 106 Agreement should also seek to mitigate against any harm to local biodiversity.

It was suggested that a tunnel connecting the development with Milton Country Park should be constructed under the A14. Parkrun had already discontinued use of Milton Country Park because of capacity issues.

C. Connectivity and transport

Committee members regretted that no provision had been made for connecting the development site with the residents and businesses beyond the level crossing on Fen Road by securing a permanent means of crossing the increasingly busy railway tracks. While noting that discussions with Network Rail were ongoing, Members felt that greater urgency was needed. There was a clear need for an additional vehicle access for more than 500 residents and more than 200 staff of businesses in that location.

There was some concern about the amount of parking provision proposed at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee is invited to comment on, and endorse the recommendation in, the attached draft Cabinet report.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee considered a report about the Asset Management Strategy 2021-2026. The Strategy set out the strategic medium and long-term approach to maintaining, improving, and developing the Council’s housing assets within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), and the key priorities for the physical care and improvement of the Council homes and their surrounding environment. 

Councillor Peter Fane said that the Council should take a very flexible approach to addressing housing needs not met by the market. The Council must recognise that, even when it did secure 40% affordable housing on new developments, that percentage may subsequently be reduced by viability. In any event those houses were not truly affordable because of market house prices in South Cambridgeshire.

The Council must recognise the need to extend this policy by looking at rural exception sites given there will be few new homes, whether council or market houses, built in smaller communities and thus making it very difficult to maintain the viability and sustainability of those communities in social, economic, and environmental terms.

Members agreed that both Ermine Street Housing and Shire Homes played an invaluable role in enabling the Council to acquire houses and rent them out to those who needed them without necessarily having to own those homes.

Councillor Dr. Claire Daunton highlighted the need for the Strategy to be supported by appropriate staff in terms of both numbers and skills.

Councillor Paul Bearpark called for priority to be given to those residents most at risk of encountering fuel poverty when programming work to insulate Council properties.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee recommended that Cabinet

a.    recognises that the Strategy should seek to maintain not just the fabric of the Council’s housing stock but also the estate surrounding that stock.

b.    considers buying back the equity share in part-owned homes where that provides good value for money to meet the needs of residents which could offer very much better value for money than seeking to build new houses.

c.     Subject to viability, and where the Council proposes to sell land, considers the option of itself building on that land to increase its own housing stock.

This report will follow as part of an agenda supplement.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee received a report updating Members about progress with the completion of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Final Accounts for 2018-19.

The Head of Finance reported that a meeting had taken place on 3 December 2021 between External Auditors Ernst Young (EY) and officers from South Cambridgeshire District Council. All information required because of that meeting had been passed to EY by 8 December 2021 so that EY then had all the information required to complete the audit.

At Councillor Richard Williams’ request, the Head of Finance undertook to notify Scrutiny and Overview Committee members about additional fees incurred by the Council.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee received and noted its work programme for 2021-2022.

Tuesday 18 January 2022 starting at 5.20pm

Members noted that the next Scrutiny and Overview Committee meeting would be on Tuesday 18 January 2022 at 5.20pm.

Question (Item 6 – North East Cambridge Area Action Plan)

Does the Scrutiny and Overview Committee agree that the NECAAP for the development is premature bearing in mind that it is acknowledged by SCDC and City that Cambridge North East cannot be progressed until a decision has been made by the Planning Inspectorate regarding the proposed relocation of Milton Sewage Works to the Cambridge Green Belt at Honey Hill in close proximity the the villages of Horningsea and Fen Ditton.

It is noted that the NECAAP Reg 19 part 2 pages 2 and 6 shows that the parcel of land where the Anglian Water Milton sewage works are sited that Cambridge City Council are also a landowner within this parcel. How will impartiality regarding the granting of planning permission be ensured should the Planning Inspectorate grant a DCO for the relocation of the sewage works?

Supplementary question:

NECAAP vision Reg 19 page 33 the map shows housing and businesses abutting the A14. Is it ethical to expect residents and workers to live in close proximity to a highly polluted road,subjecting people to air pollution from exhaust fumes, noise, vibration, dust, light and contamination from runoff and fine particles PM2.5 from vehicle tyres and brakes. PM2.5's and can pose a great risk to human health by absorption through the skin or become deeply embedded in the lungs. It is noted that housing is proposed on the site of the sewage works and dependent on developers remediating contamination from the site. How will the site if brought forward for development be managed, monitored and enforced to ensure there is no risk to human health? Would any committee members live on this site?

Response

The Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme, adopted in July 2020, sets 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 says:

“9. Significant government Housing Infrastructure Funding has been secured to facilitate the relocation of the Milton Waste Water Treatment Plant (WTP) which will enable the development of a major brownfield site and comprehensive planning of the North East Cambridge area. Anglian Water proposes that a Development Consent Order (DCO) process will now 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 are 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 2

It is noted that the NECAAP Reg 19 part 2 pages 2 and 6 shows that the parcel of land where the Anglian Water Milton sewage works are sited that Cambridge City Council are also a landowner within this parcel. How will impartiality regarding the granting of planning permission be ensured should the Planning Inspectorate grant a DCO for the relocation of the sewage works?

Response

As defined in the Town and Country Planning Act the councils are the Local Planning Authorities for their area and are required to consider all district level planning applications submitted to them – regardless of whom is the applicant.  In making a decision on a development proposal which either falls within council land ownership or being progressed through a development company on behalf of the councils, the application will be robustly considered at the relevant planning committee against the adopted policies. The Council’s constitution, and associated standing orders seek to manage all applications where the Council may be the applicant in an open and transparent way – to avoid apparent conflicts of interest. This usually requires that the application is submitted to the Committee for a decision. The redevelopment of land owned by the council is not an unusual process to either planning authority in Cambridge or across the Country. 

Question 3 (Supplementary question)

NECAAP vision Reg 19 page 33 the map shows housing and businesses abutting the A14. Is it ethical to expect residents and workers to live in close proximity to a highly polluted road, subjecting people to air pollution from exhaust fumes, noise, vibration, dust, light and contamination from runoff and fine particles PM2.5 from vehicle tyres and brakes. PM2.5's and can pose a great risk to human health by absorption through the skin or become deeply embedded in the lungs. It is noted that housing is proposed on the site of the sewage works and dependent on developers remediating contamination from the site. How will the site if brought forward for development be managed, monitored and enforced to ensure there is no risk to human health? Would any committee members live on this site?

Response

The councils are aware of the environmental constraints both within and adjacent to the Area Action Plan area and as such, have been engaging with the Council’s Environmental Health Teams to identify suitable mitigation measures to inform the preparation of the Proposed Submission Area Action Plan. More detail can be found in the North East Cambridge Environmental Health Topic Paper (NECAAPTPEnvironmentalHealth2020v22021.pdf (greatercambridgeplanning.org)). Additionally, the councils have also undertaken a Geo-Environmental Desk Study (https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/sites/gcp/files/2021-11/NECAAPEDPhase1Geo-EnvironmentalDeskStudyNov21v1.pdf) which relates to land contamination within the AAP area.

The topic paper, study and other environmental evidence published to support the draft AAP last year have informed the preparation of AAP Policy 25: Environmental Protection, which sets out clear requirements any development proposals within the AAP area will need to address to ensure the amenity of sensitive uses, such as new homes, is protected. The granting of any planning applications within the AAP area will likely be subject of planning conditions to ensure that issues such as land remediation are undertaken prior to the commencement of development. This is common practice on sites such as this, and the Council has overseen a similar process recently on the former Bayer site in Hauxton which is now fully developed and occupied following remediation ground works.