Agenda, decisions and minutes

With the absence of the Chair of the Committee, the Vice-Chair, Councillor Henry Batchelor, assumed the role of Chair for the meeting; Councillor Peter Fane was nominated as Vice-Chair for the meeting and this was approved via affirmation by the Committee.

Due to the exceptional circumstances of the meeting, the Chair proposed two motions. Firstly, it was proposed to allow all those who had registered to speak before the deadline an opportunity to make a three-minute representation. The first motion was approved by affirmation.

The second motion was to structure the debate through discussing the topics present in the report in groups. The groupings were:

•         Sections 1 & 2- Principle of development, land use and vision, parameter plans

•         Section 3- Access and transport

•         Sections 4, 5 & 6- Employment assessment, housing delivery & social and community infrastructure

•         Sections 7-10- Environmental considerations, cumulative impact, financial obligations/S.106 & planning balance

The second motion was approved by affirmation.

The Chair also made several brief housekeeping announcements.

Councillor Pippa Heylings sent Apologies for Absence

1.         Disclosable pecuniary interests (“DPI”)

A  DPI is where a committee member or his/her spouse or partner has any kind of beneficial interest in the land under consideration at the meeting.

 2.        Non-disclosable pecuniary interests

These are interests that are pecuniary involving a  personal financial benefit or detriment but do not come within the definition of a DPI.  An example would be where a member of their family/close friend (who is not their spouse or partner) has such an interest.

3.         Non-pecuniary interests

Where the interest is not one which involves any personal financial benefit or detriment to the Councillor but arises out of a close connection with someone or some  body /association.  An example would be membership of a sports committee/ membership of another council which is involved in the matter under consideration.

There were no Declarations of Interest

Outline planning application for the development of Northstowe Phase 3A for up to 4,000 homes, two primary schools, a local centre (including employment, community, retail and associated services, food and drink, community, leisure, residential uses and other accommodation), secondary mixed use zones (including employment, community, retail and associated services, food and drink, community, leisure, residential uses), open space and landscaped areas, sports pitches, associated engineering and infrastructure works, including the retention of the existing military lake and creation of a new lake, with details of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access reserved. Application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and involves works to/affecting existing Public Rights of Way.

By 8 votes to 3, the Planning Committee approved the application. The approval was subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, as amended by the supplement to the report entitled “Amendment/update report – Phase 3A application”. The supplementary report amended conditions 10, 12, 31 and 39 and also introduced conditions 69, 70 and 71.

The Planning Committee agreed to amend condition 42 (Construction Environmental Management Plan) to remove reference of the construction vehicle monitoring route (42 c) and instead include the construction vehicle monitoring route as a clause in the S. 106 agreement.

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development made an introductory statement for the report and application; the report presentation was made by Paul Ricketts, the Principal Planner (Strategic Sites).

Members asked questions of clarity of Officers. The questions covered the following topics:

• Levels of affordable housing, both in the application and across Northstowe as a whole- context on the levels of affordable housing was offered by the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

• Housing density and building heights- the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development did not confirm the housing density statistics at this point of the debate but assured Members that the information would be provided

• Traffic concerns- Cambridgeshire County Council’s Interim Transport Assessment Team Manager, Jez Tuttle, outlined the County Council response to the traffic concerns. His response was centred on the concern expressed about the negative impact on traffic in the village of Oakington. The Committee was informed that a comprehensive approach to managing traffic through the village would be put in place to make it clear that the village was not a through road. Strategies such as environmental enhancements, deflections, give-way systems, reduced speed limits and narrowing of roads were all considered as potential mitigation measures; this list was not exhaustive.

• Water supply and water management- the Committee sought clarification on a number of concerns over water supply and water management. The objections from Swavesy Internal Drainage Board were noted but not extensively explored at this point as a representative from the Board was due to make representation. A question was raised on para. 485 which asked how management will be performed and what will be done if disruption occurs- the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development noted the conditions in the report and modifications to conditions laid out in the supplements. Further questions on the topic were raised and the Environment Agency’s Sustainable Places Team Leader, Adam Ireland, responded. He detailed the complexity of water management on a regional scale and noted that broad-scale strategic management played a significant part in dealing with water on the site of the application in question; it was also noted that the Environment Agency and Anglian Water did not object to the proposals laid out in the report and that the conditions regarding this part of the application were deemed sustainable.

During this section of the discussion of the application, further preliminary comments were made by Members. Environmental concerns were raised, with Members expressing comments upon the environmental impact assessments laid out in the report. However, it was stressed that the Greater Cambridge Planning Service were not being criticised; it was accepted that the overall project was hugely challenging and many of the issues arose from the input of the statutory consultees.

Public Speakers

The Committee was addressed by a number of public speakers, as per the made motion in the Chair’s Announcements. Daniel Fulton (Fews Lane Consortium), Ian Ralls (Cambridge Friends of the Earth) and Monica Bijok Hone (Friends of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Outline planning application for the development of Northstowe Phase 3B, comprising up to 1,000 homes, a primary school, secondary mixed use zone (with retail and associated services, food and drink, community, leisure, employment and residential uses), open space and landscaped areas, engineering and infrastructure works, with details of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access reserved. Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

By affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

The Chair, seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts, proposed to defer the item. By affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.