Agenda item

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 Cambridgeshire.  New houses to the south of Cambridge will be for commuters.

Prosperity.  This should be distributed throughout the Cambridge Sub-Region, including Fenland, to Huntingdonshire and the Haverhill area.  The option of working with Forest Heath District Council should be explored.   In the longer term, development should be spread across the entire country, rather than concentrated simply in London and the South East. 

The Planning Policy Advisory Group agreed that South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council should endeavour to agree a joint response on the changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy.