Agenda item

The Planning Portfolio Holder and New Communities Portfolio Holder jointly RESOLVED that the followings documents be submitted for public consultation:

·                 Draft public consultation document contained at Appendix 1 to the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) and Planning Policy Manager

·                 Technical Annex at Appendix 2 to the said report

·                 Supplement to the Final Sustainability Appraisal contained at Appendix 3 to the said report.

The Planning Portfolio Holder and New Communities Portfolio Holder jointly DELEGATED to the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) authority to make any further technical amendments to the Responding to a Housing Shortfall documents.

The Planning Portfolio Holder and New Communities Portfolio Holder considered a detailed report seeking their authority to undertake public consultation prior to informing the Site Specific Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Examination Inspectors about South Cambridgeshire District Council’s preferred sites for addressing an identified housing shortfall of 2,200 dwellings, thus averting the possibility of the Plan being deemed unsound.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer highlighted the significance of the report, and the consequences of having to restart the Plan-making process.  She outlined the procedure followed by officers in identifying the additional sites being presented to the Portfolio Holders for consideration, namely

·             Arbury Park (now Orchard Park) (three sites)

·             North West Cambridge Area Action Plan

·             “NIAB Extra”

·             Great Shelford, Powells Garage

·             Fulbourn (Ida Darwin Hospital site)

If the sites listed above were able to accommodate the numbers of dwellings estimated by 2016, the shortfall would either be met in full, if the relevant sections of the A14 improvements were carried out in parallel, or there would be a residual shortfall in the region of 200 dwellings if they were carried out one after the other. It was considered that any such residual shortfall would be met by planning permissions granted by the time the Council recommended its preferred sites to the Inspectors early in 2009.

It was currently anticipated that public consultation would start around the end of October this year, with a recommendation being presented to Council in February 2009.  The Inspectors would make a final and binding decision.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following points made by a member in attendance, namely

·             Consequences of an identified site not becoming available for development, eg. Arbury Park

·             Impact of the current economic downturn both in house building and house sales

·             Section 106 heads of terms in relation to Arbury Park

·             Partnership working with Cambridge City Council

She informed members that, depending on the Highway Agency’s timetable for carrying out improvements to the A14, the Council might achieve a housing surplus without Arbury Park.  If further sites had to be identified, then officers would have to re-examine the sequential list, of which Cambourne was part though the least sustainable of rural centres.  While acknowledging that the current economic climate was a challenge, the Principal Planning Policy Officer informed members that, in the absence of government guidance to the contrary, and having received no indication from the Inspectors that the shortfall should be reviewed, such negative economic conditions had been set aside in the context of addressing the Inspectors’ concerns.  Section 106 expectations would be kept under constant review, as mechanisms were developed to embrace an evolving Masterplan.  Greater certainty about the future of the NIAB site would be important in addressing public perception.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following point made by a member in attendance, namely

·             The implications of an anticipated review of the boundary between South Cambridgeshire and the city of Cambridge

She informed members that officers were in dialogue with the Government Office for the East of England (GO-East) to try and make sure that South Cambridgeshire District Council received a clear assurance that, should any existing allocated sites or any elements of the new sites listed above be incorporated into Cambridge in the future, the housing shortfall figures would be revised downwards as far as this Council was concerned.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following point made by a member in attendance, namely

·             Affordable housing in villages for local people

Acknowledging the importance of securing affordable housing, she reminded members about the clear sequence set out in the Core Strategy DPD for identifying development sites. Rural centres were seen as the more sustainable villages but nevertheless remained at the bottom of that search sequence.  Affordable housing provision was an important factor within the Local Development Framework as a whole, and ‘windfall’ development and exceptions affordable housing sites would continue.  However, in responding to the immediate shortfall in housing as a whole, it was not possible to address the associated shortfall in affordable housing in those parts of the district not consistent with the development sequence.

A Member in attendance made the following points:

·             The relevance of further public consultation given the perception of ‘planning by housing numbers’

·             Consideration by the Scrutiny and Overview Committee without having notice of the further proposals at Arbury Park

Responding to Councillor Mike Mason’s grave reservations in relation to the two points mentioned above, the Planning Portfolio Holder said that the sites set out in the report were those deemed most appropriate for further consideration.  He regretted that local members had had very little notice of the proposals, but pointed out that even the two Portfolio Holders had only received details of the report 48 hours prior to its publication.  The Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) said that officers were constrained by not being able to share with the Scrutiny and Overview Committee elements of the report prior to publication of the entire document.  Furthermore, the Task and Finish Group had been concerned with seeking improvements to the development under way at Arbury Park and better approaches in relation to development yet to start across the District.  Neither of these aims would be prejudiced by the current exercise to find additional housing land. The New Communities Portfolio Holder added that it was only right that technical discussion should be conducted without political influence.   The Principal Planning Policy Officer reminded members about how the public consultation process would help inform the Council’s debate and the final decision by Cabinet. 

Officers addressed the following point made by a member in attendance, namely

·             Relevance of funding for the A14 improvements to the North West Cambridge / NIAB sites, and its influence on the Inspectors

·             The amount of development proposed on the NIAB site

·             The timing of consultation and its impact on parish councils already dealing with other detailed consultation exercises

The Principal Planning Policy Officer said the A14 funding was fundamental to the development strategy.  The NIAB site had been considered as part of the sequential process.  Consultation about the housing shortfall should be complete before Christmas 2008.  The Planning Policy Manager said that, while appropriate funding was in place, any adjustment to it could have dire consequences, potentially requiring a completely new Plan to be drawn up.  This could result in planning permissions in the meantime being determined by Appeal. 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following point made by a member in attendance, namely

·             Access links at the NIAB site

She said access would be via Huntingdon Road and Histon Road.  There would be no direct link with Girton. 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following point made by a member in attendance, namely

·             Penalties imposed on the Council if permitted housing does not get built

She said there was no suggestion that this would happen.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following point made by a member in attendance, namely

·             Amazement that Cambourne did not form part of the Plan – this could have eased discussion relating to the demand for a new school

She said that the County Council Education Department has advised that there was sufficient need for a new school in Cambourne without additional housing development beyond that currently planned, including through increased densities in Upper Cambourne. 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following point made by a member in attendance, namely

·             The consequences should Cambridge Airport not relocate and the site be developed.

She said that this scenario would be so fundamental that the Council would have no alternative but to change the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer addressed the following points made by members in attendance in respect of the NIAB Extra site, namely

·             Environmental assessments of air quality and drainage

·             Traffic issues

·             Noise

She suggested that better traffic flows along the A14 should improve air quality.  She added that the Council’s Environmental Health Team had been satisfied that earth bunding would mitigate any noise pollution that might impact on the site.

There then followed comments from a resident of Cambourne and a representative of the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

The Planning Portfolio Holder and New Communities Portfolio Holder jointly RESOLVED that the following documents be submitted for public consultation:

·             Draft public consultation document contained at Appendix 1 to the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) and Planning Policy Manager

·             Technical Annex at Appendix 2 to the said report

·             Supplement to the Final Sustainability Appraisal contained at Appendix 3 to the said report.

The Planning Portfolio Holder and New Communities Portfolio Holder jointly DELEGATED to the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) authority to make any further technical amendments to the Responding to a Housing Shortfall documents.