Agenda item

Cambridge Northern Fringe East Area Action Plan - Issues and Options Consultation Feedback

Appendix B (Summary of main remarks made against each question) is available on the Council’s website by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk and following the links from ‘Your Council’

Decision:

The Planning Portfolio Holder:

 

·       Noted the summary of responses to the Area Action Plan (AAP) Issues and Options consultation (as referred to in Appendices A and B);

 

·       Agreed two revised options (Options 2A and 4A) for the potential range of development for the purposes of:

a)     testing the potential environmental and infrastructure impact and the economic viability of the emerging AAP proposals;

b)     informing the preparation of other ancillary assessments required to ensure the deliverability and soundness of the draft AAP; and

c)     guiding further conceptual urban design work that will inform the ultimate preferred development approach; and

 

·       Agreed an addendum to the Local Development Scheme with the revised timetable for the CNFE AAP as set out in Appendix D.

·       Agreed to investigate the phased approach from Option 2A to Option 4A.

Minutes:

The Planning Portfolio Holder considered a report summarising responses received to the Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) Area Action Plan (AAP) Issues and Options consultation, and seeking his agreement to revised redevelopment options for the potential range of development in the emerging AAP proposals.  

 

Julian Sykes, Urban Extensions Project Manager with Cambridge City Council, summarised the report, and referring to the two new options. Option 2A and Option 4A. He also mentioned that the Joint Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group on the 16th November 2015 had considered this matter and agreed the same recommendations, plus an additional recommendation ‘(d) to investigate a phased approach from Option 2A to Option 4A’.

 

Councillor John Williams suggested that Option 2A was the only practical approach. He focussed on the location of the Stagecoach depot, arguing that there was no suitable alternative available. The future of public transport in Cambridge could be at stake, were the depot to be moved. The Planning and New Communities Director recognised the constraints involved, and said that all opportunities for progress should be explored. Mr. Sykes pointed out that Option 4A has more space, but that Options 2A and 4A both recognised the need to resolve the Stagecoach and other existing employer issues.

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer noted the importance of the site for employment purposes, but asked about housing. He also sought an indication as to whether future plans included a bridge over Fen Road. Mr. Sykes confirmed that the AAP was employment-led but added that an appropriately-balanced housing element would be included. He was also conscious of transport pressures. With regard to a bridge, Mr. Sykes said this could add significantly to cost which could only reasonably be funded by development on the other side of the railway line and that land is Green Belt and subject to drainage issues.

 

Councillor Jose Hales asked about the A10 study. The Planning and New Communities Director said that this was being undertaken by Cambridgeshire County Council, and related only to that part of the A10 leading north from Cambridge towards Ely.

 

The Planning and New Communities Director proposed that the additional recommendation d) (above) from the Joint Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning group be added to this recommendation.

 

The Planning Portfolio Holder:

 

1.     Noted the summary of responses to the Area Action Plan (AAP) Issues and Options consultation (as referred to in Appendices A and B);

 

2.     Agreed two revised options (Options 2A and 4A) for the potential range of development for the purposes of:

 

§  testing the potential environmental and infrastructure impact and the economic viability of the emerging AAP proposals; and

§  informing the preparation of other ancillary assessments required to ensure the deliverability and soundness of the draft AAP; and

§  guiding further conceptual urban design work that will inform the ultimate preferred development approach.

3.     Agreed an additional recommendation from the Joint Strategic Transport and Spatial Planning Group meeting on 16 November 2015 to investigate a phased approach from Option 2A to Option 4A; and

 

4.     Agreed an addendum to the Local Development Scheme with the revised timetable for the CNFE AAP as set out in Appendix D.

Supporting documents: