Agenda item

The Planning Portfolio Holder RECOMMENDED that Council:

 

(a)        Agrees that the Proposed Modifications, set out in Appendix A of the report, including:

 

i)              that the proposal to prepare Area Action Plans for Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village, is replaced by a proposal to produce Supplementary Planning Documents, that the village separation policy wording at sub-section 3 and paragraph 3.37 be refined in the case of Waterbeach, and that necessary and consequential modifications are made to the Local Plan policies;

 

ii)             that changes are proposed to the Bourn Airfield new village Major Development Site boundary in respect of parcels 1, 2, and 5 only as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, that parcel 3 be rejected, and that parcel 4 be considered subject to additional wording relating to boundary treatment;

 

iii)            that land south of Cambridge Biomedical Campus as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report is allocated as an extension to the employment site allocated in the submitted Cambridge Local Plan.

 

and the Sustainability Appraisal Screening, as set out in Appendix B to the report, subject to any recommended changes by the Portfolio Holder, be submitted to the Inspectors examining the Local Plan.

 

(b)        Delegates authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to propose Modifications in respect to Travelling Showpeople to the examination consistent with the approach set out in paragraphs 51 to 53 of the report, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and any material changes to be brought back to Members for consideration.

 

(c)        Agrees that the documents attached to the report as Appendices C to Iare noted and submitted as part of the evidence base for the submitted Local Plan.

 

(d)        Notes that if recommendation (a)(i) is agreed, a report will be brought to the Planning Portfolio Holder meeting on 13 December 2016 to revise the Local Development Scheme to delete the AAPs and to also consider the most appropriate way to prepare the proposed SPDs.

 

(e)        Agrees that delegated authority be given to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder.

 

A copy of the report considered at the Planning Portfolio Holder Meeting is attached to this agenda pack, together with Appendices A, D and F.  Appendices B, C, E, G, H and I are attached to the electronic version only.  The electronic version of the agenda can be viewed by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk and following the links from ‘The Council’.

 

A supplement in response to the Planning Portfolio Holder’s recommendation to Council is included in the agenda pack for this meeting.

 

Council:

 

(a)        AGREED that the Proposed Modifications, set out in Appendix A of the report, including:

 

i)              that the proposal to prepare Area Action Plans for Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village, is replaced by a proposal to produce Supplementary Planning Documents, that the village separation policy wording at sub-section 3 and paragraph 3.37 be refined in the case of Waterbeach, as set out in paragraph 3 of the supplement, and that necessary and consequential modifications are made to the Local Plan policies;

 

ii)             that changes are proposed to the Bourn Airfield new village Major Development Site boundary in respect of parcels 1, 2, 4 and 5 only as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, that parcel 3 be rejected, with parcel 4 included subject to the additional wording contained in paragraph 5 of the supplement relating to boundary treatment being considered further by the Portfolio Holder;

 

iii)            that land south of Cambridge Biomedical Campus as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report is allocated as an extension to the employment site allocated in the submitted Cambridge Local Plan.

 

and the Sustainability Appraisal Screening, as set out in Appendix B to the report, be submitted to the Inspectors examining the Local Plan.

 

(b)        DELEGATED authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to propose Modifications in respect to Travelling Showpeople to the examination consistent with the approach set out in paragraphs 51 to 53 of the report, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder, and agreed that any material changes to be brought back to Members for consideration.

 

(c)        AGREED that the documents attached to the report as Appendices C to Iare noted and submitted as part of the evidence base for the submitted Local Plan.

 

(d)        NOTED that a report will be brought to the Planning Portfolio Holder Meeting on 13 December 2016 to revise the Local Development Scheme to delete the AAPs and to also consider the most appropriate way to prepare the proposed SPDs.

 

(e)        DELEGATED authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder.

Councillor Robert Turner, Portfolio Holder for Planning, presented a report which he had considered at his Portfolio Holder Meeting held on 9 November 2016 in respect of proposed modifications to the submitted Local Plan.  He took this opportunity to thank the Council’s Planning Policy Manager and her team for all the work they had done with regard to the Local Plan at this stage of the process.

 

Councillor Turner highlighted the sections in the report relating to further planning guidance for new settlements and specifically Waterbeach, Bourn Airfield, land south of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and gypsy and traveller and travelling showpeople policies as the key areas where modifications were proposed, outlining the details of each case.

 

Councillor Turner proposed that Council:

 

(a)        Agreed that the Proposed Modifications, set out in Appendix A of the report, including:

 

(i)         that the proposal to prepare Area Action Plans for Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village, is replaced by a proposal to produce Supplementary Planning Documents, that the village separation policy wording at sub-section 3 and paragraph 3.37 be refined in the case of Waterbeach, as set out in paragraph 3 of the supplement, and that necessary and consequential modifications are made to the Local Plan policies;

(ii)        that changes are proposed to the Bourn Airfield new village Major Development Site boundary in respect of parcels 1, 2, 4 and 5 only as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, that parcel 3 be rejected, with parcel 4 included subject to the additional wording contained in paragraph 5 of the supplement relating to boundary treatment being considered further by the Portfolio Holder;

(iii)       that land south of Cambridge Biomedical Campus as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report is allocated as an extension to the employment site allocated in the submitted Cambridge Local Plan.

 

and the Sustainability Appraisal Screening, as set out in Appendix B to the report, be submitted to the Inspectors examining the Local Plan.

 

(b)        Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to propose Modifications in respect to Travelling Showpeople to the examination consistent with the approach set out in paragraphs 51 to 53 of the report, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder, and agreed that any material changes to be brought back to Members for consideration.

 

(c)        Agreed that the documents attached to the report as Appendices C to Iare noted and submitted as part of the evidence base for the submitted Local Plan.

 

(d)        Noted that a report will be brought to the Planning Portfolio Holder Meeting on 13 December 2016 to revise the Local Development Scheme to delete the AAPs and to also consider the most appropriate way to prepare the proposed SPDs.

 

(e)        Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder.

 

Caroline Hunt, Planning Policy Manager, highlighted the following points that had arisen since the Portfolio Holder Meeting on 9 November 2016 for consideration by Council:

 

·         further to a request to speak by a member of the public, which the Chairman had refused, the details of an ecology survey undertaken by that member of the public had previously been forwarded onto the landowner’s consultants for their consideration.  The report, as at Appendix E, took that information into account and included reference to it.  The consultant’s report and the survey referred to had also been considered by the Council’s Ecology Officer;

·         the Council received a letter on 15 November 2016 from the solicitors acting for a landowner in relation to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus regarding access rights.  A written agreement had been drawn up in 2014 with third parties regarding access rights in respect of phase 2 of the proposed modification site that did not provide for access to the proposed additional site.  Mrs Hunt advised that this issue was being dealt with by Cambridgeshire County Council as the landowner.  The Strategic Assets Manager at the County Council had advised that Liberty and Countryside had a Joint Venture and that he had held discussions with the Managing Director of the Joint Venture six months ago.  In view of Liberty’s support for the proposed allocation and given the fact that access to the site could not be gained without crossing land in others control, he felt able to state with some confidence that it would be in all parties’ interests to collaborate in delivering the third phase of the Biomedical Park. Mrs Hunt had also spoken to the Council’s Barrister in respect of this issue who had advised that, on the information currently provided to the Council and a lack of information on the nature of the arrangement referred to, he did not consider it to be an impediment to the likely delivery or soundness of the proposed modification.  This matter could be considered further, if necessary or appropriate, during the course of the examination.  Mrs Hunt said that it was not uncommon for issues like this to occur when multiple landowners were involved and that such matters were usually resolved, but needed to draw this letter to the attention of Council as part of its considerations.

 

Councillor Douglas de Lacey sought clarity in respect of Appendix A and the section relating to paragraph 7.28 on page 139 of the Plan, as to whether the affordable housing element had purposely been removed.  In addition, he asked for confirmation that the amendment to Policy H/19 regarding provision for gypsies and travellers and travelling showpeople should reflect 11 plots.  It was noted that the removal of the affording housing element was intentional and responded to changes in national planning policy since submission of the Local Plan in 2014.  Further investigatory work had been carried out in respect of this issue which found that requiring all affordable homes to be built to the standard could not be supported through evidence, whereas an element of accessible homes was demonstrable.  Mrs Hunt informed Council that she was liaising closely with her Housing colleagues to consider the evidence available to secure accessible housing.  It was noted that the figure of 11 plots was correct in respect of Policy H/19.

 

Councillor Ingrid Tregoing referred to paragraph 25 of the report and the approximation ahead of dwelling range of 8,000 to 9,000 in relation to Waterbeach, stating that the term ‘approximate’ should be defined in the Local Plan which she understood equated to 10%.  Mrs Hunt explained that the explanation of the term ‘approximately’ in this context, as being in the order of 10% as a broad rule of thumb, had been discussed at the Portfolio Holder Meeting.  The proposed used of the word ‘approximately’ was in the context of representations from the promotor who had indicated that the development should increase to 10,000 dwellings.  Mrs Hunt was of the opinion that the Council did not have enough evidence to support amending the figure in the Plan, however, she felt that it would be important for there to be scope to identify the appropriate capacity of the site via a supplementary planning document and subsequent planning process through a design-led approach.  It was therefore appropriate to provide an element of flexibility around the range included in the policy, which was why the addition of the word ‘approximately’ was being proposed as a modification.

 

Councillor Tregoing also highlighted paragraph 26 of the report, noting that if Historic England concluded that the northern boundary of Waterbeach could be revised whilst retaining an appropriate setting to Denny Abbey, the report said it would be consistent with the approach taken in the submitted Local Plan to consider modifications to give effect to such a change.  She therefore sought clarity as to whether any further decision by South Cambridgeshire District Council would be necessary on this issue pending the outcome of Historic England’s considerations.  Mrs Hunt confirmed that discussions were ongoing with Historic England to agree upon a boundary that made the best use of the site whilst ensuring the retention of an appropriate setting of the Abbey and its grounds.  As these discussions were still active there was no further update Mrs Hunt was able to provide, but she confirmed that a report would be brought back to Council on this specific issue should the final outcome of these discussions suggest the need for a further modification that would not be consistent with the approach submitted in the Local Plan. 

 

Councillor Anna Bradnam was concerned that a decision regarding the northern boundary of the Waterbeach site would effectively be taken by Historic England, which she called an inappropriate extension to that originally submitted even with Historic England’s caveats.  Mrs Hunt advised that it would be for the Council to consider whether to put forward a change to the northern boundary and stressed that the report before Council did not propose a change, but solely sought to highlight that these discussions were taking place.

 

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley made the general point that assumptions were being made that the Inspector would agree to the inclusion of the Bourn Airfield and Waterbeach sites in the Local Plan.  He said that the Plan was not yet at that stage and emphasised that there was a great deal of antipathy towards these two sites from the public and a number of Members of the Council.  He registered his grave concerns regarding Waterbeach and referred to Cambourne as a lesson which he said should have been learnt, explaining that it was originally planned to be a development of 3,000 houses which then very quickly increased to 3,300 houses, followed by an additional 950 houses and which was now seeing several more thousand being added to the village.  Councillor Kindersley was also profoundly against any development at Bourn Airfield, citing the capacity of the A428 as a key issue regarding the lack of infrastructure and the fact that this would be a coalescence from Cambridge to St Neots.  He said that the prospect of development on this site was unacceptable to a lot of local people, adding that, in his opinion, it would contribute to the destruction of South Cambridgeshire and was something that should not be supported.

 

Councillor Turner reminded Members that the submitted Local Plan went through the process of consideration by the Council in 2014, with Bourn Airfield included as part of the document that was agreed and put forward to the Inspector. 

 

Councillor Peter Johnson, in respect of Waterbeach, did not agree with changing the boundary.  Councillor Turner confirmed that Council was not being asked to change the boundary and that negotiations were still ongoing with Historic England.

 

Councillor Tumi Hawkins did not support development at Bourn Airfield and disagreed fundamentally with the inclusion of the additional land at parcel 4 as set out in Appendix A of the report, seeking for it to be rejected.  She therefore moved an amendment to paragraph (a)(ii) of Councillor Turner’s motion so that it read:

 

‘that changes are proposed to the Bourn Airfield new village Major Development Site boundary in respect of parcels 1, 2 and 5 only as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, that parcels 3 and 4 be rejected.’

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Mark Howell agreed that consideration should never have been given to the prospect of development at Bourn Airfield.  He reflected on other large developments that had previously been agreed in villages which, as set out in the Local Plan, had since doubled in size.  He therefore felt unable to trust developers, but equally made the point that the Council had limited powers in this respect.  He supported the amendment to reject parcel 4 and said that the Council needed take the opportunity now to stop this additional part of the site being included in the Plan.

 

Councillor Van de Weyer was concerned about the precedent that would be set by including this additional parcel of land as part of development on Bourn Airfield, together with the close proximity the development would eventually have to the existing woodland.  He reflected on the Council’s original decision to approve the Local Plan and strongly emphasised that there was no need, or supporting evidence, to modify the Plan further requiring parcel 4 to be built on.

 

Councillor Turner explained that new woodland would be put in place in the area.

 

Voting on the amendment, with 23 votes in favour, 23 votes against and 1 abstention, the vote was tied.  Using her casting vote, Councillor Sue Ellington, Chairman of the Council, voted against the amendment and the amendment was lost.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors Val Barrett, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Tom Bygott, Doug Cattermole, Pippa Corney, Neil Davies, Andrew Fraser, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Mark Howell, Peter Johnson, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Bunty Waters, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Against

 

Councillors David Bard, Francis Burkitt, Nigel Cathcart, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Caroline Hunt, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Alex Riley, Ben Shelton, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner and Nick Wright.

 

Abstention

 

Councillor Tim Scott.

 

Councillor Pippa Corney highlighted that Councillor Turner’s motion in respect of paragraph (a)(ii) included a proviso that this would be considered subject to additional wording relating to boundary treatment.  She had sympathy with those supporting the amendment for rejecting plot 4 and highlighted the importance of ensuring that the wording was as tight as possible in relation to that plot.  It was agreed that this wording would be considered at his Portfolio Holder Meeting scheduled to be held on 13 December 2016.

 

Councillor Simon Edwards reflected with regard to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus site on the distinction between the grey partridge and the red-legged partridge and the fact that the numbers quoted in the survey may have been exaggerated, particularly in the winter months.  He said that having the right evidence to support the Local Plan was key.

 

Councillor Graham Cone, in relation to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus site, said that the location of this site would have huge benefits in terms of jobs and help encourage significant companies and highly skilled professionals to the area.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith acknowledged that the Inspector had sought modifications to the Local Plan with regard to further sites for housing development, but she highlighted that the Inspector had not identified a requirement to modify the Local Plan for further employment land, such as that proposed in respect of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus site.  She therefore suggested that there was no reason or evidence to justify releasing that land for development, especially in view of its extremely close proximity to the Nine Wells nature reserve.  Councillor Smith made the point that once the greenbelt had been developed on there would be no way of getting it back.  She reiterated that this particular area had the Government’s highest level of protection and felt very strongly that the Council should be standing by that.  Councillor Smith was also alarmed by some of the terminology used in a letter by Mr Meed, who had undertaken an ecological survey on this site, quoting phrases such as ‘misleading’, ‘selective’ and ‘unfounded ascertains’ which had been used throughout the document in response to the evidence used to support the proposed modifications.  She therefore called upon the Council to vote against the motion.

 

Councillor Van de Weyer shared concerns regarding the greenbelt and the impact development on the site in relation to the Biomedical Campus would have on habitats currently living there.  He acknowledged that further work had been undertaken, identifying a range of mitigations, but made the point that some things could not be avoided through mitigation should these proposals be agreed.  He did not think that the modifications put forward on this site would deliver the benefits of economic growth that had been claimed, adding that there was no evidence to support such a claim.  In weighing up the damage that would be caused to the greenbelt against the perceived benefits of allowing development on this site, he was unable to support the proposed modifications.

 

Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council, referred to the national importance of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, not just for local people but for humanity in general.  He said that the world-leading research that took place at that Campus should continue to be supported so that it could retain in Cambridgeshire rather than be undertaken elsewhere in the world.  Councillor Topping also made reference to grey partridges and red-legged partridges and the concerns about their habitat in relation to the Biomedical Campus site, stating that there was a large expanse of land in the area where they could adapt and settle.  He added that taking a small segment out of that land as proposed via the modification, in his view, would not materially impact where these birds settled.  Councillor Topping highlighted that a lot of mitigation had been identified and called for the proposed modifications to be supported.

 

Councillor John Williams supported the view that the Council’s decisions should be based on evidence, making the point that there was no evidence to suggest that the site at the Biomedical Campus was needed as an employment site.  He questioned how the necessary infrastructure would be put in place and felt that agreeing this modification was essentially seeking to justify speculative employment development which was contrary to what the Council was currently seeking to do with regard to housing development. 

 

Councillor Lockwood reflected on the balance between the need for development and the harm any development may cause by removing part of the greenbelt.  She did not consider that there was any demand for this particular site, especially since this had not been allocated at the request of Addenbrooke’s, and could not therefore support the proposed modification.

 

Councillor Anna Bradnam endorsed this view, as well as comments made earlier in the debate regarding the importance of the Nine Wells nature reserve and the close proximity this proposed modification would have to the nature reserve.  She reiterated that there was no designated need to justify this development in the greenbelt. 

 

This point of view was echoed by Councillor Hazel Smith, who also reflected on the significance of the Nine Wells nature reserve and the fact that ecologists had previously sought to allocate it as a country park, including an exclusion zone around its perimeter.  She felt that the greenbelt should be protected and reminded Council that once it had been allocated for development, it would be lost forever.

 

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley felt that the leadership of the Council should be fighting to protect this area of land on behalf of the people of South Cambridgeshire.  He proposed that paragraph (a)(iii) of the motion be rejected.  Tom Lewis, Monitoring Officer, advised that such an amendment would negate the purpose of the motion presented and therefore suggested that a vote against this aspect of the motion would achieve the same outcome.  The proposition was withdrawn.

 

Councillor Ben Shelton said that he had yet to be convinced regarding the need, impact and potential harm that would be caused by agreeing to the Biomedical Campus modification and could therefore not support it.

 

Councillor Nick Wright, Deputy Leader of the Council, made the point that this was spare agricultural land which birds would come and go from.  He reflected that the independent environmental specialists and the Council's Ecology Officer had identified some issues, but that they had also highlighted appropriate mitigation.  Councillor Wright informed Council that the site of the proposed modification was located adjacent to the Nine Wells nature reserve and was not encroaching onto the site of the nature reserve itself. He supported the inclusion of this site, echoing the reasons given by the Leader of the Council regarding the significant research that took place on the Campus and the likelihood that this would need to expand, saying that it needed to be retained for Cambridgeshire rather than relocate elsewhere in the world.

 

Mrs Hunt clarified that the Inspectors had requested further work took place on the submitted Local Plan, further to which the Council had identified a need for 500 additional homes.  The Inspectors had not requested any further employment development sites, but Mrs Hunt emphasised that the hearings in relation to that aspect of the Local Plan had not yet taken place and were due early in the New Year. 

 

It was noted that work had been carried out by independent consultants on the greenbelt, which broadly agreed with the Council's own findings but had identified two different view in relation to two areas, one of which being land south of the Biomedical Campus where the study had concluded that development could take place without significant harm to Green Belt purposes. 

 

Mrs Hunt reported that evidence suggested that there were sufficient employment development sites already allocated in the Plan, however, the evidence also recognised that there were benefits in developing areas on the edge of Cambridge.  The proposed modification at the Biomedical Campus had been supported by the developers of the Campus and the University of Cambridge to enable the Centre of Excellence to continue to thrive.  This would equate to a 10% increase of the Biomedical Campus site.  Mrs Hunt explained that the ecological evidence, together with the mitigation measures, had been considered alongside all evidence as part of considering and recommending the proposed modification.

 

Councillor Lynda Harford, Portfolio Holder for Housing, reminded Council that the motion put forward by Councillor Turner related to modifications to the already submitted Local Plan.  She welcomed Councillor Turner's agreement to tighten up the wording in relation to the Bourn Airfield site and hoped this would provide some comfort to those against that particular proposal.  In respect of the Biomedical Campus site, Councillor Harford thought that the benefits of releasing the land from the greenbelt did outweigh any harm that may be caused.

 

Voting on paragraph (a)(i), with 35 votes in favour and 12 votes against, that aspect of the motion was AGREED.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Nigel Cathcart, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Jose Hales, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Philippa Hart, Caroline Hunt, Peter Johnson, Douglas de Lacey, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Alex Riley, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Hazel Smith, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters and Nick Wright.

 

Against

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Doug Cattermole, Tumi Hawkins, Mark Howell, Sebastian Kindersley, Janet Lockwood, Bridget Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Voting on paragraph (a)(ii), with 29 votes in favour, 17 votes against and 1 abstention, that aspect of the motion was AGREED.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Nigel Cathcart, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Caroline Hunt, Douglas de Lacey, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Alex Riley, Ben Shelton, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner and Nick Wright.

 

Against

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Doug Cattermole, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Mark Howell, Peter Johnson, Sebastian Kindersley, Janet Lockwood, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Bunty Waters, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Abstention

 

Councillor Tim Scott.

 

Voting on paragraph (a)(iii), with 24 votes in favour, 21 votes against and 2 abstention, that aspect of the motion was AGREED.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Nigel Cathcart, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Alex Riley, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters and Nick Wright.

 

Against

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Doug Cattermole, Neil Davies, Andrew Fraser, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Peter Johnson, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Charles Nightingale, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Abstention

 

Councillors Kevin Cuffley and Caroline Hunt.

 

Voting on paragraph (a) in its entirety, including the proposed modifications set out in Appendix A and the Sustainability Appraisal Screening set out in Appendix B, with 31 votes in favour, 12 votes against, 3 abstentions and 1 not voting, Council:

 

(a)        AGREED that the Proposed Modifications, set out in Appendix A of the report, including:

 

(i)            that the proposal to prepare Area Action Plans for Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village, is replaced by a proposal to produce Supplementary Planning Documents, that the village separation policy wording at sub-section 3 and paragraph 3.37 be refined in the case of Waterbeach, as set out in paragraph 3 of the supplement, and that necessary and consequential modifications are made to the Local Plan policies;

 

(ii)           that changes are proposed to the Bourn Airfield new village Major Development Site boundary in respect of parcels 1, 2, 4 and 5 only as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, that parcel 3 be rejected, with parcel 4 included subject to the additional wording contained in paragraph 5 of the supplement relating to boundary treatment being considered further by the Portfolio Holder;

 

(iii)          that land south of Cambridge Biomedical Campus as shown on the map attached to Appendix A of the report is allocated as an extension to the employment site allocated in the submitted Cambridge Local Plan.

 

and the Sustainability Appraisal Screening, as set out in Appendix B to the report, be submitted to the Inspectors examining the Local Plan.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Nigel Cathcart, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Caroline Hunt, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Alex Riley, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters and Nick Wright.

 

Against

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Doug Cattermole, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Peter Johnson, Sebastian Kindersley, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Abstention

 

Councillors Anna Bradnam, Douglas de Lacey and Ingrid Tregoing.

 

Not voting

 

Councillor Janet Lockwood.

 

Voting on paragraph (b) of the motion, with 39 votes in favour and 8 votes against, Council DELEGATED authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to propose Modifications in respect to Travelling Showpeople to the examination consistent with the approach set out in paragraphs 51 to 53 of the report, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder, and agreed that any material changes to be brought back to Members for consideration.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Anna Bradnam, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Nigel Cathcart, Doug Cattermole, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Jose Hales, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Philippa Hart, Mark Howell, Caroline Hunt, Peter Johnson, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Alex Riley, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Peter Topping, Ingrid Tregoing, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters and Nick Wright.

 

Against

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindersley, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams. 

 

Voting on paragraph (c) of the motion, with 33 votes in favour, 10 votes against and 3 abstentions, Council AGREED that the documents attached to the report as Appendices C to Iare noted and submitted as part of the evidence base for the submitted Local Plan.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Francis Burkitt, Tom Bygott, Nigel Cathcart, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Neil Davies, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Andrew Fraser, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Philippa Hart, Mark Howell, Caroline Hunt, Douglas de Lacey, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Raymond Matthews, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Alex Riley, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Robert Turner, Bunty Waters and Nick Wright.

 

Against

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Doug Cattermole, Jose Hales, Tumi Hawkins, Peter Johnson, Sebastian Kindersley, Bridget Smith, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

 

Abstention

 

Councillors Anna Bradnam, Janet Lockwood and Hazel Smith.

 

Voting on paragraph (d) of the motion, Council unanimously NOTED that a report will be brought to the Planning Portfolio Holder Meeting on 13 December 2016 to revise the Local Development Scheme to delete the AAPs and to also consider the most appropriate way to prepare the proposed SPDs.

 

Voting on paragraph (e) of the motion, Council unanimously DELEGATED authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder.