A period of 30 minutes will be allocated for this item to include those questions where notice has been provided (as set out on the agenda below) and questions which may be asked without notice.
Members wishing to ask a question without notice should indicate this intention to the Interim Democratic Services Team Manager prior to the commencement of the item. Members’ names will be drawn at random by the Chairman until there are no further questions or until the expiration of the time period.
Minutes:
a) Councillor Aidan van de Weyer
Councillor van de Weyer asked the following question:
‘What factors do the Leader and the Portfolio Holder consider to represent threats to the Cambridge Green Belt?’
Councillor Tim Wotherspoon, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning replied:
‘I was a panelist in London at the end of January. Constraint on development is a big issue for London and in the light of calls for a rational approach to release, namely that taking 2% out of the London Green Belt could yield 400,000 houses, I had been asked to speak about our local experience fifteen years ago of releasing Green Belt land for Cambridge Southern Fringe, Cambridge East, NIAB and North West Cambridge.
In fact I am a passionate defender of the Cambridge Green Belt. As you know, only a small part of this is inside Cambridge City. The rest takes up about a quarter of our administrative area, and a little spills over into East Cambridgeshire to the north east of the city.
Responses to public consultations indicate that the Green Belt is valued equally by residents on both sides of the City Council boundary.
There is a key distinction to be drawn between a modern city with a historic core, of which there are many examples throughout the world, and a compact historic city – where the historic core is large relative to the overall size of the city. This feature, not held by many places other than Cambridge, is a central component of the unique selling point of Cambridge in competing on the global stage for knowledge-intensive businesses seeking high quality of life, to appeal to the kind of footloose talent on which our economic success depends.
Turning to the specifics of the question, first of all I wouldn’t use the word ‘threats’. Green Belt is a positive use of land (to preserve the setting of the City and to prevent coalescence), but occasionally parts of it may have to yield to other positive uses of land, in exceptional circumstances at Local Plan stage, or very special circumstances through a planning application – of which a recent example is the hospice development at the Babraham Park and Ride site.
I mentioned the releases in the last round of plan-making. In the current submission we are proposing very limited releases of Green Belt for housing at Histon and Impington and Sawston, for example, some of our most sustainable villages. Agents and developers are challenging the omission of their land at Green Belt sites in Great Shelford, Fulbourn, Comberton, Histon and Impington, Sawston, Girton and so on, and the Inspector has scheduled examination hearings on these in June.
There are also challenges on a larger scale, some much larger, from promoters of land north of Barton Road, at Trumpington Meadows, between the M11 and Shelford Road, between Cambridge Road and Fulbourn Road and around Fen Ditton. The examinations on these will occur in July.
In terms of employment land, we made an initial allocation to release some Green Belt land close to Peterhouse Technology Park, home to ARM. The Cambridge Inner Green Bely Boundary Study (that we commissioned from LDA Design following suspension of the Local Plan examinations) recommended a slight contraction of this allocation – but also an additional small scale release south of Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The Councils accepted both these recommendations in the revised submission to the Inspector. However, Jesus College, Pigeon and others have been vigorously pushing a new science park and associated development at Cambridge South, enlisting many people in high places to advance their cause.
The Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans take a balanced growth approach to housing sites allocated: inside Cambridge, on the edges, in new settlements and limited growth in bigger villages. That is what the public overwhelmingly told us they preferred.
We contend that the submitted Local Plans are sound. Nevertheless, it is conceivably possible that the Inspector could be persuaded by counter arguments being made loudly, including by people in this chamber.
Even after adoption of the new Local Plans, rates of construction in locations other than the City fringes might fall short of the housing trajectory, and that could raise the pressure of calls to expand Cambridge.
With regard to the current rich climate of interest in strategic planning – the Housing White Paper, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s non statutory Spatial Plan (on which point by the way I am delighted that the Combined Authority is held by Councillor Lewis Herbert, Leader of Cambridge City Council) the National Infrastructure Commission’s enthusiasm for an Oxford to Cambridge expressway (which might offer an opportunity to provide the missing links at the Girton interchange), east west rail and a Cambridge south station at Addenbrookes (which may require a new track laid in the Hobson’s Brook corridor (which in my opinion is by far the most eloquent gateway to Cambridge, and possibly the most beautiful, apart from the riverside approaches of Grantchester Meadows and Ditton Meadows)): be assured that we will be drawing up a very long term vision, initially to 2050, for sharing prosperity throughout Greater Cambridge, and I expect the sequential approach to site allocations to be the starting point again. However, I have no doubt that there will be vigorous public debate about the balance to be struck – of the kind I referred to earlier – in the next iteration of the Local Plan, which of course we have already committed through the City Deal to prepare jointly with Cambridge City Council.
Councillor van de Weyer asked as a supplementary question of the Planning Portfolio Holder about leaflets issued at a number of public meeting and hustings events which referred to building on the Green Belt. He asked whether the Conservative Group’s proposals included a busway across the Green Belt.
In response, Councillor Robert Turner stated that this was a politically motivated statement which went outside the scope of the original question.
b) Councillor Hazel Smith
Councillor Smith asked the following question:
‘Councillors' access to the intranet (Insite) is now completely impossible. Our needs are not complicated, but lack of access means we Councillors cannot do our job in an efficient way, to save officers’ time. In particular we need a phone book with officers' extension numbers and roles (preferably in a form that we can sort on roles, to see who is in which department). We also all need access to the confidential pages in committee and portfolio meeting reports, which are not available on the public website. Please could the Portfolio Holder tell us what plans there are to improve Councillors' access to information?’
Councillor Nick Wright, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Business and Customer Services replied that unfortunately it had been necessary to turn off remote access to the intranet (Insite) although it was still possible to access it from South Cambridgeshire Hall. A new system was planned and would be available in the autumn. This would take into account Members’ needs informed by feedback from the Office 365 pilot which had been running since January. In the meantime Democratic Services staff were available to help Members with officer contact information.
c) Councillor Aidan van de Weyer
Councillor van de Weyer asked the following question:
‘Is the Leader concerned that none of the most senior members of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority is from the Greater Cambridge area?’
In response, Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council drew attention to the fact that Councillor Lewis Herbert, Leader of Cambridge City Council held the Strategic Planning Portfolio and he held the New Homes and Communities Portfolio. In addition the Combined Authority Board worked very much as a team to address issues from the perspective of the whole area.
d) Councillor Sebastian Kindersley
Councillor Kindersley asked the following question:
‘Now that Councillor Ellington has been appointed to the Cabinet, can the Leader of the Council explain how the Special Responsibility Allowances are affected?’
In response, Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council stated that it would make no difference.
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Kindersley asked if the budget would remain the same.
In response, Councillor Topping replied ‘yes’.
e) Councillor Ben Shelton
Councillor Shelton asked the following question:
‘Will the Council consider purchasing The Tree Public House in Stapleford?’
In response, Councillor Nick Wright, Portfolio Holder for Business and Customer Services confirmed that this would be the subject of a report to his next Portfolio Holder meeting in July.
f) Councillor Deborah Roberts
Councillor Roberts asked the following question:
‘Can the Planning Portfolio Holder inform Members when they will receive a briefing on the recent Supreme Court judgment regarding the five year land supply?’
In response, Councillor Robert Turner. Planning Portfolio Holder replied that written information would be circulated to all Members and a briefing arranged as soon as possible.