Agenda item

Appendices 2 and 4 are available on the website. The Draft Interim Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix 3) will follow and will also be available online. Hard copies of these documents can be made available on request.

The Planning Policy Manager presented the report alongside Consultant Matthew Patterson. The committee was informed of the following:

·         The Northern Fringe was identified as an area with potential for significant regeneration.

·         Options for development in the area were constrained by the water recycling centre.

·         A Housing Infrastructure (HIF) bid to relocate the Water Recycling Centre off-site was being considered by government.

·         The AAP was an important part of unlocking and delivering the Northern Fringe site.

·         The HIF funding was time limited. Moving the AAP forward was important to help secure a successful HIF bid to relocate the water treatment works.

·         In identifying the timetable for consultation, officers were also mindful of the cycle of local elections; City Council elections were scheduled for 2019.

·         More would be known about the HIF bid in early 2019.

·         A framework for the regeneration of the area would need to be brought forward with or without the Water Recycling Centre.

The committee was informed of the changes that had happened since consultation had taken place in December 2014, such as the implementation of the guided busway link and the opening of the Cambridge North Railway Station and the completion of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Ely to Cambridge Transport Study. The significant issues with the location of the site were also highlighted:

·         It was bordered by the railway and A14, which caused noise and air quality issues.

·         The aggregates railway line was essential infrastructure, which could not be relocated.

·         There were other waste uses which needed to remain on site.

However, the committee was informed that due to the strategic and brownfield nature of the site, there was a broad range of things that it could be used for. Consultation responses and evidence would guide this. The AAP set out a new vision for the area, which focussed on innovation and creating a walkable and low carbon development. Achieving higher levels of travel by sustainable modes would be looked at. The right type and range of housing needed to be looked at for this site which had the advantage of being situated near strong employment centres such as the Science Park and St John’s Innovation Park. Retail and leisure provision was also being looked at that would allow people to meet their needs on site. A broad concept plan had been prepared to test ideas with consultees. Both Local Plans allocated this area for regeneration and making best use of the brownfield site was very important.

There was the potential to look at the Science Park acquiring housing on this site for their employees.

Regarding comments in relation to the poor quality of maps provided in the report, it was pointed out that this was a draft document and the maps would be made clear in the final consultation version. 

The committee discussed the report:

·         Access to adjoining places via cycling and walking, was very important.

·         It was pointed out that the capacity of Cambridge Station was limited and the role of the area around Cambridge North Station was an important factor.

·         In response to a query regarding responsibility for upgrading roads in the area and how Section 106 money would be split, members were informed that officers had started talking to landowners and developers regarding the S106 regime for a full suite of infrastructure upgrades. An equitable split across the developers to provide what was needed, was being looked at. S106 money would be treated collectively rather than splitting it between South Cambridgeshire District and Cambridge City Councils.

·         It was pointed out that Cambridge North Station did not provide rail connections with the East (Newmarket), where much traffic came from on the A14.

·         An amendment to the question regarding low carbon was requested, to reflect the Council’s ambition for zero carbon. In particular in reviewing sustainability standards it should refer to local as well as national policy changes.

·         It was highlighted that Northstowe residents, who had moved to Northstowe with the intention of only using public transport, had been buying cars due to the poor bus service that was only operated by Stagecoach, which did not enable residents to get to work on time. The service offered by Stagecoach was not sufficient to encourage the modal shift to public transport.

·         It was suggested that the Council may want to consider the provision of pod housing on this site.

·         It was pointed out that Milton Road Park and Ride was under-utilised, yet the Science Park was gridlocked with traffic.

·         The glossary of the issues and options document was important, and items should be added.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee RECOMMENDED that Cabinet:

a)    Approves the Cambridge Northern Fringe Issues and Options 2 for Regulation 18 public consultation in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for a period of six weeks jointly with Cambridge City Council;

b)    Approves the Statement of Consultation;

c)    Notes the findings of the Interim Sustainability Appraisal and Equalities Impact Assessment;

d)    Delegates authority to the Deputy Leader to consider and agree, as is consistent with this Council’s Corporate Objectives, any changes proposed by Cambridge City Council;

e)    Delegates authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in liaison with the Deputy Leader, to make editorial changes to the Issues and Options report and supporting documents prior to the commencement of the consultation period (to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications).