This Council instructs its representative on the Greater Cambridge Partnership Board to inform that body that until the Council has completed and published its own assessment of the environmental (including carbon neutral) requirements and conditions of the next Local Plan, so far as they relate to transport construction projects, this Council's representative will not approve any further work on bringing forward proposals for a park and ride at Harston or along the A428.
Decision:
The following motion was LOST:
This Council instructs its representative on the Greater Cambridge Partnership Board to inform that body that until the Council has completed and published its own assessment of the environmental (including carbon neutral) requirements and conditions of the next Local Plan, so far as they relate to transport construction projects, this Council's representative will not approve any further work on bringing forward proposals for a park and ride at Harston or along the A428.
Minutes:
Councillor Peter Topping moved the following motion as set out in the agenda:
“This Council instructs its representative on the Greater Cambridge Partnership Board to inform that body that until the Council has completed and published its own assessment of the environmental (including carbon neutral) requirements and conditions of the next Local Plan, so far as they relate to transport construction projects, this Council's representative will not approve any further work on bringing forward proposals for a park and ride at Harston or along the A428.”
Councillor Topping referred to the recent briefings regarding the new Local Plan and welcomed the expectation that the Council would invest efforts in shaping a new Local Plan which had regard to sustainability considerations and to the aspirations for becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Against that background, he highlighted the proposals of the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) to develop transport construction projects, such as the proposed park and ride site in the vicinity of J11 of the M11 and argued that until the Council had satisfied itself of the environmental and sustainability requirements of the new Local Plan, it should not entertain such proposals.
Councillor Grenville Chamberlain seconded the motion.
During discussion upon the motion:-
· Councillor Tom Bygott referred to the adoption by the Council of the motion to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. He was concerned at the impact of the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge busway for his ward and felt it was important to assess how projects such as this impacted on the Council’s carbon neutral aspirations.
· Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins argued that work being undertaken to provide the infrastructure was needed to deliver the current Local Plan and reminded the Council that the City Deal had been established to deliver the infrastructure required to support the growth facing Greater Cambridge. She was concerned that the motion would tie the hands of the Council’s representative on the GCP.
· Councillor Anna Bradnam was concerned that the Council’s representative on the GCP could be accused of pre-determination if the motion was passed.
· Councillor Tony Mason commented on the possible implications of a park and ride development for his ward and on the importance of evaluating the potential environmental impact. He referred to the need for air quality monitoring measures along the A10 so that the impact of any new developments could be evaluated but felt unable to support the motion in its current form.
· Councillor Dr. Aidan Van de Weyer was concerned that the motion, if passed, would tie his hands as the Council’s representative on the GCP Executive Board and could be regarded as pre-determination. He also felt that the motion did not accord with the principle agreed by the constituent authorities in the terms of reference for the GCP Executive Board that decisions would be reached by consensus. He reiterated earlier comments about needing to provide infrastructure to deliver the development in the current Local Plan.
· Councillor Heather Williams argued that the motion was simply seeking a pause and that it was prudent that the full environmental impact of such large transport construction projects should be evaluated in the context of the emerging Local Plan.
· Councillor Grenville Chamberlain disagreed with earlier comments regarding potentially placing the Council’s representative on the GCP in a position of pre-determination if the motion was passed. He suggested that if the Council was to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, a pause was needed whilst the implications of proposed developments were evaluated. Commenting that, in his view, the concerns of residents had not always been taken into account by the GCP, Councillor Chamberlain argued that the Council should adopt the position advocated in the motion and that consideration should be given to the views of the public.
· The Deputy Head of Legal Practice responded to concerns regarding potentially placing the Council’s representative on the GCP Executive Board in a position of pre-determination. He advised that the motion, if passed, would not, in his view, necessarily amount to pre-determination. Just because the Council had instructed a representative to follow a particular line, it did not follow that the representative had to comply with such an instruction and the Deputy Head of Legal Practice referred to case law which supported this conclusion.
· Councillor Bridget Smith, the Leader of the Council, noted that the purpose of the City Deal had been to deliver the infrastructure needed to support the new communities in the Local Plan. She observed that any proposal for a park and ride in the vicinity of J11 would require a planning application to the Cambridge Fringes Joint Development Control Committee which would take into account all the environmental impacts. Councillor Bridget Smith also believed that sustainability considerations had risen considerably up the GCP’s agenda. She did not support putting in place the pause envisaged in the motion, arguing that roads were already at capacity and felt that the Council should trust its representative on the GCP Executive Board to make sure that proper weight was given to environmental considerations when any scheme came forward.
· Councillor Peter Topping summed up and called on the Council to support the motion.
· Councillor Dr. Ian Sollom, as a point of information, stated that the proposals for a park and ride site related to Hauxton, not Harston.
Upon the motion being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows:
In favour (12):
Councillors Dr. Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Dr. Douglas de Lacey, Sue Ellington, Mark Howell, Deborah Roberts, Peter Topping, Bunty Waters, Heather Williams and Nick Wright.
Against (26):
Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Sarah Cheung Johnson, Gavin Clayton, Dr. Claire Daunton, Clare Delderfield, Peter Fane, Neil Gough, Bill Handley, Philippa Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Steve Hunt, Alex Malyon, Tony Mason, Brian Milnes, Judith Rippeth, Nick Sample, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Dr. Ian Sollom, Dr. Aidan Van de Weyer, John Williams and Eileen Wilson.
Abstain (0)
The Chairman declared the motion to be lost.