Agenda item

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Minutes:

Members were shown a presentation which highlighted the strategic objectives, key proposals and section of the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (NECAAP). Officers intended on bringing back a paper to members on the representations received through the summer NECAAP consultation.

 

Following the presentation on NECAAP, Chair Tumi Hawkins issued a thank you to everyone who had been involved in drafting the NECAAP & all the supplementary documents. All members of the JLPAG seconded this.

 

In response to the presentation on the NAACP, Members had the following comments:

       I.          The Chair questioned why there wasn’t already a plan to implement a secondary school, instead protecting the land in case it was needed.

     II.          It was questioned if the NECAAP planning was occurring too early, as it was going to be a 7-year period until the work could commence.

    III.          It was commented that the integration of public transport would be fantastic, never had there been a site like this before with such a variety of transport links.

   IV.          Enquired if there may be less need for office space in a post COVID-19 world.

     V.          It was noted that employers were to be assigned blocks of employee designated housing under the AAP and commented that this would go against the Cambridge Local Plan policy 45.

   VI.          That there was some clarification needed on HMOs (homes of multiple occupancy), it was remarked that the AAP discusses HMOs developing over time but simultaneously that the build to rent housing would all be HMOs, which was a contradiction.

 VII.          Noted that there was not much information for the public in the report on density, and that there was concern about flexibility on the height of buildings for developers. The report stated 5 to 6 floors, but with a potential for 8, it was questioned how they would stop developers always taking the maximum of 8. 

VIII.          The chair questioned how they would build and manage HMOs, as well as querying how they would consider Article 4.

 

In response, officers from the Greater Cambridge Planning Service said the following:

       I.          Advice from officers at the County Council had stated that a secondary school was likely not to be needed.

     II.          As the NECAAP requires the re-siting of the waste water works, which would require its own consultation and planning period, preparing now allows the planning service to engage with the wider community and ensure the process is not developer led.

    III.          Officers noted that the planning service was communicating on how to provide an integrated public transport system across the whole of Cambridgeshire.

   IV.          It was remarked that the policies would be kept under review as the situation may change rapidly. A section would added at the beginning of NECAAP to state that all policies would be kept under review due to the impact of COVID-19.

     V.          It was commented that employers had been assigned blocks of housing due to the desire to drive down car use. It was noted however, that the plan is in its draft stage and comments were invited.

   VI.          Officers noted that they would review any apparent contradiction regarding HMOs.

 VII.          Officers noted that the plan was for a variation in development height across the site, so developers would not be allowed to consistently have the maximum building height of 8 floors.

VIII.          Noted that Article 4 is retrospective and as such, can only be applied once an issue is determined and that this would only be done if it could be managed through extent policy.

 

Members made the following further comments on the NECAAP presentation:

       I.          Noted that open space is a very important feature and asked for the quantitative data from the Local Plan Issues and Options consultation around this topic.

     II.          Asked officers to explain succinctly what the site wide use of water would be and queried if the site wide approach would help them to achieve their target of 80 litres per day, per home, without infringing on national policy.

    III.          How would officers ensure that the development would provide for a variety of industry types and not just hi-tech industries?

   IV.          Queried why the consultation was still occurring this summer as opposed to delaying it due to COVID-19.

     V.          Highlighted the need to address the Fen Road level crossing issue jointly, particularly with regards to creating an integrated transport system. It was also queried why land had not been allocated in the AAP for dealing with this issue.

   VI.          It was highlighted that the AAP intends to ‘pepper-pot’ affordable housing throughout the area, which was in contradiction to policy 45 of the Cambridge Local Plan.

 VII.          Noted that Anglian Water would need to start a pre-submission public consultation for relocating the sewage treatment works and queried what the timing of this would be compared to the consultation for NECAAP?

 

In response, officers from the Greater Cambridge Planning Service said the following:

       I.          From the Issues and Options consultation, 6 options had emerged for how to provide open space but that there was no clear favourite.

     II.          There would be various strands to the water policy and that these would all be covered in the water cycle study and in an infrastructure delivery plan, which would come at a later stage.

    III.          Officers noted that while it was important not to disregard top end office floor space for hi-tech, there was a strong desire to provide jobs for local people who were already in the area and that a detailed strategy of how this would be achieved would be presented in due course.

   IV.          The Community forum felt it was important to build on the momentum that had been built and to get the public to answer these questions while it was fresh in their minds.

     V.          Officers noted that the Fen Road issue had been highlighted in the first round of consultation and commented that Network Rail would be brought in to take part in the community consultation in this. With regard to land allocation, it was noted that this land was not owned by the two councils.

   VI.          It was noted that the AAP can set out variance from local plan, but that it must set out why that is important.

 VII.          Officers commented that Anglian Water were working towards 3 rounds of consultation. The first two of which would be ‘informal’ as they are not deemed necessary for the development control order (DCO) process. It was noted that the first round was due to happen in the summer but that there was no firm date. The second round of consultation was due to occur at the end of the year but that this would be determined by responses to the first round.

 

Members of the Joint Local Plan Advisory Group agreed by affirmation to:

1. Recommend the name of the AAP be formally changes to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan and the boundary of the Area Action Plan be amended to be as shown on the new Policy map (Appendix A).

2. Review and comment on the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: consultation document (Appendix B);

3. Note the response to comments received to the Issues & Options document as set out in the Statement of Consultation (Appendix C);

4. Note the findings of the updated Joint Equalities Impact Assessment, Draft Sustainability Appraisal, and Draft Habitats Regulation Report (Appendices D, E and F respectively); and

5. Recommend to the respective Councils decision-making processes that they should approve the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, and supporting documents, for a ten-week period of public consultation.

 

Supporting documents: