Agenda item

Officers displayed a presentation for Members highlighting proposed changes to the programme that would add further stakeholder consultation to take place in Autumn 2020 with preferred options for the next stage of public consultation to take place in summer 2021.

Members made the following comments after a presentation on the Local Plan Issues and Options Feedback:

       I.          Queried if there would be any external valuation of the reach of the Local Plan consultation ensure that any mistakes can be learned from for future consultations.

     II.          Questioned if having two options for the Local Plan timeline in the LDS (Local Development Scheme) was lawful or if it may be challengeable by a third party.

    III.          Asked if officers knew what stage the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority’s non-spatial framework had gotten to.

   IV.          Asked what the impact would be of the East/West rail and Cam metro projects on the Local Plan and the NECAAP, and if conversations had been had with national rail and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority with regards to the implications of these plans.

     V.          Queried if having two plans for the timelines could cause an excess of homes and jobs if the NECAAP were to come through after the Local Plan.

   VI.          Remarked on the need to flesh out the consequences of environmental measures on economic viability in further stages of consultation.

 VII.          Queried if proceeding with two timeline options would double the work for officers and remarked that the sooner the joint local plan was submitted and weight given to it, the better, so as to move away from the flaws of previous Local Plans.

VIII.          It was queried if it was possible to include the AAP as part of the local plan, so there would be one document and one timetable.

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

       I.          There would be no independent evaluation of the consultation process due to resource concerns, but a lot of work was being done internally. It was noted that the public had been asked to voluntarily feedback and that these would be shared with members in due course.

     II.          Remarked that it was unusual to have two potential timelines but commented that it wasn’t a clear decision to take one option right now and therefore more sensible to leave their options open. A legal view was obtained, that this was a reasonable approach.

    III.          Officers had not received any recent updates from the Combined Authority on its Non-Statutory Spatial Framework.

   IV.          Officers were engaging with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority on the Cam Metro. It was remarked that although it was early days for the East/West rail project officers were in communication with national rail; and that this would need to be monitored as the plan was developed, to correspond to the weight it could be given in informing the local plan as it develops.

     V.          Officers commented that they would have to consider the potential implications in determining the right approach to the timetables. It was remarked that the decision would be informed as officers work through the strategic options over the next several years and the level of corresponding level of certainty regarding the AAP.

   VI.          There would be work around economic growth and which sectors are seen to be likely to grow alongside the work into working towards net zero carbon. It was remarked that there would be stakeholder workshops to create an evidence-based plan as time progresses.

 VII.          Every effort would be taken to try to progress the Local Plan as swiftly as possible but that it was also important to get the process right to create the best possible Local Plan.

VIII.          The AAP was a necessary document to support the DCO (Development Control Order) process, which would then later support the Local Plan, as such it was important to keep the AAP separate from the Local Plan for the time being but that this would be kept under review.

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

(a)   Recommend to the respective Council’s decision-making processes that they should:

i.                 Note the report on Initial Feedback from the First Conversation consultation included at Appendix 1.

ii.                Agree additional informal member and stakeholder engagement and Preferred Options stages be added to the Local Plan making process.

iii.               Agree the approach to addressing the Duty to Cooperate included as Appendix 3 to this report, subject to any material changes necessary as a result of consultation with Duty to Cooperate bodies.