Agenda item

Public questions

Minutes:

There were two public questions.

 

Question from Daniel Fulton

 

The audio feed of the council’s planning committee meeting on 8 September terminated abruptly just as a member of the public began to accuse the council of serious malfeasance in regards to the issue under consideration. 

 

After several delays, the council eventually stated that it was unable to restore functionality to the audio system, and the committee decided to abandon the meeting.

 

Certainly, one would normally assume that the occurrence of the apparent audio malfunction at the very moment that serious allegations of wrongdoing were being made was merely coincidental.

 

However, since that time, the council has declined to provide any contemporaneous evidence about the purported audio fault to members of the public—no software error codes or error logs and no contemporaneous emails or other documentation. The council has not even provided a vague description of the type of system being used to broadcast the council’s meeting—a system that we understand was obtained by the council earlier this year at considerable expense. All that has been provided is a technical note from the council’s A/V supplier, which was produced after the fact and doesn’t actually offer any clarity as to the cause of the audio malfunction.

 

If the council were to provide contemporaneous evidence as to the specific nature of the audio fault (and if events did actually happen as the council has described them), then members of the public could verify that the termination of the audio feed during the meeting was due to a technical fault, allaying the concerns of those affected by the abandoned meeting.

 

To provide some reassurance to the public, could the council please state if it has instructed any officer not to provide any evidence or information relating to the audio/video system or the events that transpired on 8 September to any party or to delay providing any evidence or information to any party?

 

Answer on behalf of South Cambridgeshire District Council

 

As you know, you have contacted several officers at the council about this matter and been provided with a written explanation on the 10 September as to the underlying cause about the technical failure.  You then subsequently rang and spoke directly with the external engineers last week who provided verbal confirmation of the running order of the faults and the support they provided.”

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

Question from Phil Grant

 

The proposed direction for Policy S/DS Development Strategy, set out in First Proposals document, correctly places significant weight on aligning new development with investment in public transport. The Transport Strategy on page 42 confirms “Our proposed strategy is heavily informed by the location of existing and committed public transport schemes.”

 

However, a comparison of Figure 6 showing proposed sites for inclusion in the Plan, and Figure 11 showing existing and proposed major transport projects, illustrates that the spatial strategy is disproportionately reliant on the delivery of significant levels of new major and complex transport infrastructure projects such as the Cambourne to Cambridge (C2C) transport link and East West Rail, the provision of the latter being outside the control of the Authority and does not have the level of certainty on delivery timeframes necessary to support a robust Local Plan.

 

The independent audit review of the C2C [Cambourne to Cambridge] project recognised that housing developments in Cambourne West and Bourn Airfield require the C2C project to be opened by 2025 to provide reliable public transport services, otherwise that planned growth will be put at risk.

 

The Committee should be aware that no proposed growth has been aligned to existing public transport routes and committed investments to the Southwest of Cambridge, for example, along the A10 corridor and national rail network, which will benefit from the Melbourn Greenway and Foxton Travel Hub, the latter due to be operational in 2024. These projects are in the direct control of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, delivery of which would enable sustainable growth to be realised in the early part of the plan period.

 

In the light of these facts, what does the Committee think about such reliance on uncertain, complex and third-party infrastructure projects to deliver significant levels of growth, as opposed to aligning growth with existing and inherently sustainable public transport infrastructure, is it a sound strategy, and when in the plan period would this growth be expected to be realised?  

 

Answer on behalf of South Cambridgeshire District Council

 

Our First Proposals for the new Local Plan draw on testing of a range of spatial options to identify an appropriate preferred strategy that our evidence bases and Sustainability Appraisal show to be sustainable when compared with the other options tested. This evidence included transport considerations, but also explored the other components of what makes a location sustainable.

 

Beyond the strategy options focused on Cambridge, our evidence showed that the combined benefits of East West Rail and C2C would make Cambourne a highly sustainable location in transport terms. In addition to transport considerations, our evidence showed that providing further development at Cambourne would be substantively more sustainable than allocating a ‘new’ new settlement in a brand new location, given that it would grow an existing town to become larger, enhancing the existing critical mass of population, employment and services; this would speed up delivery of development in comparison with starting afresh in a new location with no existing infrastructure and services. In comparison with locating development close to an existing rail station, development here would provide an opportunity to design a sustainable community built around the new station.

 

In terms of reliance on transport schemes, to inform the locations and delivery assumptions included in the First Proposals strategy, we took an informed view about proposed new transport schemes including their certainty and timing of delivery. In doing so we worked with relevant partners including the Combined Authority, County Council, Greater Cambridge Partnership and Network Rail. The delivery assumptions included in the plan draw on published information provided by the bodies leading relevant schemes, as well as being informed by the delivery rates and lead in times identified in our Housing Delivery Study, August 2021.

 

The key locations included in our proposed strategy rely in significant part on schemes which are in the direct control of Greater Cambridge Partnership and therefore have an agreed delivery vehicle and committed funding. In relation to C2C, this has progressed since 2018 through several stages of refining options. At the GCP Executive Board meeting on 1 July 2021 the Board approved the Outline Business Case and asked the project team to go ahead with the next stage of the application process: to undertake a full Environmental Impact Assessment.

 

For East West Rail which is currently at an early stage but which is expected to progress as we go through the plan-making process and to be delivered half way through the plan period, we have given weight to this at the First Proposals stage, but made clear that we will review the position at each stage of plan-making to confirm whether we have sufficient evidence of delivery at the later formal stages of plan-making.

 

The First Proposals Strategy includes some village growth at the most sustainable locations, including at Melbourn in the south west of the district, drawing on our evidence which identified villages located on existing railway stations, but which also considered wider sustainability criteria such as the range of shops and services available.

 

In summary, our evidence shows that the First Proposals strategy is sustainable when considered in relation to transport and other impacts. Our approach to committed and emerging transport schemes on which the First Proposals development locations would rely is evidence based and proportionate in relation to this stage of the Local Plan, recognising the opportunities that those schemes present. We will keep progress on those transport schemes under review at each formal plan-making stage.

 

In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins undertook to investigate options for economic growth along the London Liverpool Street and London King’s Cross railway lines, and to provide a written answer. She said that the evidence base used had been robust but that the Council could re-visit that evidence where necessary.