Agenda item

Public Questions

The deadline for receipt of public questions is 23:59 on Tuesday, 5 July 2022.

The Council’s scheme for public speaking at committee meetings may be inspected here:

Public Speaking Scheme

 

Minutes:

Cabinet received five requests to speak from the public ahead of the meeting.

 

a)    From Mrs. Elizabeth McWilliams

 

In the news currently are two issues totalling nearly £33m of ‘funding shortfalls’ between developer promises and what can be achieved in the S106 agreements - significant projects that were originally going to be paid for by the developer, but that now require public monies in order to be completed:

 

i) the request to the Greater Cambridge Partnership for £20m to relocate the railway station from Waterbeach to the New Town;

ii) South Cambs District Council investing £12.85m in Northstowe for a sports pavilion and other community facilities.

 

My question (in 3 parts) is about how South Cambs District Council is going to avoid any more such large projects requiring public funding, specifically:

 

1) What risk assessment has been undertaken on other developments currently between outline planning stage and finalisation of S106 agreements?

2) Has that risk assessment process identified any other projects at risk of funding shortfall?

3) What lessons has the Council learned about how to do this better in future?

 

Response from Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

The delivery of strategic development sites requires careful consideration of development viability – because such projects over a long period of time often require very significant up front infrastructure investments that have to be made before any new homes can be sold - to help repay the borrowing etc. The Council has, in recent year, routinely undertaken viability assessments to help it to determine what infrastructure of other planning objectives the “development value” created by the planning permission should be directed towards. Recent S106 planning agreements have also sought to move away from placing obligations upon the District Council for delivery of new infrastructure – precisely to manage the risks upon the Council. The County Council also have their own risk management approach.

 

The Waterbeach funding decision does not impact the District Council or the planning outcomes envisaged by the planning application. The obligations arising in phase 1 of the Northstowe Development are not repeated in the most recent phases 3A or B. The agreements for other, more recently consented strategic sites also do not include the option for the developer to invite the District Council to deliver new infrastructure. The circumstances at Northstowe are not therefore repeated elsewhere

 

Recognising the changing circumstances over the 20+ year life of a development, the Planning Authority nevertheless maintains a continuing relationship with the lead developer on all major sites – to ensure that risks and issues surrounding delivery and viability can be explored alongside solutions. Strategic sites form a central plank of the Council’s growth strategy (and 5 year land supply) and ensuring continued delivery of new homes on these sites is therefore important, if we are to avoid the risk of unplanned growth taking place elsewhere. 

 

The current inflation rates mean that build costs and development viability may be adversely impacted on both small and large development sites. S106 agreements and planning permissions nevertheless define a set of requirements to be met. If a development becomes unviable, developers can either choose not to build (indeed they will be unable to secure lending/funding to do so) or may ask for the Planning permission or its S106 to be varied. The LPA is required to consider such requests. Depending upon the size of a project, measures to improve viability can lead to requests to change levels of affordable housing delivered or request to delay infrastructure delivery or change or reduce the specification of works or scale of contributions. The LPA would expect any such request to be justified by evidence. Instead of seeking to vary planning permissions, developers may also look to access other funding sources – such as grants or loans – to render development viable. The recent decision of GCP to take over delivery of the railway station at Waterbeach is an example of such public sector support that is routinely sought to enable development to take place across the country – the public funding of the Northern Line extension in London to serve Battersea/Nine Elms is another such example.

 

Based upon our engagement with developers of strategic sites across the area, we are not aware of any similar issues/requests for support impacting planning outcomes proposed to be delivered on other strategic sites at this time.

 

The Council has changed its S106 agreements to remove in most cases, options for the developer to obligate/nominate the District Council to step in to deliver infrastructure. As indicated above, it continues to engage with all strategic site developers to ensure delivery risks are understood and effectively managed.

 

Mrs. Elizabeth McWilliams was invited to ask a supplementary question. She asked about investment into the Waterbeach new town, and the relocation of the Waterbeach railway station. Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Council, said the funds allocated from the Greater Cambridge Partnership was ringfenced for the development of housing, and the relocation of the railway station would enable houses to be built.

 

b)    From Mr. Tim Andrews

 

I am a Fulbourn resident who lives off Cow Lane, very near to Fulbourn Fields. I’m very disappointed that the developer has won its legal challenge to build 110 houses on the site off Teversham Road.

South Cambs District Council had refused the reserved matters application last year but the developer was able to convince the planning inspector to support the plans, particularly concerning the flood risk.

As one of many people directly affected by the substantial potential flood risk arising as a consequence of this of development proceeding, I’d like to ask Councillor Smith and/or Councillor Hawkins what their reaction is to the decision and what will the Council do differently another time.

 

Response from Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

The Council is clearly disappointed that having refused planning permission for the reserve matters at the Planning Committee meeting, the appeal inspector has granted planning permission for the proposals. This site is one which came forward as a result of the Council not being able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply – so that the tilted balance in favour of outline planning permission being granted. Since that time, with the adoption of the Local Plan in 2018, the Council has been able to demonstrate a 5+ year supply of housing – restoring the primacy of the local plan to the decision making process. It goes without saying that meeting identified housing needs, in order to ensure the prime role of the local plan, remains a priority if the Council is to resist inappropriate development in the future.

 

Mr. Tim Andrews was invited to ask a supplementary question and he asked whether the Council had learnt anything from the process. Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins responded that the Council would continue to review applications when they were received.

 

c)    From Mr. Daniel Fulton

 

Mr. Daniel Fulton made a statement about the primacy of the rule of law in the democratic process, and the lack of accountability within certain committees.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith thanked Mr. Fulton for his statement.

 

d)    From Mrs. Jennie Conroy

 

In the case of NEC having been included in the emerging Local Plan how will the Council fulfil its obligations to respond to the consultation feedback at Reg 18, demonstrate the evolution of the plan in response to this and new evidence as it emerges given the DCO application this Autumn, to relocate to the Green Belt, will be founded on the case of a benefit of 8350 new homes, as specified in the draft NECAAP, and this outweighing the environmental costs of the relocation and site selection?

 

Examples of feedback and emerging evidence that could influence the emerging Local Plan include: lack of sustainability in the context of existing water supply, Natural England’s assertion that without evidence of water supply in place the growth target will require extending beyond the plan period i.e. there will be a requirement of a reduction in housing growth targets to 2041; the environmental and economic costs to the public purse of a relocation of the future proofed water treatment works as a means to fulfil the scale of housing development proposed not to be fully known until the DCO submission ; alternative options to fulfil the long standing objective for mixed development including housing at NEC that does not require the relocation of the waste water treatment works, evidenced by the existing Local Plan and recent planning applications ; the existence of viable alternative site allocations for the 3,900 homes specified for NEC in the emerging plan period amongst identified development areas and or new sites emerging excluding Green Belt and surrounding villages; legacy housing in the emerging Local Plan, excluding North East Cambridge in excess of 15,000 for build out beyond 2041, negating the requirement of the balance of 4,450 homes at North East Cambridge either now or the distant future; the evolution of additional and alternative sustainable transport networks linking core housing and employment sites including NEC, such as Waterbeach Newtown, Cambourne and Cambridge East (the Airport development) in effect undermining the qualification for the scale, environmental and economic cost of NECAAP on the basis of it being the ‘most sustainable large scale brownfield site’; updates on employment and housing growth requirements in January 2023 and resulting reviews of site allocations including cost benefit analysis.

 

Response from Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

The North East Cambridge area including the water treatment works is allocated in the adopted Local Plan for employment led development. The NEC Area Action Plan, over the larger area of NEC, expresses the potential form and extent of the opportunity at North-East Cambridge and the required policy framework to achieve that ambition. The First Proposals consultation draft of the Joint Local Plan and its associated evidence base indicates that the NEC site is the most sustainable site for development in Greater Cambridge. Based upon the work to date, other development options advanced to deliver the economic and housing growth required to meet the identified needs do not perform as well against the ambitions and vision set out for the plan, as the NEC site.

 

The Council has recognised, in the timetable for the local plan and AAP, the need to secure clarity on the DCO proposals. Both the AAP and the Spatial Strategy in the Joint Local Plan recognise the contribution that the site can make towards achieving sustainable growth of the Greater Cambridge area over the plan period to 2040+. That potential contribution will in due course be tested through the later stage of the plan once the DCO application has been considered and prior to the adoption of these development plan documents.  

 

The report today is advising Cabinet that the comments received to the Greater Cambridge Local Plan First Proposals consultation have been published. The next steps are for officers to consider the issues raised in the responses and bring reports to members in due course, to the timetable set out in the updated Local Development Scheme.  Subsequent reports may recommend changes to the approaches set out in First Proposals or explain why no changes are recommended. Members will then consider those recommendations and make a decision on the preferred strategy for the plan. In terms of the consultation report that has been published alongside the comments, the section referred to simply provides a high-level overview of the range of issues raised. I can assure you we will be looking at the comments received very closely as part of that process. But we are not at that stage yet. 

   

You ask how the Council will fulfil its obligations to respond to consultation feedback. The consultation statement will be updated at each stage of the plan making process to summarise the comments received and how they have been responded to and taken into account. They will also be considered in the Topic Papers that sit behind the Local Plan which draw together all of the relevant threads, including comments received. This will include consideration of critical infrastructure issues – such as the supply of water. Indeed the timing of evidence anticipated from the water industry is a key determinant of the timetable for the plan along with the timing of the outcome of the DCO for the relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant given its significance to delivery of NEC.  

 

As we have said in response to previous questions about the WWTP DCO, that is a separate process to the local plan, but the local plan sustainability appraisal will look at the impacts of our plan in combination with plans and projects being developed by others, including the DCO. We will be looking carefully at all the work again over the coming months alongside considering the issues raised in the consultation comments and new evidence on some key issues, including our needs for jobs and homes. The site-specific issues you raise about the NEC site will be part of that process.  

 

Mrs. Jennie Conroy was invited to ask supplementary question and asked about the Council adjusting the number of planned homes if the DCO application was approved. Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins responded that the Council would update the number of planned homes when required.

 

e)    From Mrs. Hilary Stroud

 

Mrs. Hilary Stroud made a statement about the Northstowe developments, and the impact on the decreasing water levels within the local ponds and rivers, since 2015. She also posed a number of questions.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith thanked Mrs. Hilary Stroud for her statement, and requested she send her questions to Councillor Bill Handley, Lead Cabinet Member for Communities, so this could be reviewed with the Environment Agency.