Agenda item

The Built Environment Team Leader presented the report. Members thanked officers for the report and the work undertaken, as well the members of the Greater Cambridge Design Review Panel (DRP). In response to Member questions, officers clarified that the initial “Full Review” involved a site visit, which the “Subsequent Review” did not, hence the difference in prices. Officers also informed the Committee that the DRP had annual reviews in place to allow continuous learning and improvement of the service, and that this would include the review of some case studies of schemes that had been reviewed by the DRP. Further discussion was held on a number of topics.

Incorporation of the Disability Consultative Panel (DCP) into the DRP

Members enquired as to if the removal of the DCP, dedicated to accessibility matters, would result in less schemes receiving consultation on disability considerations. Officers informed the Committee that the incorporation of the DCP into the DRP would allow developers to have their schemes reviewed from an accessibility perspective, as well as others, by the DRP at no extra cost and that the incorporation of the DCP was expected to cover the cost of disability consultations without reducing the amount of disability consultation provided.

Members commented that the Accessibility Forum felt somewhat remote from the application process. Officers advised that the Terms of Reference for the Accessibility Forum were under construction and that Member input into the process would be welcomed by officers. The Committee was informed that the Forum was envisaged to highlight recurring accessibility themes across various developments, rather than be a review mechanism for numerous individual schemes.

Russell Brown advised that the DRP could look at broad, design-based accessibility matters but, given that final details of proposed schemes were not usually presented at the DRP stage, the Panel was only one part of the review for accessibility matters and that it was important that other stages of the application process also dealt with such matters.

Membership of the DRP

Reflecting on paragraph 8 of the Terms of Reference for the DRP (Appendix 3), Members commented that more lay membership in the Panel would be valuable with respect to matters of accessibility and design. With regards to accessibility, Members held concerns that those with lived experience of disability may be precluded from being Panel members if they did not have professional accreditation, despite the expertise that they had garnered their lived experience. Officers advised that a number of those who were members of the DCP would also qualify to sit on the Panel if they chose to do so.

With regards to design, Members commented that opinions on aesthetics were subjective, and that more lay membership within the DRP could allow for more perspectives to be heard in the review process. The Committee noted officer comment that the DRP was there to provide expert advice to applicants that could also be taken on board by officers and decision makers, with the advice being able to hold up in an appeal against a planning decision, but Members reiterated the importance of having a variety of views on subjective matters of design and beauty.

Weighting of DRP advice in the decision-making process

The Committee sought clarity on the weight that should be given to comments of the DRP when making a decision. Members requested that there be a clear distinction as to what comments from the DRP was expert technical advice and what was subjective opinion. Officers advised that the DRP was an advisory body, rather than a statutory consultee. Russell Brown advised that the Panel viewed itself as being there to assist the decision makers in a democratic process and, as such, the Panel avoided bringing in subjective opinions where possible. He informed Members that the DRP provided technical scrutiny on some matters and more broad advice on others, with the understanding that the Panel’s role is to advise the Committee as decision makers. Russell Brown suggested that, when making a decision, Members review the comments of the DRP and assess how closely they align with the scheme presented to them, noting the amount of time between when the DRP issued the advice and when the scheme was brought to the Committee.

Members made a number of requests, for:

·       Confidential information be provided on restricted agenda pages, rather than be redacted.

·       Training to be given to Members on how to weight the advice of the DRP when assessing the planning balance in the decision-making process.

·       Members to attend and observe sessions of the DRP, to further understand the process.

·       Officers to review how to minimise the impact of late cancellations on the DRP.

·       Panel members to be made aware of Village Design Guides when reviewing schemes, alongside the relevant policies in Neighbourhood Plans and the Local Plan.

·       The Chair of the DRP to attend Committee meetings to offer advice in-meeting, where appropriate.

The Committee noted the report.