Decisions

The Council voted (4 voting in favour, 18 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting) on an amendment submitted by Councillor Graham Cone, which was defeated.

Councillors In Favour: Graham Cone, Peter Fane, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Against: Henry Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Abstaining: Daniel Lentell

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“Council notes:

-       the dire state of public finances left by the outgoing Government.

-       the unfulfilled promise to build 40 new hospitals across the country.

-       the new Government’s announcement of a reset of the new hospitals scheme which could jeopardise progress on the Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital at Addenbrooke’s.

Council believes the new Hospital is essential, recognising the deficit of health facilities across Greater Cambridge, the importance of Greater Cambridge as a regional centre for healthcare and the international importance of our area’s life sciences sector.

Council resolves:

-       to direct the leader to write to the Secretary of State underlining this Council’s view that the government should not abandon the commitment to developing the hospital.

-       To direct the leader to write to the new MP for the area of the proposed Cancer Research Hospital, expressing our support for her recent efforts to secure the future funding for it and to request she work further with MPs across the area it would serve to secure funding for the Hospital and other local health facilities.”

The Council (unanimously) agreed the following motion:

“This Council requests Cabinet to strive to achieve, at a minimum, the Bronze tier accreditation in Prostate Cancer UK’s BOG STANDARD and to use existing council resources, business and public connections to raise awareness for this important issue.”

The Council (19 voting in favour, 6 voting against, 2 abstaining from voting) agreed to accept an amendment submitted by Councillor Stephen Drew.

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Daniel Lentell, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie

The Council (19 voting in favour, 4 voting against, 3 abstaining from voting) agreed the following motion:

“This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council and the Chair of the Highways and Transport Committee at the County Council to express concern and dismay at how little has been spent on South Cambridgeshire’s roads compared to other areas in Cambridgeshire and applauding the administration’s programme of investment to address the historic neglect of South Cambridgeshire’s roads that they inherited from the previous Conservative administration.

In particular, this letter should set out the following points:

-       In the eight years preceding the joint administration’s leadership, the Conservative administration spent twice as much per kilometre on carriageway and footway resurfacing in Conservative-controlled Fenland compared to South Cambridgeshire.

-       Per capita, the Conservative administration spent only half as much in South Cambridgeshire on carriageway and footway resurfacing compared to Fenland, and 0.6 times as much compared to East Cambridgeshire.

-       That due to Conservative underinvestment and mismanagement of highways, the joint administration has been left with a £600m backlog of highway maintenance across the county.

-       The Conservatives ceased routine gulley cleaning for four years and failed to maintain accurate maps of gully locations, leading to increased flooding and degradation of roads.

-       The Joint Administration has nearly doubled the road maintenance budget for the next two years, adding over £40 million in new capital spending, marking the reversal of decades of managed decline under the Conservatives.

-       A new commercial team has been established, dedicated to ensuring the best quality and value from contractors. This team has already saved approximately £1.4 million this year.

-       In South Cambridgeshire, a number of significant highway improvements are being funded by the County Council, amounting to £5,019,000 of investment in South Cambridgeshire’s roads over this financial year.”

Councillors In Favour: Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Brian Milnes, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Graham Cone, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Daniel Lentell

The Council (unanimously):

(i)                  Appointed Councillor Geoff Harvey as Chair of the Climate and Environment Advisory Committee.

The Council (unanimously) appointed Ms Ahmed as interim CFO and Section 151 Officer from 26 February 2025 for a period of up to one year.

Council (unanimously) agreed to adopt the revised Statement of Licensing Policy under the Gambling Act 2005 for a period of up to three years from 31 January 2025. The draft Policy was attached as Appendix A to the report.

The Council (26 voting in favour, 7 voting against, 1 abstaining from voting):

a)     Acknowledged the projected changes in service spending and the overall resources available to the Council over the medium term to 2029/2030.

b)     Approved the refreshed Medium Term Financial Strategy at Appendix A to the report and updated financial forecast at Appendix B to the report.

Councillors In Favour: Michael Atkins, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Corinne Garvie, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Helene Leeming, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Dr Lisa Redrup, Judith Rippeth, Peter Sandford, Bridget Smith, Richard Stobart, Dr Aidan van de Weyer, John Williams, Eileen Wilson

Councillors Against: Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Sue Ellington, Bunty Waters, Dr Richard Williams, Heather Williams

Councillors Abstaining: Daniel Lentell

The policy brings together a number of sanctions the Council can use when dealing with Fraud against the Council and failure to provide information requested in a reasonable time period.

To agree the sanctions policy.

Purpose: 

To agree the proposed response to Uttlesford Local Plan (Regulation 19) Submission Draft consultation. 

Uttlesford District Council is carrying out consultation on its Submission Draft Local Plan between 8 August and 14 October 2024.  

The consultation materials are available online: 

Local Plan (Regulation 19) consultation - Uttlesford District Council

Given the proximity of Uttlesford to South Cambridgeshire, the contents of the Uttlesford Local Plan could in principle impact on the emerging joint Greater Cambridge Local Plan, and a joint response from Greater Cambridge is recommended.

Background: 

The Submission Draft is the final stage in the preparation of this plan. Uttlesford District Council previously consulted on the Draft Plan (Regulation 18) in November to December 2023, to which joint responses were made by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. Responses to this final submission draft will be sent alongside the Local Plan and supporting evidence to be examined by an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. 

The Local Plan contains planning policies and allocations for the growth of Uttlesford over the plan period from 2021 to 2041. It contains the council’s Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives grouped under the ‘environmental’, ‘economic’ and ‘community/social’ headings that run throughout the plan. The Spatial Strategy identifies the appropriate locations for development, the level of housing to plan for, the amount of employment land to meet their needs to maintain and develop the local economy and to provide a range of services, as well as the facilities and infrastructure needed. It also seeks to address the challenges of climate change, support biodiversity Net Gain, achieve sustainable development and protect the environment.

The Spatial Strategy is underpinned by five core policies; addressing climate change; meeting our housing needs; settlement hierarchy; meeting business and employment needs; providing and supporting infrastructure services. The Plan identifies four Area Strategies and also includes a series of district-wide policies.

Main Issues:

Content in the Uttlesford Local Plan (Regulation 19) Submission Draft relevant to Greater Cambridge includes:? 

• Exceeding their objectively assessed development needs – the identified need is for 13,500 homes in the period April 2021 to March 2041 and 14,741 homes have been planned for, to provide for flexibility and contingency and help maintain a five-year land supply (Core Policy 2). 
• No strategic housing allocations proposed close to the South Cambridgeshire boundary. 
• Growth is directed to the most sustainable settlements which have the existing infrastructure and/or capacity to expand infrastructure and reduce the necessity of car use wherever possible. 
• Provision of employment land to meet the employment needs assessment, including office and R&D (19 hectares) and industrial and logistics (38.5 hectares) (Core Policy 4).
• Great Chesterford Research Park, close to the South Cambridgeshire boundary, is allocated for R&D (13.5 hectares) (Core Policies 4 and 6).
• The plan recognises the issue of water stress in the district and wider area and the impact this is having on chalk streams, and proposes measures which seek high standards of water efficiency for new residential and non-residential development (Core Policy 34).  
• The plan seeks to address the climate and ecological emergency, including by requiring higher energy standards than Building Regulations Part L requiring that new buildings are designed and built to be Net Zero Carbon in operation, and 20% Biodiversity Net Gain (Core Policies 1 and 40).

Water

The Councils’ response to the Uttlesford (Regulation 18) Draft Plan consultation raised concern over whether the overall demand for water resulting from the growth proposals in the Draft Local Plan has been considered in relation to regional water plans and Affinity Water's latest WRMP24, and that the level of abstraction required to support development proposed in the draft Local Plan is sustainable.

The Councils’ Regulation 18 response also suggested Core Policy 34 could be more explicit on how a development must contribute to achieving 'good' status and must not lead to a reduction in groundwater levels or flows in watercourses. The policy does not provide any required levels of water efficiency for new non-household developments, which should be included. The benefits of integrated water management in new development could be drawn out more in the policies. The Policy could seek opportunities for aquifer recharge through appropriate land management.

Uttlesford District Council has published updated evidence for the Regulation 19 Submission Draft Plan (Water Cycle Study and Chalk Stream Evidence) which provides clarification on a number of issues raised in the Councils’ Regulation 18 response and amendments have been made to Core Policy 34 Water Supply and Protection of Water Resources to reflect the updated evidence. The evidence base shows water supply has been considered with the Environment Agency and takes account of water company plans; the wording in Core Policy 34 is now firmer, requiring demonstration of measures to minimise consumption; supports developments that achieves at least 90l/p/d for residential and now includes a requirement of non-residential to achieve at least 3 credits in BREEAM Wat01. In addition, Policy 35 seeks to protect and enhance watercourses including valuable chalk streams; with further clarity provided in the supporting text at paragraph 9.136 which details the types of mitigation responses and paragraph 9.137 outlines ways of improving ecological condition of waterways which are encouraged.

The updated evidence base and amendments to policy address the Councils’ previous concerns.

Chesterford Research Park employment allocation

In response to the Regulation 18 consultation the Councils sought clarification on the transport impacts of the employment allocation, noting the Transport Evidence Topic Paper and Infrastructure Delivery Plan made no reference to the impact of additional job provision on travel patterns or infrastructure need.

Further transport evidence has been published alongside the Regulation 19 Submission Plan which shows the Local Plan site allocations, coupled with employment growth within South Cambridgeshire (at Wellcome Genome, Babraham Research, Granta Park and Cambridge Biomedical Campus), will have an impact on M11 Junction 9a Stump Cross. The evidence reports this is expected to add to queuing and delays on the southbound slip and that it is likely an improvement scheme will need to be delivered with National Highways, Essex County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. It also reports that a mitigation scheme to widen the slips could alleviate the Local Plan growth back to the Reference Case (committed growth) scenario, but the approaches to the junction would remain over capacity and that these would not be the responsibility of Uttlesford District Council since it is caused by increasing committed and background traffic flows rather than the Local Plan traffic.

There is no further detail within the Regulation 19 Submission Plan in relation to the transport impacts of Chesterford Research Park allocation. Core Policy 4 Meeting Business and Employment Needs has been amended to support development at the allocated sites where they meet the requirements set out within the Site Development Frameworks, as well as being in accordance with the Area Strategies. The Chesterford Research Park Site Development Framework (in Appendix 2b) incorporates a Framework Plan and a series of issues that should be addressed by any design proposals, under broad headings; Design Principles, Transport, Heritage, Landscape and Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity. In transport terms this seeks to ensure improved accessibility by active modes and public transport, although also listed are; delivering improvements to junctions as identified in the transport evidence, and seeking contributions to transport and highway infrastructure identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. However, there are no references in Plan Policy or Infrastructure Delivery Plan on to the need to improve M11 Junction 9a. 

Officers are exploring the transport implications with Cambridgeshire County Council as local highway authority and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority as local transport authority, but at the time of writing had not received a response. As such the proposed response notes that this issue is currently unresolved, and notes that the Councils’ response to the issue will be led by the comments of Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as the local highway and transport authorities for Cambridgeshire.

Climate and biodiversity policy approaches

The Councils supported the ambitious climate and biodiversity policy approaches, including a requirement for 20% Biodiversity Net Gain as these align with the Councils’ own priorities and ambitions.

Statement of Common Ground

The Localism Act 2011 sets out the Duty to Co-operate and as part of its duties Uttlesford District Council has prepared a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG), which is a publicly accessible document of whether agreement has been reached between the Councils on cross-boundary strategic issues. The purpose of the SoCG is to document the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in co-operating to address them. As the content of the SoCG is a factual representation of the comments the Councils make to the Regulation 19 Submission Draft Local Plan officers have delegated authority to sign-off the content and it does not form part of this decision.

Proposed main response points: 

The proposed response, set out in Appendix A, focuses on matters which could impact on Greater Cambridge and include water stress and the impact this is having on chalk streams, housing and employment growth and allocated sites (in particular Chesterford Research Park employment allocation), addressing the impacts of climate change and nature recovery.

For the Joint Director for Planning and Lead Cabinet member for Planning Policy and Delivery agree the response to the Uttlesford Local Plan (Regulation 19) Submission Draft consultation as set out in Appendix A.

A parallel decision is being considered by Cambridge City Council to be agreed, and delegated authority is given to the Joint Director for Planning to agree any minor amendments to the response agreed by the City Council that are consistent with the response at Appendix A.

For the Joint Director for Planning and Lead Cabinet member for Planning Policy and Delivery to note that the content of the Statement of Common Ground will reflect the agreed response (at Appendix A).

On 26 September 2024 the Grants Advisory Committee reviewed 7 Rural England Prosperity Fund applications received. The applications were brought forward in Appendix A of the meeting reports pack. Of these, 3 were Business applications requesting funding amounts of Level 3 value. This notice provides details of the decision regarding the Business applications.

After consideration of these applications, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation and recommended to the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources that the application from:

1.     Allia Ltd (MPNGWTRS) be approved and partially funded £32,555 of the £75,576 requested.

2.     Jacks Gelato (THKTVNXH) be approved and partially funded £40,000 of the requested £100,000.

3.     Willow Grange Farm Café Ltd (JZSMQCWS) be approved and partially funded £50,000 of the requested £100,000.

To accept the recommendations of the Grants Advisory Committee (see above).

On 26 September 2024 the Grants Advisory Committee reviewed 7 Rural England Prosperity Fund applications received. The applications were brought forward in Appendix A of the meeting reports pack. Of these, 4 were Communities applications requesting funding amounts of Level 3 value. This notice provides details of the decision regarding the Business applications.

After consideration of these applications, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation and recommended to the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources that the application from:

1.     Cambourne Town Council (RMTNDTSZ) be approved and partially funded £90,000 of the £100,000 requested.

2.     Cottenham Community Centre (TRMSRHLX) be approved and funded at the full amount requested of £38,000.

3.     Impington Village College (HHBQXFGH) be approved and partially funded £53,000 of the requested £100,000, subject to a satisfactory review of information regarding parking concerns around the Impington Village College.

4.     Wysing Arts Centre (KSCPRCPM) be approved and partially funded £80,000 of the £98,033 requested.

To accept the recommendations of the Grants Advisory Committee (see above).

Following review of the application from Impington Village College, the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources was satisfied that the parking and lighting concerns surrounding the facility were planning matters. As such, it was considered that these were not adequate reasons to prevent the funding of restoration works to a disused sports facility. The restoration of the facility will provide health and well-being benefits to students of the school and the wider community through the provision of active sport. The application was partially funded as recommended, with the funding to be spent on the resurfacing works.

South Cambridgeshire District Council has been awarded an allocation of £200,000 from the UKSPF Shared Prosperity Fund to deliver the Improving the High Street grant scheme. At the meeting on 25 September 2024, the Grants Advisory Committee considered the proposal to set up the Improving the High Street grant scheme as a policy of the Council, laid out in the Committee report, with officers delegated authority to assess applications and award funding. The proposed operational delivery of the scheme is as follows:

i)               Will consist of a Policy Criteria (Appendix B)

ii)              Will proceed to a full Application Form (Appendix C)

iii)             An Officer Panel will review eligibility of every application using a scoring matrix. Once deemed eligible, applications will be approved by through officer delegated responsibilities.

iv)             Due diligence will be carried out on all applications and will include a range of fraud checks, ensuring businesses are registered on Companies House and are registered and operate in South Cambridgeshire. We are also working with colleagues from the internal audit and fraud teams to ensure that all due diligence is carried out on both business and community group applications.

v)              There will be no requirement for match funding however this will be welcomed.

vi)             The scheme will be opened in October 2024 for applications and will be operated on a rolling basis until the funds are allocated.

vii)           As the scheme will not make awards above the level 2, and as outlined by the Constitution Part 3, table 3, 1.2, a grant scheme can be established with officers delegated authority to make awards.

Following consideration, the Grants Advisory Committee recommended to the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources that the proposed Improving the High Street grant scheme be adopted as a policy of the Council, as laid out in the Committee report.

To accept the recommendation of the Grants Advisory Committee (see above). An amendment is made to the Policy Criteria listed in ‘Appendix B’ of the report to allow all Parish Councils to apply to the fund, removing the limit on the size of Parish Councils that can apply.

On 25 September 2024 the Grants Advisory Committee reviewed all Community Chest applications received between 7 August 2024 and 7 September 2024.

One application was brought forward in ‘Appendix A’ of the meeting reports pack.

After consideration of the application, the Committee recommended to the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources that Brainstrust (SFZSHPXJ) be approved and funded at the full amount requested of £500.

To accept the recommendations of the Grants Advisory Committee (see above).

The District Council has provided a temporary community centre at Northstowe whilst the permanent Phase 1 Community Centre remains in the design and construction phase. This is for the use of Northstowe’s residents, community groups, the delivery of services, included NHS services and to provide office space to local authorities active in Northstowe.

Under an existing licence agreement which ends 2 October 2024 Cambridgeshire County Council’s Child and Family Centre use Assembly Rooms 1 and 2 within this building to deliver its services to residents of Northstowe and the immediate area. Cambridgeshire County Council’s Child and Family centre have requested to continue this existing arrangement for a further year and the licence agreement which secures this use is the subject of this decision.

Offer a short-term licence to Cambridgeshire County Council to occupy Assembly Rooms 1&2 for set days and hours per week, within the Northstowe Temporary Community Centre.

To consider the strategy

Cabinet adopted the Corporate Fraud Strategy; acknowledging the governing body’s responsibility for ensuring that risks associated with fraud and corruption are managed effectively across all parts of the organisation.

To consider renewal.

[Part of the report may be exempt in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, which refers to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)].

Cabinet:

a)    Agreed to the recommended option 1 (redesigned 3C ICT and Digital, lead Authority remains HDC).

b)    Delegated the responsibility for finalising the scope and detailed nature of the new agreement and associated activities to the Chief Executives and respective Portfolio Holders for each partnership council, to report on progress through the revised member board.

To consider the grant funding proposal (and the associated conditions and criteria) for 2025-28 and beyond, designed to facilitate the sustainability of Mobile and Community Warden Schemes operating in South Cambridgeshire.

Cabinet:

a)    Agreed the proposed Mobile and Community Warden 3-year funding scheme for 2025-28 in Appendix E to the report (subject to the Council’s normal annual budget setting processes) to include –

                                      i.        Tapered core funding allocations of £135,000 in year 1, £110,000 in year 2, and £100,000 in year 3.

                                     ii.        Ring-fenced funding within each annual allocation to support new or expanding schemes or to help existing schemes develop and become financially sustainable.

                                    iii.        One-off transition funding of £15,000 (included in the £135,000 of core funding) for 2025-26 to provide damping to those schemes that would otherwise receive less grant funding than provided in 2024-25.

b)    Noted the proposal of a 10-year grant plan that would be reviewed every three years, and which would see funding taper off to £0 for existing schemes and maintained at £20,000 per annum for new or expanding schemes (subject to inflation).

c)    Approved the Mobile and Community Warden grant scheme terms and conditions at Appendix F to the report, and delegated authority for any minor amends to the Lead Cabinet Member for Communities.

d)    Agreed the launch of the 2025-28 Mobile and Community Warden scheme in October 2024, with grant decisions to be made by the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources following recommendations by the Grants Advisory Committee in December 2024 (Timeline at Appendix F to the report).

To approve the Communications Charter which sets out the standard for communicating with our tenants and leaseholders.  It includes timescales for responding to the different methods of communication and provides clear and consistent information.

Cabinet approved the Communications Charter produced for Tenants and Leaseholders of the South Cambs Housing Service at Appendix A to the report, and delegated authority to the Lead Member for Housing to approve any minor amendments.

Providing a further update to the cost-of-living related schemes agreed at Cabinet on 20 March 2023. It is isan update on the report presented to Cabinet on 7 November 2023, detailing progress with delivery since then.

Cabinet noted the report.

To consider the monitoring data and trends in respect of the 2024/25 budgets and issues.

Cabinet:

a)    Noted the 2024/25 revenue position against the approved revenue budget to date shown in Appendix B to the report, the projected major variances with reasons for these variances at Appendices C1 to C7 to the report, and the action being taken to address the underlying issues.

b)    Noted the latest Capital Programme 2024/25 position [and variances, if any] as shown in Appendix D to the report.

To consider Key Performance Indicators and progress in respect of the Business Plan.

Cabinet:

a)    Noted the KPI results and comments at Appendix A to the report and progress against Business Plan actions at Appendix B to the report.

b)    Noted that a review of the Council’s KPIs was due to take place, including input from Councillors, to inform a revised suite of KPIs as the Council moved towards the 2025-26 financial year.

To consider an update

Cabinet approved the Equality Scheme for 2024-2028.

To review and ensure that Cabinet is aware of the financial challenges over the medium-term.

Cabinet:

a)    Acknowledged the projected changes in service spending and the overall resources available to the Council over the medium term to 2029/2030.

b)    Recommended to Full Council the refreshed Medium Term Financial Strategy at Appendix A to the report and updated financial forecast at Appendix B to the report.

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to agree the Council’s response to the public consultation on the submission version of the Pampisford Neighbourhood Plan. The consultation closes on 30 September 2024 at 5pm.

Background

2.       The Pampisford Neighbourhood Area was designated on 29 March 2018. The neighbourhood area is for the whole parish of Pampisford. 

3.       Officers have met with the Parish Council ahead of the submission consultation process and recognise the hard work that has been put into preparing the plan. The Parish Council has worked hard to engage with the local community and has ensured that they have had an opportunity to input into the final plan.

4.       A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening was undertaken on a draft version of the Neighbourhood Plan, and a screening determination was published in May 2023.

5.       Pre-submission public consultation on the draft Neighbourhood Plan was undertaken by the Parish Council from 9 October until 19 November 2023. Officers provided a formal response to the consultation, providing constructive comments about the plan to assist the Parish Council with finalising the Neighbourhood Plan. Officers have met with the Parish Council to discuss these comments and are aware that the submission version of the plan has taken on board many of the suggested changes.

6.       On 21 June 2024, Pampisford Parish Council submitted their Neighbourhood Plan to South Cambridgeshire District Council. Officers have confirmed, as set out in the Legal Compliance Check for the Neighbourhood Plan, that the submitted version of the Neighbourhood Plan and its accompanying supporting documents comply with all the relevant statutory requirements at this stage of plan making. The Neighbourhood Plan and its accompanying supporting documents are published on our website.

7.       We therefore were able to carry out a consultation on the Pampisford Neighbourhood Plan from 5 August until 30 September 2024.

8.       Officers, in conjunction with Pampisford Parish Council, are in the process of appointing an independent examiner to consider this Neighbourhood Plan. All comments submitted during the public consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan will be provided to the examiner for their consideration.

Considerations

9.       The Pampisford Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by Pampisford Parish Council to provide planning policies for development in the area, with the aim of providing greater clarity when determining planning applications in the area. The Neighbourhood Plan includes 19 planning policies that cover a range of issues including:

(i)             Residential development

(ii)            Employment

(iii)           Local Green Spaces

(iv)          Village Character

(v)            Climate change

(vi)          Biodiversity

(vii)         Heritage assets

10.    To successfully proceed through its examination to a referendum, a Neighbourhood Plan must meet a number of tests known as the ‘Basic Conditions’. These tests are different to the tests of soundness that a Local Plan must meet. The Basic Conditions are set out in national planning guidance and are summarised as follows:

a)    having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the Neighbourhood Plan.

b)    the making of the Neighbourhood Plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

c)     the Neighbourhood Plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area.

d)    the making of the Neighbourhood Plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations.

e)    prescribed conditions are met in relation to the Neighbourhood Plan, including that the making of the neighbourhood plan is not likely to have a significant effect on a European wildlife site or a European offshore marine site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

f)      the making of the neighbourhood development plan does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

11.    Our Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit includes Guidance Note 11 (What are the Basic Conditions and How to Meet Them), which sets out further details on each of the Basic Conditions. When a Neighbourhood Plan is submitted to the local planning authority it must be accompanied by a Basic Conditions Statement that sets out how the Parish Council considers that their Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions.

12.    When considering a Neighbourhood Plan, the examiner will assess whether or not the Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions. When an examiner recommends that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum (if it meets the Basic Conditions, with or without modifications), the examiner’s report must also set out whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area. Comments made during the current consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan, which will be provided to the examiner for their consideration, should therefore address whether the submitted Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions and can also address whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area.

13.    South Cambridgeshire District Council is fully supportive of parish councils bringing forward neighbourhood plans for their areas, including Pampisford Parish Council’s decision to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan, and officers have been supporting the Parish Council in the plan’s preparation. The Council’s proposed response to this public consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan is set out in Appendix A.

14.    South Cambridgeshire District Council is supportive of the aims of the Pampisford Neighbourhood Plan and our comments are intended to help the plan to be successful at examination as well as delivering policies that are clear in their meaning and are unambiguous in their interpretation. South Cambridgeshire District Council recognise the achievement of Pampisford Parish Council in reaching this stage of submitting their plan to us for examination.

If the examiner is minded to recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum, the Council does not feel that the referendum area needs to be extended beyond the designated Neighbourhood Area as the planning policies included in the plan would not have a substantial, direct or demonstrable impact beyond the Neighbourhood Area.

That the Lead Cabinet Member for Planning agrees the response to the submission consultation on the Pampisford Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Appendix A.

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to agree the Council’s response to the public consultation on the submission version of the Thriplow and Heathfield Neighbourhood Plan. The consultation closes on 30 September 2024 at 5pm.

Background

2.       The Thriplow and Heathfield Neighbourhood Area was designated on 25 August 2017. The neighbourhood area is for the whole parish of Thriplow and Heathfield. 

3.       Officers have met with the Parish Council ahead of the submission consultation process and recognise the hard work that has been put into preparing the plan. The Parish Council has worked hard to engage with the local community and has ensured that they have had an opportunity to input into the final plan.

4.       A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening was undertaken on a draft version of the Neighbourhood Plan, and a screening determination was published in June 2022. 

5.       Pre-submission public consultation on the draft Neighbourhood Plan was undertaken by the Parish Council from30 January 2023 to 14 March 2023. Officers provided a formal response to the consultation, providing constructive comments about the plan to assist the Parish Council with finalising the Neighbourhood Plan. Officers have met with the Parish Council to discuss these comments and are aware that the submission version of the plan has taken on board many of the suggested changes.

6.       On 3 June 2024, Thriplow and Heathfield Parish Council submitted their Neighbourhood Plan to South Cambridgeshire District Council. Officers have confirmed, as set out in the Legal Compliance Check for the Neighbourhood Plan, that the submitted version of the Neighbourhood Plan and its accompanying supporting documents comply with all the relevant statutory requirements at this stage of plan making. The Neighbourhood Plan and its accompanying supporting documents are published on our website.

7.       We therefore were able to carry out a consultation on the Thriplow and Heathfield Neighbourhood Plan from 5 August until 30 September 2024.

8.       Officers, in conjunction with Thriplow and Heathfield Parish Council, are in the process of appointing an independent examiner to consider this Neighbourhood Plan. All comments submitted during the public consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan will be provided to the examiner for their consideration.

Considerations

9.       The Thriplow and HeathfieldNeighbourhood Plan has been prepared by Thriplow and HeathfieldParish Council to provide planning policies for development in the area, with the aim of providing greater clarity when determining planning applications in the area. The Neighbourhood Plan includes 15 planning policies (although we recommend in our submission plan response that 1 is removed and included as a community aspiration); the policies cover a range of issues including:

(i)             Residential development

(ii)            Employment (supporting the rural economy)

(iii)           Local Green Spaces

(iv)          Village Character

(v)            Climate change

(vi)          Biodiversity

(vii)         Rural exception sites

(viii)        Road safety and parking

(ix)          Travel Networks and connections

10.    To successfully proceed through its examination to a referendum, a Neighbourhood Plan must meet a number of tests known as the ‘Basic Conditions’. These tests are different to the tests of soundness that a Local Plan must meet. The Basic Conditions are set out in national planning guidance and are summarised as follows:

a)    having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the Neighbourhood Plan.

b)    the making of the Neighbourhood Plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

c)     the Neighbourhood Plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area.

d)    the making of the Neighbourhood Plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations.

e)    prescribed conditions are met in relation to the Neighbourhood Plan, including that the making of the neighbourhood plan is not likely to have a significant effect on a European wildlife site or a European offshore marine site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

f)      the making of the neighbourhood development plan does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

11.    Our Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit includes Guidance Note 11 (What are the Basic Conditions and How to Meet Them), which sets out further details on each of the Basic Conditions. When a Neighbourhood Plan is submitted to the local planning authority it must be accompanied by a Basic Conditions Statement that sets out how the Parish Council considers that their Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions.

12.    When considering a Neighbourhood Plan, the examiner will assess whether or not the Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions. When an examiner recommends that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum (if it meets the Basic Conditions, with or without modifications), the examiner’s report must also set out whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area. Comments made during the current consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan, which will be provided to the examiner for their consideration, should therefore address whether the submitted Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions and can also address whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area.

13.    South Cambridgeshire District Council is fully supportive of parish councils bringing forward neighbourhood plans for their areas, including Thriplow and Heathfield Parish Council’s decision to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan, and officers have been supporting the Parish Council in the plan’s preparation. The Council’s proposed response to this public consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan is set out in Appendix A.

14.    South Cambridgeshire District Council is supportive of the aims of the Thriplow and Heathfield Neighbourhood Plan and our comments are intended to help the plan to be successful at examination as well as delivering policies that are clear in their meaning and are unambiguous in their interpretation. South Cambridgeshire District Council recognise the achievement of Thriplow and Heathfield Parish Council in reaching this stage of submitting their plan to us for examination.

If the examiner is minded to recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum, the Council does not feel that the referendum area needs to be extended beyond the designated Neighbourhood Area as the planning policies included in the plan would not have a substantial, direct or demonstrable impact beyond the Neighbourhood Area.

That the Lead Cabinet Member for Planning agrees the response to the submission consultation on the Thriplow and Heathfield Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Appendix A.