County, sorry. Good evening, members, officers and any members of the public who are viewing the live stream of this meeting. Welcome to this meeting of the joint local plan advisory group. My name is Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins and I am the chair of the advisory group. The joint local advisory group is a non-decision making group comprising members of Cambridge City Council, South Temperature District Council, Cambridge County Council and its role is to provide a steer at member level for the development of land use plans integrated with transport strategy. We meet in public and our recommendations go back to the local plan authority for decision making. Members, I will now invite each of you to introduce yourselves. When your name is called, please would you unmute yourself and introduce yourself. As I stated earlier, my name is Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins and my vice chair is Councillor Thunbro. Hello, I'm Councillor Katie Thunbro. I'm the executive councillor for planning at Cambridge City Council. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Bick. Councillor Tim Bick, are you there? I'll come back to him. Councillor Sanford. Thank you, chair. Peter Sanford, ward councillor for Caxon and Pappworth in South Cambridge. I'm substituting for Aidan Van de Weyer, who has had to drop out due to an employment clash. Thank you for stepping in, Councillor Sanford. Councillor Shayla, I don't think I've seen him yet. Councillor Smith. I'm Simon Smith. I'm City Council for Castle Ward. I'm chair of the City Council Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee. Thank you very much and Councillor Williams. I don't know if he's here yet. Not yet. Okay, is Councillor Tim Bick back in the meeting now? Please look out for when he does come back in. I think he's got technical challenges today. I can see we have some other local members attending. Welcome to you. Just very quickly, if you can just introduce yourselves. As I see you, Councillor Haylings. Hello, yes. Councillor Pippa Haylings and I'm chair of the Climate Change and Environment Advisory Committee at South Campus. Thank you. Councillor Harvey. Yes, Councillor Harvey. I'm a member for Borsham Ward and I'm Pippas Vice-Chair on the Climate and Environment Committee. Thank you. Councillor Smart. I know, yes, more than Smart, consider this all Councillor Haman Planning Committee. Thank you and Councillor Gough of Wood, please. So, I'm a reserve for Simon, Councillor Smith and Councillor Thornbrough on this committee. Member of Council. Are you observing? Thank you. I see Councillor Tim Bick is back. Can you introduce yourself, please, Councillor Bick? Thank you. Yes, member of the City Council. Yeah, member of the City Council. What else, what is there to say? Member of this committee. Thank you. And indeed, yes. Yes, okay. Okay, can I now start with a few housekeeping announcements? Please make sure that you switch your microphone off unless you are invited to speak and when you're invited to speak, please switch on your microphone. When you finish speaking, please turn it off and ensure that, if possible, you use the headset when speaking. If you wish to speak, please, would you indicate in the chat column and also if you need to leave the meeting, please let me know via the chat for the members of the committee, please. And do not use that column, chat column for any other purpose. And I will say that this meeting has been administered by South Cambridge District Council and all of the papers from this meeting can be found on the website. We have also a number of officers joining us this evening and I will ask for them to introduce themselves later on as we carry on with the meeting. So apologies. Do we have any apologies? Yes, Chair. We've just received apologies from Councillor van der Veer, who Councillor Sanford has kindly substituted for. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. Any declarations of interest? If any members have interest to declare in relation to any of the items of business on this agenda. If an interest subsequently becomes apparent, then please just raise it at that point. Anyone with any interest to declare right now? Councillor Thumbra? No? No, I don't. Okay, sorry. I thought you were going to do that. Okay, we will move on to item three, which is minutes of our previous meetings. Um, we have two sets from previous cycle of meetings. The meetings held on the 8th of September, 2021 and the 30th of November, 2021. Do any members wish to make a comment on this meetings, on this minutes, please? It's a while back, I know. Can I take your approval by affirmation then? Yes. Yes. Thank you, Simon. I will take it by approval then, by affirmation, approval by affirmation. Thank you. The other set that we have for approval is one from our last meeting which we held on the 4th of October. So do any members wish to make a comment on this meetings, on this minutes? No. It's incomprehensive to me. So can I take approval by affirmation then, please? Yep. Thank you very much. Okay. Members, we now come to item five, which will cover this strategy. Councillor Timberhawkins, it's Councillor Haylings here. I just had one query which was on the minutes for the, I think it's the 8th of September. And I think it's just the stake is on page three. And it was saying that new areas of policy were highlighted under the following headings. And it has six of the seven headings, but there are seven headings. And so I just wanted to amend that. That may change wellbeing, social inclusion. This is biodiversity, but biodiversity in green spaces are still part of the... Thank you for that. Noted. Thanks. Because I assume it still is part of, because it seems to be in all the rest of the documents that we have. It is. Okay. Noted, thank you very much. So back to item four. So we're now going to talk through the strategy and the site section of the local plan. But first of all, I want to just draw our attention to paragraph six on page 24 of our report pack, where we see the number of comments that we received during the consultation. We've got over 4,000 to the first proposals and over 5,000 to the quick survey that we did. And a lot of hard work was put in by the team to get us. What I know is the best response either council has had at this stage to a local plan consultation. So I want to say a very big thank you to the team for all that hard work. What I will now do is hand over to Caroline Hunt to come in now and with John Dixon to introduce this item, please. And Caroline, of course, over to you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Hawkins. Good evening, members. This is the second of the series of meetings of the advisory group, where we're bringing to you for discussion the comments received to the Grace Cambridge Local Plan first proposals consultation that was held in November and December last year. So the first meeting we had earlier this month looked at the vision and aims for the plan and the climate change theme. And we had, I think, a really constructive discussion around the issues that were raised through the representations on those matters. And we also noted that members were keen to come back at the end of the series of meetings to reflect on the vision and aims, having had the benefit of discussing all the themes. So we're very much mindful of that. Tonight, we're focusing on the strategy and the sites. And you'll have seen there's clearly this is one of the key issues for the plan and has raised a lot of interest. With members of the team, we have a PowerPoint presentation to take you through in hopefully a helpful order, the issues that were consulted on in the first proposals and a summary of the issues that were raised in those comments received, hopefully as a useful summary before you have the opportunity to discuss each of those issues as we move through. And as I say, I've got a number of members of the team with me and I'll ask them to introduce themselves as we get to their item rather than take up time now. I'm conscious it's quite a lot we've got to get through this evening. One further point just to say before we kick off, though, is that what we are starting to find as we're going through summarising and bringing together the representations on each theme as we run through these series of meetings is we're noticing that there are some issues that we're going to be talking about this evening that are picked up either repeated points or maybe slightly different points around some of the issues that we're going to be talking about this evening. We're still going through that process of summarising, so we couldn't bring all of those to you in a completely holistic way. So, for example, some people have put in comments about the number of homes we're with the first proposal's intended plan for in the home steam. So, I just wanted to highlight that it's not that they're in any way being missed and they will absolutely be pulled together in a holistic way when we bring the reports back to members next year for decision, but I just wanted to highlight that point now in case anyone was aware of a particular issue and you didn't feel that it perhaps being fully covered. So, without further ado, with your agreement chair, I suggest handing over to my colleague, Stuart Morris, to introduce the first part of the agenda, which is particularly around the strategy of the plan. And we have a PowerPoint that Ciaran Davis is going to share for us to talk through. Thank you. Thank you, Stuart. Over to you. Thanks, Timmy. Brilliant. Thanks, Ciaran, if you could just move on to the first strategy slide would be great. So, just a very brief recap of the evidence informing the first proposal strategy, touching on the three elements of which, hopefully, there's a whole hope of work behind it. In terms of the needs for jobs and homes, in the evidence, we explored what the government's standard minimum homes would mean in terms of the jobs that would support. And then we also looked at what the most slightly employment scenario would be and the homes needed to support that. And the council has identified, sorry, Ciaran, could you go back a moment? The council has identified that what they consider the objectively assessed needs for development were housing forecasts associated with the most likely employment scenario. And the addition to that is to note that for all jobs supported above those that would be supported by the standard method, the objectively assessed needs incorporates those additional homes needed to support those additional jobs. In terms of strategy development, lots of work gave to identifying reasonable spatial options for testing and then evidence-based testing of those options. And kind of bringing all that together, the key evidence findings that really informed the strategy itself was one that location is the biggest factor and impacts on carbon emissions being, therefore, the transport impacts of those locations. But secondly, if climate said you should stick everything on the head of a pin, clearly that's not possible. So the sites have to be in a range of locations because you couldn't do that. Thirdly, I think the plan was very clear. I think probably many of you are very familiar with this topic that the plan stated that it was contingent on water supply being adequate without causing unacceptable environmental harm. As I think, yeah, you will be aware our evidence on water noted the impacts on the Chalk Aquifer to the south of Cambridge and the evidence said that it wasn't certain at the point of publication of the first proposals that the full objectively assessed needs could be met without causing unacceptable further harm to the aquifer. The water companies and water resources are currently producing their draft plans for the future and we'll need to take that into account and we'll pick that up later. So those are three key points to bear in mind when going through the representations. Thanks, Kiran. So in terms of what those objective assessed needs for jobs and homes were, so the 58,500 was the most likely employment outcome that our consultants identified and 44,400 homes were identified as being needed to support those. We are still working on our gypsy and traveller needs but it's just to note that the policy will cover those needs as well as a range of specialist accommodation needs to. Next slide, please. So in terms of the representations provided by very many respondents, I think the key point to note is obviously we've talked about needs for jobs and homes. The representations to those crossover I guess in terms of the strategy in terms of how the plan plans to meet those needs and so there's a bit of cross-referencing needed. But in terms of the jobs and housing figures, comments as you can see mostly from agents and developers and landowners welcome the council's decision to exceed the national standard method. A lot also stressed the economic strength of Cambridge and then also suggested that a higher jobs target or higher jobs forecast should be accommodated, noting that the employment study did identify a possible but less likely higher employment forecast and those representations were saying we should be planning for that. Conversely, comments from different groups including parish councils, community groups and individuals noted that in general the negative impacts of growth noted the issues of water supply and a range of other issues including transport policy of life and a number of comments as I say attributed to the strategy policy were questioning why we would want to or why the councils would want to plan for more than standard method minimum. In terms of detailed comments, lots of respondents again from the landowners and agents proportion of the community were giving reasons for justifying a higher forecast. A lot of them put in detailed technical evidence challenging the methodology and suggesting that we should be doing more. Next slide, thanks everyone. A number of comments in particular from I think maybe the community and individuals portion of the community noted the impacts of Brexit and Covid and suggested that given this is likely that our forecast might need to be revised down. In terms of industry, so promoters of specific sites particularly from the logistics sector noted that they thought that the councils had underestimated the need for that and that there was an additional need to be met. And then in terms of moving from forecasts to planning, a number again of developers were promoting alternative housing targets and wanting the application of that target to be seen as a minimum rather than a maximum. Flexibility was requested again with the idea that we should be planning for more, so to allow for possible changes in relation to the forecasts. And comments noting again conversely that the higher growth level option will require infrastructure funding and the challenges of that. Touching back on the gypsy and traveller and residential caravan needs and other elements of the policy, there were concerns about those of gypsies and travellers providing an effective assessment of that need and a comment from one developer about trying to questioning whether it's realistic to provide sites as part of major developments. There are other comments about neighbourhood plans and residential mooring policy elements too. Thanks Kieran. So moving on to the development strategy just to take you through that before kicking off your discussion, in terms of what the first proposals plan said about translating the needs into provision, the councils included in the first proposals that are roughly a 10% housing buffer on top of the housing need to provide flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances and also in terms of employment provided a significant employment supply to provide that flexibility. You can see in terms of the diagrams below that a good number of the sites were already in commitment, so on the left the orange sites are already because of commitments and there was 19 new sites identified which are the purple ones you can see on the left and you can see the largest housing allocations on the diagram on the right. Next slide please. So in terms of comments on the strategy it's very difficult clearly to do just to the full range of comments provided. We tried to group the appendix into topics including kind of overarching strategy references to the kind of sub regional regional planning, spatial directions for growth, economy, scale of development sites, water, transport and other infrastructure as well as the justification for the strategy. That's just to give you a flavour. Returning to water so a very significant point of sheet relating back to the contingent on the water supply, environment agency and Natural England stay to concern about whether the growth could be sustainable without causing further deterioration to the water environment and they together with the water companies expressed their intention to work with the councils to explore the issue further. Linking back to the comments on the jobs and homes there were a number of comments suggesting that we should reconsider our strategy in the light of COVID and that led through into comments on the kind of less less space required for employment and changing commuting patterns. In terms of the overarching development strategy which just to kind of recap was a climate focus strategy trying to focus development in locations that reduced the need to travel and in locations with existing and committed transport links. There was wide-ranging in-principle supports for the strategy which included a significant amount of in-principle support from developers and land owners albeit I think it's clear from the comments that you can see that their in-principle support didn't necessarily translate through to full support for the sites included in the plan. A large kind of the single largest representation made on a kind of specific and grouped issue was about from the Friends of the River Cam letter which you can see objected on a range of issues but maybe as the headline inadequate water supply and around a hundred individuals put their name to that letter also to support it. Next slide please. Another kind of issue which a very very large number of land owners and developers made was that the strategy in the first proposals relied too much on large sites including urban extensions and new settlements challenging that that was a risk to the delivery of housing in the plan and proposed that a greater number of smaller sites including particularly at villages should be included and as you maybe might expect a lot of those representations also supported specific sites and in relation to strategic sites those representations also raised a concern about our assumption about accelerated delivery sites that we made at the committed strategic sites of North Stowe, Water Beach. East West Rail was clearly a big issue in the plan and there was a limited number of comments expressing concern at reliance of the plan on that project or and or potentially objection to the project itself and there was more broadly again a limited number of comments questioning whether the transport infrastructure other infrastructure could cope with the level of development proposed. I won't touch on specific sites because that'll be in the next section but a number of comments were attributed to the strategy which were focused on specific sites but in terms of the broad locations in the plan there was a limited number of comments suggesting that more development should be put in the rural southern cluster to rebalance the previous distribution of development in terms of most development or housing development going in the north and the west and to connect up to the jobs in the southern cluster. There was a mixed response to densification of Cambridge urban areas abroad location including support from a kind of climate perspective but concern equally the quality of life and character of Cambridge as a broad location. Again a mixed response to the edge of Cambridge including in the Greenbelt there was support from promoters for specific releases affected parish councils such as Tevesham were concerned to seek greater separation between those new developments and their villages surrounding Cambridge and I guess conversely to the point about that developers might have made at the top of the slide about proposing a number of smaller sites in the villages there was support in the main from individuals and parish councils for the limited amount of rural development proposed in the plan. Thanks Kieran I think that takes on to the next part and then just to touch briefly so also in the strategy where the settlement hierarchy and settlement boundary policies settlement hierarchy policy grouped or categorized every village and town and even Cambridge in the plan to then identify what might be suitable as a windfall development as in an unallocated development coming forward at the location and the settlement boundaries policy stated the intention that every settlement would have a defined boundary which would then inform what would be allowable within this development boundary with the outside of the development boundary being within the rural area. Next slide please. And so there was broad support for the settlement hierarchy approach with mixed views on a number of different points and from particularly from developers questioning the approach and suggesting a different approach for the settlement boundary policies maybe as you might expect again so parish councils and individuals supported the general approach and principle and developers were seeking greater flexibility or suggesting to take a different approach. Thanks Kieran. So just to touch very briefly on the next steps for the policies we've just taken you through in terms of the overall strategy we're reviewing the needs for jobs and homes to take into account latest data including covid the project to identify the needs for residential caravan sites gypsum traveler sites traveling show people sites and residential moorings will complete ahead of the draft plan to inform that we are updating our information and evidence on housing delivery to assess the impacts of that and clearly on water the water companies are producing their draft water resource management plans very soon and will be reviewing the implications of that to inform the future strategy alongside for draft plan to understand in greater detail the infrastructure needed to support the plan and then in terms of the last two policies is just referred to clearly in terms of the representations that may lead to a need to revise the settlement hierarchy study and we will be drawing settlement boundaries ahead of the draft plan for consultation. I think that takes you through that section so it's over to you for discussion. All right thank you for that Stuart that's quite a lot of information that you have summarized very well I must say. I found it quite interesting actually reading some of the comments you know talking about the housing delivery and also I think the view where some are saying yes you've got enough housing and some are saying no you've got too many but let me bring in Councillor Thumbrakh whose hand goes off first and I will ask my questions afterwards. So I know we we talked a lot about the concerns about over abstraction and environmental harm and we're waiting for the Water Resources East draft management plan but we also talk about unacceptable environmental harm but we haven't actually said what is what level of environmental harm is acceptable and what is not acceptable and I don't know whether I know that there are different categories of environmental protection and the ones that are the most effective are the EU directives on environmental protection so for example Wiccan Fenn has the highest level of environmental protection but the talk streams in themselves are mainly city wildlife sites or county wildlife sites which is at it's actually low levels of protection but we do know that the feature of themselves as talk streams is really unique in this kind of running from you know from here down to the south coast and also in France so it's and I think that's it so it's a very you that it's a very unique geological formation but it that in itself doesn't provide environmental protection so when we kind of have an idea about what we what we want and what we don't want but how are we going to make a judgment on that thank you thank you Katie. Can I just ask if anyone any of the members of the group have a question to do with the water issue for I ask um Stuart or Caroline to comment I think one one one thing that oh Simon Councillor Smith. Yes thank you I um I think that the question of future water supply has got to the point where it is the most significant risk to the to the plan mm-hmm and it appears that the proposed investments that the water companies are proposing will will will take a long time to come and there's a pun on the stream and Katie recently told me that once a reservoir is completed it'll take two years to fill and that's with the plug-in and both taps on and that might be as late as 2037 now we we are a bit powerless in in this respect and the thing that this raises the need for a wider look at how infrastructure all the required infrastructure is planned and coordinated but water is the top of the list but we'll come on to that infrastructure planning and coordination issue later if we may. Okay uh thank you Simon I will exercise my chair person's uh right to hold on unsloppy feelings very briefly please. Thank you very much chair and through you it was actually very much along the lines of Councillor Smith has just said and I think it was about the contingency planning what's not clear here is what happens if not and therefore what are the actions so that that can be taken in time and and if what you're saying is that therefore comes in the the section around infrastructure um then then fine but I think it links back to um Councillor Sornborough's thing is you know how much environmental harm well I think this the the integrated water management study said there is we cannot do any further housing development without causing harm and so I would understand therefore that that's what set the line already which is really it means we're in a really really difficult situation aren't we so it what I don't see is the what if that that's just what I don't I don't see in terms of the contingency planning counsellor um Dr Hawkins it would just be you know where that is dealt with. Okay um I will ask either Caroline or Stuart to answer that what before you do I think I just want to make a comment here bear it in mind that the plan we have now is looking to build a total of 44 and a half thousand homes between 2021 and 2041 of which that seven and a half thousand already are in the current adopted local plans I have the feeling that both the water authorities and environmental industry already knew what was being planned with the last plan and approved it this local plan is looking to add what just over 11 000 to what was already in the existing plans so it does beg the question did they really look at it back then can just to come back in so we have the issue of the automatic right to connect so that means it's obligation upon the water companies to say that they have the water whether they do or not so therefore yeah we have yeah but it doesn't take away the responsibility yeah of what was approved with the last local plan which they saw anyway over to Caroline I think John Dixon's going to make a start and we'll we'll see where we get to from from there thank you thank you I think it's fair to say this is one of as we said consistently from the from the first stage of the plan this is one of the most challenging and you know difficult issues that the plan needs to look at we do though still need to understand the outcome of the water planning process as we've said we are not the water planning authority exactly the draft water resource management plans which are those of the individual water companies which are almost alongside the the regional plans coming are due to be published in draft in the coming month or so so we will need to look up what the impact of that is and that will bring in a lot more information such as not only the reductions that the environment agency are looking to secure but also the water companies response to that in terms of their efficiency measures metering they're looking at joining up with others will supply how they relate to these major infrastructure proposals that come on board so we will very much need to look at what that plan is saying in terms of its implications for the local plan growth so to extend I think we need to meet to wait the outcome of that process because there is a lot of issues to look at and we will need to make those right those judgments regarding what environmental impact are acceptable and so when we have the benefit of that information so that's that's still to come I think just picking up on what Councillor Thornbrough said there are different issues yes because the Wiccan Fenn is one of the European protected sites and that brings a slightly different process in play along the habitat regulations but clearly we still need to understand the outcome of water planning on those very important chalk streams to the south bus as well so that probably feels like a slightly putting it off slightly response but I hope you get the information in the coming months which will enable us to make those decisions effectively with you as we move forward in the process thank you for that John I think one of the things I actually read in the documentation was I think it was hanged there water talking about potentially signing an agreement of some sort under the duty to cooperate I'm aware that was now it's further around page 120 I think and they support the objectives of the plan and they want to work with us but they propose a statement of common ground approach to be taken as part of the duty to cooperate would I read that correctly yeah so what we've normally do with duty to cooperate boys and and major infrastructure providers is to try and come up with a clear position where we understand the position that we show we've explored with these providers that home structures going to be delivered to meet needs for example I mean we've done this before on wastewater for example where we work to demonstrate that you know there is a clear method for example of serving wastewater on a site and that will come forward and there's commitment from the bodies involved so I think they're highlighting a desire to work with us and hopefully the water companies and WRE can continue to engage in our integrated water management strategy because we very much need their input and information and understanding to be able to have an effective effort in space okay thank you Jonathan uh councillor Tim Big please yeah I I welcome the fact that um that we're maintaining this priority of water dependency in the view we're taking of the future local plan um and like um councillor Smith I think I'm kind of impatient for us to sort of substantiate our judgments on this because um apart from the fact that saying there's a water dependency um I'm not quite sure how that we know how we're going to express a judgment about about changes in water infrastructure when we know what it what they are um I there seems to be a lack of granularity in in what we're actually saying in relation to our development development numbers and I'm kind of quite key that we should get to that and the other um the question I have is that that I'm it's clear that we have got an idea um of the priority of water dependency in in our plan as a plan we would submit um where does that sit in relation to um an inspector evaluating our plan um or is that something that is only an hour in our minds um I wonder if someone could shed some light on that so the European directors that Councillor Thornbrough mentioned and Jonathan alluded to too aren't those going to be scrapped by government soon good question who knows well I thought that was the case I thought by December 2023 they will be gone there was a news report today that the new prime minister has done a u-turn on that but I haven't seen official confirmation uh can you come in one at a time please um right uh Councillor Bick is that uh that's uh kind from your previous question thank you Councillor Shailor um to give me if I'm wrong but I had the impression that the abstraction extraction of water from the aquifer is unsustainable now and and so the need for more water resources is already urgent even if we don't do any development so that will have to happen anyway in the meantime I want to know if if this is actually a showstopper or not there are plenty of parts of the world where water is trucked in where there is you know water rationing there are different ways of doing things which we may come to if we have more summers like this one anyway so um are we getting the the kind of cart before the horse and saying that well if it's not that water and then we're all going to run out of water anyway so is that really a showstopper um I will ask Caroline who wants to answer that I think uh for me it still comes back to this issue of we already have adopted local plans which the water authorities were supposed to be providing water for and it is their responsibility frankly um but I'll hand over to Caroline and the team to give us some comments back well I'll start and then I think hand over to to John on some on some more of the detail there um I mean you know members are are absolutely right this is a really significant issue for the local plan we were very clear about that that potential in the first proposals we went as far as explaining what we may need to do what steps we may need to take if we concluded that there was not adequate water supply to deliver on our objectively assessed needs which includes a range of considerations such as a stepped housing trajectory that takes account of the dates at which increases in water supply may come forwards um recognising yes the reservoir is some considerable way of towards the latter part of the plan period um but we really need to see what the water company's management plans say about what they may be able to do in the interim not only the efficiency measures but also things like piping water from other parts of the country which you know we know is something they're exploring but until we see and have that the information from the water management plans and our consultants have worked out what that means against our planned housing trajectory both for our existing supply as well as our our new supply you know I I share your your um uh Councillor Lubick you know you'll you'll decide to get to an answer really quickly but I think we really do need to see what those water management plans say what the environment agency says about them because you know ultimately the environment agency we know shares are concerned about the environmental impacts and therefore we need to know what they think of the water companies uh proposed plans to to to deal with the water supply issue um and once we have that information and we bring that back to members you know ultimately there'll be a decision for members about where what is our definition of unacceptable environmental harm does it chime with a view from the environment agency is it something different and what does that mean in terms of the whether we can meet our objective the assessed needs either in full or in part or what that means but right now we don't have that information on which to form a view so I think we just have to be patient a bit longer until we have that information um and then we can make an informed an informed view about that um as we said we you know they're due to be published sometime next month we think obviously we're committed to bringing a report to you in January uh we'll see how far we can get in understanding what those plans tell us by the time we you know bring that report to you but we'll absolutely be bringing an update to you uh and obviously that meeting is a stepping stone towards the draft local plan in uh that we're aiming to bring to you in the summer but there'll be an opportunity to discuss it hopefully with um some more um evidence um when we come to you in in January John do you want to say a bit more about kind of some of those other aspects and um particularly the point around the show stopper and so on well I was going to mention pick up first on uh council the big point about um inspectors and sat and and planning inquiries well I guess the issue here is that what we need to do is develop our evidence so that we can demonstrate um to a future inspector that our plan is sound and that will also depend on demonstrating that we properly considered environmental social and economic impacts in the round to come to the right decision so it will be about completing this uh integrated water management strategy to show we've fully considered the issues and then it will be about also weighing up those issues so very helpful in our essay we've got to weigh up the impact on delivery of housing or not delivering housing as well so we have to present that case in the round and make that decision and therefore having done that I would hope you could the councils could you know show the inspector they've made you know sound choices in their their plan making so um I hope that answers the question but yes I don't deny the challenges of the issue because it's you know it's an unusual one it's you know it's perhaps a growing impact of climate change across the country that perhaps we're not unique across the country there are water challenges um coming up in large parts of the country now so it could be the forefront again I guess uh we are the forefront because of um the source of our water supplies the aquifers which and we are you know a growing uh a very dynamic growing region um but we also still have to deliver in line with the local plan that we have so I guess in some ways we're called between a rock and a hard place and we just have to make sure that we um you know we we can get the information that we need and make decisions based on that we've talked a lot about water are there any other um issues that members want to talk about bearing in mind we are not the responsible authority for water but it does impact us but you know I'd like to have some more uh you know us talk a bit more about some of the other issues that um that have been raised sorry uh Council Fumbra you had your hands off earlier I I want I wanted to just finish off saying something about the water and to me I I completely agree with you and we've got our local plan but the the climate crisis has changed the what's happening and we need to recognize that and for me um when we talk about you know what is I think the river cam flowing through Cambridge and keeping it flowing is you know it's definitely one of my priorities and the last in 2019 in this last summer it really wasn't flowing they were it's basically without the locks we might have had the boat sitting on the back the bottom of a a dry river and that you know I would rather actually be saying what we feel is needs what we need to keep um as much as clearly as possible so that when um the management plan comes out that our expectations um are recognized but we I know the management plan is is very imminent now but thank you thank you um Council Big yeah I was responding to your um invitation to talk about the broad the broader issues apart from water and and I suppose the the importance here is that whilst we're putting all the priority we can on the water we also have to think through the other dynamics of this um properly as well so not to minimize the point about water but just to say let's for the moment assume that that somehow delts with and that we're looking at something that's free of the water issue um we've obviously got a lot of input which is telling us according to where it comes from broadly um we're either proposing too much or too little which I suppose we could have um predicted before um one of the recurrent points um that seems to be made in a lot of the inputs uh as references to the new census and I'm just wondering whether I I can't work out myself what bearing that would have on it and we obviously have the first release from the census one of the officers can help us kind of identify anything significant that is attached to that um and I um yeah we are talking here about um balancing opinions around forecasts um and a forecast is only a forecast um as as um people say but um what what what seems to matter in deciding where you're going to land amidst the range of forecasts is is what the risks are of doing too much and what the risks are of doing too little and um and I I just wonder whether there's a point at which we can have a an informed discussion about that because I think that um if you only if you only listen to the people who want something because they want it then I'm not sure that it necessarily helps you to to land in the right place because the the cogency of what's being said is is perhaps more important than the fact that there's a sort of balance of people saying it okay thank you very much um thank you chair uh so just on housing delivery I I appreciate the point that's being made about apparent over dependence on a few large strategic sites and elsewhere that's been sufficient to kill a local plan but uh what needs to be taken into account is the existing stock of allocated sites and and consents and I but I think it will be very helpful to uh have an analysis of the trajectory to demonstrate that we won't be overly dependent on large-scale strategic sites during the plan period and if so it will be very much towards the end of the plan period um by which time we'll have another plan so I think in order to say make that point but I but I do agree with the point about the dependency on accelerated delivery on some of the existing large-scale sites I think that is a that that one is very difficult to argue against in either for or against because housing delivery is subject to cyclical uh more just economic cycles and we're going through one right now with the bottom of the cycle uh and I don't expect I expect to see house building slow quite quite considerably uh over over the next over the next few months but over a plan period obviously we can it'll it'll it'll level not all levels out but then this raises the question of housing tenure and under the current planning policies this the the the city city plan we negotiate 40 percent affordable dwellings mixed between social and affordable and the affordable includes mixed tenure and and different types of tenure products but because the demand is for one and two bedrooms uh apartments what's happening is is that the floor space is considerably less than 40 percent of the of the total floor space so the question arises is should we really be negotiating for 40 not of the dwellings but of the of the floor space because under the current arrangements we are simply not meeting the needs the housing needs of people who cannot afford to buy in the market which is essentially geared to serve people with either high incomes or existing equity in housing or dependency on the bank of mum and dad and so that is a question I think we need to explore in other detail I think the other big ticket infrastructure issue that concerns me is the one about the electrification for heating and transport if we're going to meet our zero carbon targets this is an essential precondition and it my understanding is it will require a three fold increase in current supply and that in turn requires substantial grid grid reinforcements um so I and I think the other point and certainly this is learned experience from the new housing developments in my ward and I guess this is replicated right across well across the whole of the grade to Cambridge area is the lag between the supporting infrastructure for new communities and the completions of the houses and the the housing developers are really good at but through come have all high water they can get houses built all through covid and so on and so forth and somehow managed to carry on completing development but what doesn't happen is that they're somehow finally difficult to bring forward the delivery of the the schools and the health facilities basically all those things that don't turn a profit for them and I think this is not the best way this is not good place making and I think we need to be much clearer about our expectations for advanced infrastructure and this is going to obviously going to require coordination with all the other public services too otherwise we're just building places that just talk anywhere else in the country and people will not or existing communities will be disenchanted with this growth agenda because they're seeing they're bearing a price because they can't get appointments at their GP because there isn't a new GP surgery being made being made uh available and then one uh item which uh we need to pay close attention to is the provision of future layoff space for buses uh now we currently have two depots one at Cowley Road which has a hundred hundred and thirty places and one at just outside Fenton which has 70 but the ambition is to double the number of buses to about 400 and Cowley Road is the subject of site is the subject of uh a requirement for relocation of that depot so essentially we're looking for we're mainly looking for a depot they were 330 spaces subject to the detailed studies and analysis so they obviously need to be carried out but big picture we need those 330 spaces so there's nowhere in the city to do that and then we've got the green belt just exactly where all those buses going to be now the area action plan was talking about bringing that forward in 2031 but GCP is talking about uh ramping up bus services from 2026 and I think having it fall on by 2028 or is it 2027 the council bit will correct me uh on that on that point but nevertheless the substantive matter is is that we need to start looking about about how we're going to cope with that uh piece of infrastructure so otherwise all the other uh investment from sustainable infrastructure is lined up it's just these supply side elements of it that now need to be given some thought and urgent action thank you councillor Smith that's uh quite a fair bit of points you've made there but uh nonetheless uh important points interesting your point about one and two beds leading to less than 40 percent of um you know housing space uh interesting to hear what uh perhaps Caroline or John might have to say on that uh I'm going to need to move us on very quickly but before I do that and you know we come back to the uh potential answers can I call on councillor Shayla please thank you just we have we have a lot to talk about and this leads on nicely from what um Simon was talking about the feedback from the existing communities and they're usually looking at that they're looking at what they're going to lose so it's it's quite um you know skewed towards the negative kind of comments where whereas I like to see the development developments have the potential to improve things you know and you know given that water is already um non-sustainable where the development itself will bring something that's more sustainable but also improvements in passenger transport and active transport and improvements in biodiversity so you know these sort of things are improvements for the existing communities as well and and I don't see very much emphasis put on that I'd like to see more emphasis put on you know what we all gain from development as well as you know what we lose okay um thank you and last but not least councillor Haylings thanks very much I'll just put in the the chat now but I think the utility infrastructure constraints that have been mentioned um you know um and I think just going back to me that you know I want to but in terms of whether or not we're the only place that's facing water constraints given climate change kind of impact advances were not and we've just seen um 16 councils that have had a stop on all planning and development because of um neutrality nutrient neutrality and we're just doing through the LGA policy inquiry on the impacts on planning for both water neutrality and nutrient neutrality as both and there are about 74 councils that at the moment at the edge of having a stop on planning and development because of these two so I'll put the link into there for the LGA doing that policy inquiry so it's not just us this is across the country with those different councils so it's saying how that needs to be integrated into our local plan development the gridlock in terms of the um just to support Simon in terms of you know how on earth we can sort of unlock that those grid constraints to the local plan development is key the new point um thing that I'd like to raise is when we're looking at the new allocations that are coming in around the strategic towns if we take the example of Camborn currently as you know we're dealing with issues of access in an area town that was designed for one way is now growing in different patches around it and we have a really deep rooted issue about the road access you know between these new these new areas and this is sort of my concern around the um placemaking is how we are making these um add-ons permeable in terms of both public transport and car use where necessary in a way that you know a developer looking at a particular area it would only be looking at that particular area not necessarily how it links into everything else whose responsibility is it when it's an add-on allocation to another area around that and how are we planning for it especially given the changes that are proposed to be coming in from the section 106 to the sill that's another that's another but we have to plan for that otherwise we're not placemaking I suppose yeah yeah okay thank you Caroline can I bring you in please and your team comment on the points that have been made thank you I'll make a start and I'm sure others will will come in because there was a there's a lot made in in the last comment I suppose just one reflection for me actually is that here today I think it's important to remember what we're talking about is the comments we've received from people and whilst we've given you a very quick reminder of what the first proposals actually said that's that you know that's not been the focus of the discussion or our presentation today we've been focusing on what people have said in response to that consultation so absolutely we are very mindful that placemaking creating good place well it's one of our themes isn't it creating good places is absolutely at at the heart of our ambitions for for the new plan and how some of these big developments that come forward actually bring some benefits for existing communities so very very mindful of that and I suppose what I would say is a number of those issues I think we will given time tonight may be best to sort of park and think about when we come to some future issues like when we talk about homes in the next meeting Councillor Smith your point around affordable housing and the impact of smaller homes is an interesting one we can perhaps explore at the homes advisory group meeting and a lot of those infrastructure issues including transport and electrification and some of those other issues which I suggest we pick up and we get to the infrastructure theme meeting I think because we're talking strategy today it's raising lots of thoughts in our mind isn't it because strategy is so all-encompassing it it kind of triggers thoughts about everything trying to pick up just one or two specific points I'm going to ask Stuart just to say a little bit around particularly the question that Councillor bit was raising about the new census and and and how should we be dealing with that because we have commissioned an update to our our evidence on on jobs and homes that we will bring to you in due course but we can say a little bit about just in very broad terms the fact that we are talking around census and how should we take account of of that in fact Stuart may think I've probably dressed it enough for this evening because you know that that's something our consultants are are looking at um I think it's not just um it's not just a census is it it's the post you know post covid situation as well yeah yes it's the impact of covid what what and what but what we're also seeing both in terms of the impact that's had on the range of employment uses that we have in this area I think covid has probably had a different impact on different sectors in in in this area and that's what we we need to make sure that our evidence is is is understanding um and that's you know very much being the brief to our consultants so we we will be able to update you on that in in due course um in terms of the housing delivery and what proportion of our commitments uh and forecasts are small sites that's absolutely something we can look at and bring bring back to maybe the homes meeting next time because I think that is an an interesting point whilst the focus of our new allocations are more on larger sites obviously there are a number of smaller sites already allocated as well as um we are proposing a number of uh new smaller ones too um I think I've hopefully sort of mentioned the other points that councillors Smith made those things to pick up in future meetings recognizing that they're all you know very important issues for us to think about um and permeability of um yeah absolutely I mean we we're really mindful that in our new developments um actually how they can be effectively well effectively served by public transport is really important so places like Cambridge East where we're saying that can only come forward with uh the second phase of the Greater Cambridge Partnerships Eastern Access schemes it has to have that you know that dedicated public transport facility to serve it um and uh how how these places knit into the existing communities and Camborn is a really important one around that um you know perhaps even more than places like Cambridge East so we're very mindful about the importance of seeing how these places connect into our existing communities um and hopefully do bring benefits to those communities as as they come forward I hope actually I may have covered off most of those points if I've missed anything please prompt me but I'm also conscious of time as well I think yes I think I think you have you have touched on most of it Stuart do you want to comment quickly and then we can move on to the next on the site overview please I think I mean I'll probably say that Caroline's covered it in overview um so I probably suggest move on okay all right let's move on to the next one then thank you okay thank you Karen so we're now going to move on and talk about um the sites uh that we have proposed in the first proposals and the comments we've received on those uh we structure the first proposals you may recall around different ruled locations uh and that's how we're going to structure the conversation uh this evening so uh I'll talk first around the Cambridge urban area the sites and I'll run on to that in a moment um and then Karen will talk you through the edge of Cambridge sites comments that we've received and then John and Jenny will do a double act on the new settlements and the rural area and we'll stop after each we'll stop after the urban area for discussion we'll stop after the edge of Cambridge for discussion and I think we're suggesting wrapping the rest in one uh and um uh to hopefully speed speed up the conversation for the rest of the evening so I'm well and then the next slide thank you Karen and then just briefly the next steps will be reviewing the representations uh to see whether or not we think the sites that were proposed in the first proposals remain the most suitable and suitable uh sites for allocation subject to all those issues we've just been talking around around water and all the rest of it uh reviewing so we've had some some further information on some of the sites that we examined through the housing employment land availability assessment and we've had a number of new sites around 40 from memory new sites put to us as well so those are all being updated in the healer uh we are commissioning or undertaking some further evidence uh to um help inform some of those um draft allocations to make sure we have a a fulsome understanding of their constraints and capacity be that flood risk or transport or landscape or or or or anything else um and in some cases engaging with site promoters to make sure we understand uh particular issues that have been raised as often they are well placed to help uh answer some of those queries so moving on then to look at the Cambridge urban area this is a reminder of the proposals for for Cambridge uh the main proposal was for the northeast Cambridge area um and that very much drew on the proposals in the northeast Cambridge area reaction plan that members agreed uh the proposed submission draft of in January clearly we will still need to look at the comments that people have made through this consultation um uh and confirm if uh our current views the view that the decision that members take took is still soundly based um we'll come back to west Cambridge when we talk about the edge of Cambridge because we looked at it uh together with the northwest Cambridge Eddington site uh and there were a number of um either existing or proposed allocations areas of major change and um opportunity areas within within Cambridge including one or two new ones around the Beehive Centre uh around Newmarket Road and um around the Castle uh Castle Hill Shire Hall area so issues arising looking first at northeast Cambridge where clearly you know received a number of comments on this um a lot of the comments we received were objecting to the development and the policy approach particularly focusing on reliance of the relocation of the water treatment plant to uh to Greenbelt land um clearly members were aware of a lot of those local concerns at the time that the area action plan was considered um in in January uh there were comments made around concern for demolition of an operational sewage plant um an impact on Honey Hill uh concern about the deliverability of homes in the plan period the 4 000 homes uh given the dependency on the successful DCO um members will recall that you know the we're very clear that the plan is dependent on a number of things including the relocation of the water treatment plant uh other objections picked up on things or great raised issues around lack of green space mean open space provision concern for over reliance on existing provision such as at Milton Country Park and Wiccan Fen uh unprecedented a high density and heights in the Cambridge context um respondents that raised those issues included some parish councils the sexual organisations and some developers there was some support for delivery of a sustainable regeneration in in a sustainable location here that has good accessibility support from Historic England from Gombel and Keyes College and the water some parish councils and and developers uh also suggestions that the policy should be reconsidered some comments suggesting Cambridge is an appropriate alternative site for development um obviously you'll recall that both sites are included in the first proposals um and uh the quick questions that we had alongside the consultation on the full first proposals um raised similar concerns or for um impact on the environment and and Greenbelt due to relocation of the water treatment plant some comments thought development should be at a lower density affordable homes to accommodate families uh other supported the need for provision of retail and leisure facilities close to the new community that the local community without having to travel elsewhere so uh a mix of comments around northeast Cambridge and then looking at comments on the other um uh site an area of proposals within the urban area uh general support before the approach uh approach towards the areas of major change uh there was also a specific suggestion from uh Department for Education to include opportunities for education uses within those areas major change um there was a mixed response to the proposal to not take forward the southern fringe area of change which we were proposing not to take forward because it's substantially complete now uh and policy 21 the station areas and uh also the area around Clifton Road and and the Grafton area Fitzroy-Burley Street area and south of Codams Lane some general support there um and with comments from Historic England to ensure that we have historic heritage impact assessments to make sure that the policies as we bring them forward um uh properly take account of any impacts on heritage uh the same point point actually from Historic England on the opportunity areas again advocating heritage impact assessments which is something we are very much planning on on doing um and then general support for the approach to other site allocations in Cambridge to ones that were being carried forward generally speaking um general support for the rejection of um some new site proposals and and uh the allocation of some sites where we no longer feel we have evidence of of deliverability um also concerns from the Wildlife Trust about carrying forward proposed proposals for employment on the south of Codams Lane on a city wildlife site um and some landowners were seeking some amendments to some of the carried forward allocations so that's a quick canter through the representations made on the Cambridge urban area and we'll pause now for members to discuss any issues they'd like to about that thank you very much Caroline uh members over to you that's the thumb brook yeah thank thank you Caroline I think it's um very very good summary of um all is all of the things that were generally said I know that um there's some also some very specific um points about opportunity areas where we have some protected open space within opportunity areas and I think the residents were wanted um priority that these protected open spaces were it may be an opportunity to improve the open space rather than be a potential site for development but um there's a there's a lot of interest in the sites that have come forward within the city so I think there there will be public interest in the final uh we've lost you we've lost you Katie I finished okay sorry we lost you there for a bit oh oh I was saying that I think the I think the residents are aware that there are some additional sites have been submitted and and there there is public interest in those there is there's some concerns have been voiced to me about some some other sites so uh it'd be interesting to see what the final healer assessments are okay anyone else with any further comments on the Cambridge urban area well that's the Smith I mean all all I would say is that these sites present opportunities for positive place making and we've got a fantastic urban design team that's capable of preparing design codes and detailed guidance for development so I'd like to see the share planning service being proactive and creating and setting the framework for for development rather than just responding to speculative developers proposals for these sites we do have a good team that does that actually so yes yeah I mean that will come with the details of course okay um in the absence of any further comments at this point can I um Chancellor Harvey have a minute yes just to make the point that we have to be quite careful to um monitor the um embedded carbon costs of the relocation of the water treatment plant and would that be quite difficult to do because of the multiple sort of phases through which that development will have to pass but um I think it's important to um to sort of keep an eye on that thank you for that um yes I'm sure Caroline will um confirm that that's something that we will be uh looking to do as part of the assessments that we need to look at unless I'm wrong Caroline so the way that the councils will pick that up through the local plan is through the sustainability appraisal and looking at the in combination effects they're called with other plans and projects obviously the DCO itself will be looking very closely at the impacts of the proposed relocation including the carbon impacts of that proposed relocation so they are dealt with in both those processes in the ways that are appropriate to those respective separate processes okay uh thank you very much shall we move on to the next item then which I think is the edge of Cambridge all right there we go hi good evening um so yeah I'm talking through the as Karen speaking we talked through the um the edge of Cambridge site so I guess that the big the important thing to say to kind of kick off with is that um Cambridge east and um CBC so the extension of the um CBC campus so the the kind of big new allocations as part of this local plan and then the other things that fall under this this policy we've got the west Cambridge um northwest Cambridge so Eddington and their their previous allocations from the previous local plan um so moving on in terms of representations that we received so for Cambridge east um we yeah received and the maps show it on the right where they are um so supportive responses um from residents and uh developers and third sex organisations who expressed a desire for mixed use development uh climate friendly homes um affordable housing and sustainable transport links and then it's kind of been touched upon here it's often saw um a desire for kind of the new development to be built around 15 minute city ideas so dense city um to reduce carbon impacts and then there were concerns expressed from um a number of organisations as parish councils and third sector organisations about the potential impact upon congestion infrastructure landscape so lots of jobs that's referencing you know the removal of the airport um to a different site and the potential exclusion of citizens who do not use public transport because um the the perception was that the policy was based a lot about um you know sustainable transport and public transport is fitting under this strategy um so then we went to SCBC and the the Cambridge biomedical campus so several respondents supported the proposal noting that it reflected Cambridge's um strengths um the emphasis upon um high tech um by by medicine and um some responded respondents were supportive but they kind of nuanced their their support feeling that the targets were too restrictive um and actually wanted it to go further than we set out in the policy and um quite a few other responses from um citizens and kind of local resident groups um hoping that this this new development would offer an opportunity to include permeability in the campus and that would be a new master plan to improve traffic flows um and you know things like amenities and I think shops were mentioned on the campus as well some respondents questioned the need to expand the campus um after COVID-19 um you know the questioning whether the employment numbers were needed and then others were also objected to um concerns about sustainability, flooding and the potential impact of the development upon local bird life so that came from a lot of local sits and groups and resident groups and there was also one other um representation I'd add which um thought this this proposal offered opportunity to rebalance the um the kind of research and hospital um balance of development on on the site so then moving on to the other existing allocations I'm conscious of time so um I'll try and be quick uh so Northwest Cambridge at Eddington there were the the concerns about potential generation of additional infrastructure needs um so that came from a variety of citizen groups and third sector organizations so the respondents were concerned about whether the site could accommodate additional housing and potential impacts on pollution immunity etc and then the University of Cambridge owners of the site supported the allocation of additional housing the provision of affordable housing but um disagreed upon the single site approach suggesting the policy so moving on to West Cambridge so again University of Cambridge as landowners you know the representation is very very um yeah you know very important to read support as they all are um they supported the continued development of the site as an innovation district but um didn't think the policy should include residential development which was different to the policy we set out um and other respondents focused upon the need to provide good transport links and sensitive consideration of the historical environment so that came from so I recommend that particular concern um and moving on to S slash EOC so this was a kind of a bit of agglomeration of all the different other allocations that fall under the edge of Cambridge policy grouping um so parish council so there was a variety of like different single sites so parish councils outlined um need to prevent urban sprawl and then besides how new developments must be sensitive to the landscape national environment a number of site promoters argued that existing allocations should be reviewed and um not automatically carried forward so they're asking for the incorporation of different sites more um in their views more sustainable villages for for for more growth and then there were also a number of kind of very specific comments about um specific sites relating to drainage loss of green space and access and you could see them through specific sites of style and green and the bell school amongst others leads to the discussion okay thanks thanks Karen um members over to you I think it was interesting um the comment about uh the potential um expansion of Eddington and the fact that it might lead to additional requirements for infrastructure um I'd love to hear some think back on that at some point um but shall I call first uh councillor Thunbro please my understanding and one thing about Eddington is it's going to be uh the some of the increased number is going to be through increased density um and I'd like to learn more about that but there's also my understanding is that in the current Eddington the the affordable homes is uh homes for university but people connected with the university and I'm very interested in affordable homes under defined under the housing strategy for the increased density because this is a this is a completely new this would be a new allocation and we know that we need we want homes for the whole all of our residents and I think that's what should be included not specifically under the the previous definition of more or less key workers is I think we feel that this needs to be affordable homes as defined under the housing strategy thanks will that not then require a revision of the you know is it the election plan that goes with it or whatever it is that we had at the time but I'm sure um Caroline and Tim can answer that Council Southwood yes thank you the term sustainable village was used in the last slide and I've seen that in other um parts of the appendix the criteria for sustainability are actually being defined somewhere that we can actually check it off uh a question uh Council Southwood can't hear you on the on the question of Eddington the university wants to change the the fundamental terms of the area action plan anyway so through through and through are there ambition for intensification so it's so everything's back on the table so that that's that's that's that's my view on that one okay um Caroline is that something that you can comment on please I think John's going to take this one okay so clearly the site the land was released from the green belt to meet university's needs and what we've asked for from the university is for an update on their housing so we'll have to weigh that in the balance when we make any decisions uh on this site um they are looking at density so they're apart obviously they're building out this overall master plan for the site that was uh prepared a number of years ago and they'll be considering how that um build up the sites they're done is carries on across the whole site so I believe part of the answer will be that you know the master plans have all since it started anyway it'll be reflecting some of those changes in um a further look at the rest of the site but we'll be looking to bring you further information um as we move forward on the issues in terms of infrastructure clearly if you increase the number of homes on the site we do need to understand what implications there are for wider infrastructure and what else needs our investment to go with these um so uh all very uh live issues and useful feedback of issues that are of interest to you for us to make sure we look into thank you John I think I read something one of the comments that came back as well probably on another um strategic side was updating the area action plan I remember which one it is it probably come back to me uh I suspect it was not still but there we go um obviously these these were things that were said back in in place you know I don't know 10 14 years ago and of course needs and the way that things have been built now it's it's changing from what it was back then so maybe it's an opportunity to perhaps update those so very much the update of the local the new local plan has to be very clear what impact it has on the adopted area action plans so when the 2018 local plans for each area were adopted they reached the view that at that point the area action plan should be carried forwards because they were still providing a use the the overall suite of policies was still providing a useful context for determining planning applications be they are outlined or reserve matter stage obviously we'll need to consider on a on a plan by plan basis uh whether that continues to be the case for the when we with the new local plan uh particularly as you say with the increasing environmental standards that we're looking for in you know in in the new plan uh and and so on so um for example with the Cambridge East area action plan last time we carried it forward so it's still part of the development plan but the allocation policy was updated by the safeguarded land policy that's in the 2018 plan so it's possible to retain parts of plans if they're helpful um uh but supersede specific policies if they're uh updated clearly you may get to a point where they're so little of the original plan that's useful you try to cover that off in your policy in the in the new plan and we will have to reach that on a site by site basis uh reach that judgment as we as we move forward i i would say i don't think we've explicitly reached a a view to recommend to you on each of those at this point but we will clearly need to do that before we bring a draft plan okay thank you very much for that clarification Caroline um right do we have any further comments on the sites on the edge of Cambridge if not we can move on to the next set which is the new settlements the southern cluster and the rest of the rural area sorry it's gone back to the start i'll just uh get it's the right place as good as it was we don't need to go over it again i don't think we want to go back that far there we go that should be thank you Stuart uh here we go i think i'm picking up this one so um the first proposals um didn't propose additional development at North Stowe or Water Beach but it did uh reflecting our housing delivery study evidence identify that it was considered that the rate of delivery the annual rate i was considered capable of being relied on slightly higher than in the current plans uh where we did propose further development though was Campbell the first proposals acknowledged that uh east west rail uh what was um being promoted and suggesting a railway station at Campbell we didn't know where that railway station would be located or the specific timing at that time so uh Campbell was identified as a potential for future location for growth and the amount of growth was um included in the trajectory uh but not a specific site um the feedback on new settlements in some aspects was quite similar to some of that on the um delivery strategy where there were comments on uh the amount of development to rely on annually from those sites with many um particularly alternative site promoters seeking to argue it should be a lower rate therefore increasing the amount of development you might need uh elsewhere i think the key issue also was infrastructure with concerns about well if development is taking place uh faster making sure that infrastructure comes along alongside that growth to make sure needs are going to be met and some specific comments on places like north star was to make sure uh the water environment is properly looked at alongside development uh in water beach at that time uh the neighbour plan was still i think in preparation possibly or not as far as once it was so make sure that's taken to account and again making sure the transport infrastructure was properly considered uh for that development when it comes forward um born airfield and soft motor actually promoted potential for higher delivery rates in that location um there were some uh concerns about the current employment developers on that site making sure that uh development that came forward was compatible with uh those current uses and um cam born time council highlighting the importance of uh transport links um in terms of cam born um well quite a real mix of views really there was clear acknowledgement of the potential the east coast rail could provide for potentially uh supporting further growth and the opportunity to make cam born a more sustainable location think about the range of services that it could provide of course there was also concerns about um perhaps the level of growth the impact of growth on on character and over development tension so on and impact on landscape and biodiversity so a real range of views were expressed thank you and i'll hand over now um on the southern cluster thank you for taking that uh jenny over to you jenny um so in the uh first proposals the rural area is split into the rural southern cluster and then the rest of the rural area so to start with the rural southern cluster and we separated that off because the first proposal seeks to support uh the business cluster in that area by kind of focusing so in terms of the comments raised as you might cite the rotors that didn't have their sites put forward uh for allocation are kind of seeking further allocations in this area and there are others also that are suggesting that potentially around male born you could have a similar kind of cluster because there's transport links and employment in those areas so you could have another focus in that area um on in on the opposite to that you've got parish councils and individuals highlighting the need to ensure that villages are not subject to disproportionate amounts of development and concern for loss of farmland and countryside kind of the fear of urbanization of the rural area extra traffic a lack of water resources and the poor input structure so um yeah there was a mix of comments on whether our development strategy in this area was the right way to go in terms of the specific sites within this particular area the um on the genome campus their campaign to protect the protection of rural england object to the prince development in principle and parish councils highlight the need for food to be priced housing to support the range of jobs in terms of fabrum research campus the fabrum parish council opposed the removal from the green belt and there's quite a few comments from individuals expressing concern about the continued expansion of the site and its impact on the green belt and the environment and the character of the area uh Cambridge past present future suggests the need for compensatory improvements to the remaining green belt if you are doing something more in this in the campus area kind of affecting the green belt you should make improvements elsewhere um and the fabrum research campus themselves are seeking amendments to the site boundary that we included in the first proposals um you could kind of cover all the sites and we put forward individually would actually take you along to the kind of groups the comments there's um the majority of the comments are kind of to do with because there's quite a lot of this areas within the green belt there's kind of comments that we've been contrary to previous consultations where we have kept not put sites in this area because it was in the green belt um parish councils do support kind of some small-scale developments but only where there's suitable infrastructure and public transport and in terms of the majority of comments on the sites in this area the site at Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford um got the most comments and as Caroline mentioned right at the start about we found comments in other chapters that we're now moving to um we have found a comment from Stapleford Parish Council in the home chapter on this particular uh allocation so obviously at a later point we'll make sure that that comment gets kind of moved to be with all the other comments on that allocation but as you might imagine they're objecting to the development because of um impact on green belt and landscape etc and then there's some policy areas in this area which there was some specific comments on so moving on to the rest of the rural area um this is literally everything that's not within the rural southern cluster there are is some support from parish councils for the strategy um for kind of limiting growth in these areas whereas again site promoters are objecting to the small amount of growth imposed they're highlighting as the points why we should be doing something different being long-term viability of rural settlements um that we're counter to national planning policy of mixed and balanced communities um and that we're ignoring the need for local affordable housing by um not including enough by applications for housing we're not therefore going to deliver sufficient local affordable housing um there's also a suggestion from some site promoters that by providing additional growth in villages you would be supporting public transport in the rural areas and so you're kind of penalizing the rural areas by not giving additional growth and therefore they're never going to have the relevant public transport uh parish councils are kind of highlighted that neighbour plans should have great influence on our strategy that preservation of rural character and identity is important to them that development should be limited to what's needed to meet local needs there's a comment from the like development consultant for a garden centre that we should be recognizing garden centres as kind of things that are allowed to come forward in the rural area because they provide employment retail and leisure opportunities and they don't get a specific pension um in terms of allocations in the area then there's individual comments on the specific sites um and promoters of additional sites highlight the benefits of these kind of small and medium sized allocations as we've you've been touched on tonight about kind of how they can balance kind of against writing everything in a big strategic site in terms of delivery and then again there's some policy areas where the general support for the proposed areas from parish councils isn't that a quick trip round everything in the rural area thank you very much Jenny um there's a lot of information there actually um having gone through it myself um if i can just start there were some comments um that i noticed talking about um reviewing village boundaries and making village frameworks more flexible uh this this obviously was from developers anyway and and owners um on the other hand we had parish council commenting that yeah you know it's fine as it is and i'd want to preserve the the the character of villages well i think isn't this this is where we have a conflict really you know there's housing that's needed uh you know in some some of the rural villages because they want more young people to come in and live and you know all that and yet at the same time there's the opposition to having anything you know some villages are entirely in the green belt um and i know one or two that have indicated they wouldn't like something but then if we were to assign a site in the local plan of course that doesn't mean that it's all going to be affordable housing is it it's just going to be 40 percent so this is where i think we need to perhaps clarify that i would call them rural exception sites perhaps are the ones that you know maybe we need to uh encourage more of those to come forward so at least those are strictly speaking um you know affordable housing which can have some market housing to make it more viable isn't it the other thing i noticed which might have made me have a point on is where the issue of neighborhood plans again i think i read that some agents said you know it might restrict what could be done in certain uncertain sites or in certain villages so they see it as a negative taking a you know a point of well you know nimbyism you know people will create neighborhood plans that would restrict development on the other hand they were like no this is what we would like so it's that it was an interesting balance as i read it through going i can i can see where both uh you know sites are coming from but this this is i think the balance that we would need to um would need to uh work with one question i have um i think was on bon airfield it was the developer that suggested that they could increase the housing delivery per annum is that correct and they they provide any way of showing that they could do that because it was supposed to go from 150 to 190 i think they said they could do anything sorry sorry no please carry on we're doing further work on updating our housing delivery study and um one of the things we'll be doing is looking at the specifics of these representations uh in terms of whether um the issues they raise uh mean that we shouldn't be relying on such high rates the evidence certainly we've got so far in terms of the study itself and also uh colleagues like Jenny work very hard every year on the housing trajectory securing a really detailed level of information so um uh we we do um put a lot of work into demonstrating these uh sites out of liberal and can deliver the numbers and clearly you know making the most of the sites we've got and reflecting accurately their uh delivery is an important aspect to making sure you know we use those sites towards our numbers as we should you know should be doing and and i think it's perhaps worth just adding on bon airfield specifically we because of its proximity to camp on west we've taken a precautious precautionary approach in terms of whether though the proximity of those two sites to each other may suppress the overall amount of development that they might each deliver so we've taken a slightly cautious approach and an assumed um a maximum number of dwellings across both sites and it's gone out of my head precisely what that number is uh but but rather than take the maximum that you would assume from a strategic site normally we we we take it we sort of hell that's not to say that um there's any policy preventing them going faster and actually if we get evidence once they're both up and delivering that they can deliver higher numbers on an ongoing basis then that's something that Jenny would pick up in our annual housing trajectory because we're not we want to be realistic but at the same time we don't want to um overestimate the the the delivery on some of these sites if it might then come back to bite if it if we don't deliver on it so once we've got evidence then we'll be in a in a in a better position on on some of those sites where there is that proximity point okay um i have more but i will i will um call on Katie Thunbrook minute is um chair the your point about the rural exception sites and um and questioning how these could be supported was raised at the GCP um because they deal they do cover the uh economy and housing and so and it was raised there about how they could have more work could be done with planning in that respect um also i've just got a question about um i think the our priority is a truly sustainable development and we have got no no reliable public transport within the rural parts of Cambridge or greater Cambridge and that's what this at the moment this is this plan's based on but if the GCP proposal for this transformational public transport which would which it should benefit a lot in the future the the rural communities would um but that won't be did that i mean if it if it does come forward if um it would it wouldn't be it would start to be rolled out but we wouldn't really know for another five years if it's if it's going to continue um so i suppose it it's that's too late to be taken into consideration for this plan but it could be taken we would know the success or not for the next plan thanks thank you thank you for that comment um does anyone else have any further comments before i launch back into questions that i have okay um east west rail now i noticed they had uh the made east west rail company made it made comments on a popular sites one of them being Cambon um and the other being the site at high fields in Caldicor with the Cambon one uh just looking at the notes i made earlier there was a comment about uh potential conflict between the development proposed in our first proposals and the development that might occur from the national viewpoint of their proposal uh can you make a comment i can't remember which page it was now but that it seemed to me to be it's like we are being um forward looking in assigning you know potentially something there which we wouldn't know wait see until they make a decision and yeah they're saying that what they need to build might be in conflict with that how how do we resolve that and the other question the other comment they made on the site at high fields um was to request the policy is updated to ensure that development does not prejudice their preferred um route alignment which i thought was rather cheeky considering that came before their proposed alignment so over to you i'm just going to take that one i'll try and take that one okay that's a really tricky one um clearly um the consultation uh east west rail carried out was still at an early stage in their their process um i think at handborn in particular clearly you know we've been quite clear we haven't identified a site yet and we do need you know we've we've set the importance of understanding the relationship with the station location so i think on the face of it it's difficult to see how that's a conflict at all and clearly i think on the um other one at high fields as well i think that that trying to picture it is in the surround about other development as well so i think we'll have to look into the details of that but i can see that it is slightly challenging given the nature of the two projects trying to develop at the same time and we all need to very much understand where east west rail are coming from on this and hopefully eventually understand what their route plan um actually is that's a slightly vague answer because i think it's a difficult one to off the off the top of my head um answer other than we'll need to explore those issues with them uh thank you i think we certainly do need to do that um you know saying that it took conflict with their requirement for development i just thought yeah a bit cheeky considering the their preferred alignment at the moment affects can when it affects one airfield it affects my fields it affects you know um and they didn't seem to realize that when they chose that alignment the first place so it makes the question as to how much homework they did anyway they're listening um the community um sorry uh council sanford yeah thank you i was just going to comment based on the ewr briefing of about two weeks ago they're several years away from even having a business plan to present to government for approval or not as the case may be so um it's not a decision i think they're going to make any time within the next few years uh yes i mean you might be right i think who knows we have not seen one so far can we wait for them that's basically the question i doubted very much because our local plan has we have to have a local plan within a certain period of time it's just what what we can do uh with the information that we have uh to move forward with it i guess the other question is what is our fallback with the uh with the national site in cambourne if if westfield doesn't deliver we're very mindful of the question uh council Hawkins uh and uh that's something we all have to consider uh the implications of in the reports we bring to members in due course when decisions need to be made on the next steps of the local plan okay um one other thing that i picked up if i may was uh some the response that said 40 dwellings for hektime villages was too high is that something we'll be looking at especially when when you think that they're looking to protect the character of villages any thoughts on that there is a policy proposed policy in the homes chapter so you will have all the other representations on the homes chapter at the next meeting thank you it's funny how you get this this you know the crossover from one to the other uh we'll make another back different people put their comments in different places and obviously we're finding comments about similar things in different places yes yes of course okay no thank you very much for all that um all that information and the comments that we've had does any member of the um uh action have any further comments no okay i think that was the last of our um discussion points wasn't it okay so uh thank you very much to everyone to the team for all that coalition of the comments that you've worked on really really you know to say thank you it must have been quite um difficult to do time consuming and there's still more to do um so we will do our best of course to make sure that um do them we can come back to you with comments um that we might have and it seems to me that councillor Halings has a comment to make councillor Halings sorry with everybody just at the end of it i just had a query so i don't know if i was understanding correctly but there was some here which as you said we were focusing on the responses to the consultation but we also saw new sites being presented here as well so it's just how we're differentiating between between those that weren't presented in the first proposals and therefore not in the consultation or was i not understanding that correctly uh as far as that goes those new sites were submitted and they've been analysed through the healer uh process so none of the preferred sites has changed right though in the first proposal or but we'll be looking at analysing the ones submitted to us um and then present that further down the line am i correct Caroline uh yes so we will be updating the healer the housing employment land availability assessment yes uh we will then be looking at whether there are any sites that um would have met our kind of long short list of candidates to be considered when we were putting together the first proposals uh there'll be sustainability appraisal of those sites either if there's a meaningful update to the assessment or the new sites um and when we have the benefit of all of that part of the process we will need to go through in in reporting to you will be um setting aside the water issue for the moment but but will be whether the first proposals that we put to you as preferred options in the light of all the comments we've received the extra evidence that we have done the extra assessments that we've done whether that remains uh the preferred options that we will recommend to members or whether there are any changes that we think in light of all those considerations mean we should change anything thanks so just one clarification would be then around this um issue that was mentioned about the the boundaries which were the development frameworks and the possibility that that might change would that be part of that as well that we'll be looking at that you know because there's a whole issue about sort of pros and cons around strangled by a green belt or protected by green belts you know and I think there's two sides to to that and so it's just interesting to know whether when they come through will that be as part of suggested boundary changes so the principle of the approach to village frameworks is something that was explored right back in the first conversation you know should we take a different approach that is more flexible or is the approach we've had so far still the right approach moving forward so that you would only allow expansion of villages if you made an allocation and basically incorporated them into a wider uh village framework um apart from rural exception sites enjoy the rest of your evening and once again very well done to the planning policy team good evening


It's transfer, portal, rumor season in college football. And a recruiting battle appears to be developing for Washington State quarterback, Cam Ward, who has allegedly received 10 $1 million offers already. He was a star for Washington State this year, 33 total touchdowns, seven interceptions, but it doesn't look like they're gonna be in a major conference next year, so it's thought he's gonna be looking to transfer. Among the schools interested, oh, some pretty big names here, who probably have some pretty big pockets to go get the quarterback of their choosing. He's an absolute game changer and program changer, so it'll be interesting to see if these rumors are true and where Cam Ward ends up playing next season.