This may be of interest to you if you’re of strong constitution when it comes to reading administrative documentation, and are concerned about subjects including the Wort’s Causeway development, cycle parking, on-street deliveries, tall buildings, parking stress, traveller sites, student accommodation, access to the railway station, and more.
Still with me? Right, here we go.
National planning policy places Local Plans at the heart of the planning system. The plans set planning policies in a local authority area and are vital when deciding planning applications. Work began in 2011 on the most recent Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans, scheduled to take us through to 2031. These were submitted by the councils to the government in 2014. It was hoped that they would be adopted by Winter 2014/15.
Three years later, excruciatingly, the government inspectors’ reports and further consultations all continue. The plans still have not been adopted.
Because of the delays caused by the inspectors’ many issues with the plans, some of the foundations on which they were based have changed. This introduces even more problems. Inevitably, the whole thing is keeping a lot of administrators very busy but not achieving much for the rest of us. But we are where we are, and the government inspectors have now asked for a consultation on the “Main Modifications” which they are recommending.
If you’re interested in what’s being proposed, prepare yourself for the usual bureaucratic adventure. As you’ve got this far, I’d skip to the chorus and have a quick peek here. Anything seem interesting? OK, read on.
Otherwise, just cross your fingers and hope it all works out for the best.
Still with me? Right, you can find the council documentation on the “Main Modifications” here:
Be very careful. The only thing you can comment on are the two links in the “Current Documents Open to Public Consultation” panel, not the stuff below it, which is history. Click on “Local Plan Main Modifications – January 2018” and you’ll be taken to an awkward multi-page document, but start with “1. Introduction” and there’s a “Next Chapter” link at the bottom of each page. I’d ignore the South Cambs link, as the introductions there are the same, but then it just sends you to the Cambridge City version, which immediately throws you out if you’re not registered.
Sadly, although the central government “GOV.UK” websites are usually a joy to use, local government sites using the same suffix are invariably awful, and this is no exception.
If you find something which relates to an area you’re interested in, and want to comment, you’ll then need to refer back to the original local plan documents (you knew this was going to be tedious, didn’t you?). These can be found at:
(Here’s the actual submitted plan)
Sign into the system, and use the little “comment” icons to have your say on a particular item. Alternatively, there’s a form you can download here and fill in by hand.
Best of luck. Sam Davies, chair of the Queen Edith’s Community Forum, appears to be one of the people who’s had the patience to take a very quick look, and here are some of her tweets on the subject:
CCMM015 "Dev'ment on urban edge … will only be supported where it:
a. responds to, conserves and enhances the setting and special character of the city" . 'Landscape' & 'approaches' deleted – significant?— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM054 re NIAB site. Deletion of requirement to "compensate adequately for the loss of the existing Christ?s and Sidney Sussex sports grounds" – significant?
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM057 Addition of investigation of eastern access to the railway station 🙂
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM063 Some protection against excessive height on East Road added
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM065 Mill Road no longer to aim for 'more generous' pavements, but 'improved'
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM085 Tightening up on developments where quality of life is likely to be affected by noise pollution
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM105 Heads up to expect additional changes at several university sites including include the Sidgwick Site, the Old Addenbrooke's Site, the Downing Site, the former Scroope House Site (Department of Engineering), and the Department of
Chemistry (Lensfield Road)— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM106 Added "The use of family dwellinghouses to accommodate students of specialist colleges and/or language schools only is not appropriate"
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM109 pic.twitter.com/0PWN84bqlI
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM110 Added "However, following assessment of development viability
across the city, the affordable housing requirement is not applied to planning applications for student accommodation" Did this need saying? Is it a change of policy?— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM114 Weaker wording regarding cars at specific student accommodation …
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM115 puts "a number other educational establishments" on a par with the two universities
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM116 Growth in student numbers at the unis and these mysterious 'other educational establishments' to total 3104 by 2026
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM120 Tightening up on requirement to demonstrate lack of market need before 'specialist housing' (care homes and the like) can be granted change of use
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM122 No need for a specific Traveller site before 2031 *but* CCMM125 advocates inclusion of pitches in major developments
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM136 Adds (in considerable detail) how to do surveys to assess 'parking stress' in a neighbourhood
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM141 Adds "While there has been a move to build a number of taller buildings across the city in recent years, further opportunities to create new taller buildings in the city must be carefully considered and placed in the right locations." Hmm
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM148 Adds "Proposals for any works that would lead to harm or substantial harm to a non-designated heritage asset should be supported by detailed analysis of the asset that demonstrates the wider public benefit of the proposal"
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
From CCMM152 (page 119) onwards there is a lot of stuff about impact on open spaces which needs careful reading … will go back to that later!
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM166 No need for a community stadium in either the City or South Cambs apparently!
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM183 Hurray! "Any development that will require regular loading or
servicing must avoid causing illegal or dangerous parking, by providing appropriate off-street facilities" But who the hell is going to enforce it?— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM186, CCMM188 – *reduction* in desired housing density at GB1/2 (Wort's Causeway)
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM199 Mill Lane/Old Press site loses 150 houses, gains 350 student rooms
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM224 list of additional local heritage assets includes some unlikely candidates (what is at 91 Cherry Hinton Road?)
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
CCMM236 new wording re cycle parking standards – @camcycle @Al__S @walking_boston
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
Appendix N (page 177) outlines the up to date situation with the five year housing supply
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
I should finish this thread by saying those are the things that jumped out to me, scanning a 190 page document in 30 mins. It is by no means comprehensive!
— Sam Davies (@Sam_in_Cam) January 4, 2018
Thank you for the plug Chris. I should point out that those are comments on the City Council modifications *only*. I haven’t got round to trying to digest the South Cambs documents yet …
Great service, Chris, for breaking down the process into understandable chunks. And great work too from Sam, giving us a preview of the ?best bits?
I’ve got a Draft Local Plan from 2014. Is this the one we need to refer to if we comment, Chris?
Many thanks to Sam, by the way. I wonder if a session thrashing it all out might not be useful? (Not in QE but interested in wrestling with this.)
Yes ? it’s this document ? I’ve now added a link above, so save people ferreting around for it on the council site.
I did check this with a planning officer (just in case) and for clarity, this isn’t necessary for the whole thing. I’d misunderstood Chris. You don’t need to keep referring back to the document Chris links to for *any comment*, in other words.